Tribes and State look at Coho closure.

[Bay wolf]

NEWS RELEASE

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

March 14, 2016

WDFW contact: Kyle Adicks, (360) 902-2664

NWIFC contact: Tony Meyer, (360) 528-4325, cell (360) 951-9341

Fishery managers consider closing ocean salmon seasons

due to projected poor coho returns


OLYMPIA – Poor forecasts for returning coho salmon are prompting state and tribal fishery managers to consider closing all salmon fisheries in Washington’s ocean waters this year as part of a federal season-setting process for the west coast.

State, tribal and federal fishery managers have developed three options for non-treaty ocean salmon fisheries that reflect the anticipated low coho returns. Two options would permit some salmon fishing this year, but one would close recreational and commercial ocean fisheries for chinook and coho salmon.

Those alternatives were approved Sunday for public review by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), which establishes fishing seasons in ocean waters three to 200 miles off the Pacific coast. A public hearing on the three alternatives for ocean salmon fisheries is scheduled for March 28 in Westport.

Jim Unsworth, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), said he hopes fishery managers can provide some ocean salmon fishing opportunities this year, but must place a higher priority on protecting the diminished number of wild coho expected to return this year.

“Fishery managers face many difficult decisions in the weeks ahead as we move toward solidifying salmon-fishing seasons for the state,” Unsworth said. “We know that severely limiting opportunities will hurt many families and communities that depend on these fisheries. But conserving wild salmon is our top priority and is in the best interest of future generations of Washingtonians.”

Lorraine Loomis, chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, said tribal and state co-managers must have a full range of options – including no fishing at all – in working to shape possible fisheries over the next month.

“We hope it doesn’t come to that. Our cultures, treaty rights and economies depend on salmon. But the resource must come first,” she said. “We face an extraordinary conservation challenge this year. In many instances returns will likely be far below minimum levels needed to produce the next generation of salmon. Conservation must be our sole focus as we work to rebuild these stocks.”

Chinook and coho quotas approved by the PFMC will be part of a comprehensive 2016 salmon fishing package, which includes marine and freshwater fisheries throughout Puget Sound, the Columbia River and Washington's coastal areas. State and tribal co-managers are currently developing those fisheries, which will be finalized at the PFMC’s April meeting in Vancouver, Wash.


The non-treaty recreational fishing alternatives include the following quotas for fisheries off the Washington coast:

Alternative 1: 58,600 chinook and 37,800 coho. This option includes early season fisheries, from June 18-30, for hatchery chinook in Washington’s ocean waters (marine areas 1-4). This option also allows hatchery coho retention in all four marine areas during the traditional summer fishery.
Alternative 2: 30,000 chinook and 14,700 coho. This option does not include early season fisheries for hatchery chinook, but provides summer chinook fisheries in all four marine areas. Hatchery coho fishing would be allowed only in Marine Area 1 (Ilwaco).
Alternative 3: No commercial or recreational salmon fisheries in Washington’s ocean waters.

For more details about the options, visit the PFMC webpage at http://www.pcouncil.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Last year, the PFMC adopted recreational ocean fishing quotas of 64,000 chinook and 150,800 coho salmon.

This year, forecasters expect 380,000 Columbia River hatchery coho to return to the Washington coast, which is about half of last year’s forecast. Only 242,000 coho actually returned last year to the Columbia River, where some coho stocks are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Poor ocean conditions, such as the Pacific Ocean “blob” and warmer water temperatures, contributed to last year’s lower than expected return of coho.

Meanwhile, a robust return of Columbia River fall chinook salmon is expected back this year, including about 223,000 lower river hatchery fish, which traditionally have been the backbone of the recreational ocean chinook fishery.

In addition to the March 28 public hearing, several other meetings will take place later this month and in early April to discuss regional fisheries issues. The public can comment on the proposed ocean alternatives as well as on other proposed salmon fisheries through WDFW's North of Falcon webpage at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

A schedule of public meetings, as well as salmon run-size forecasts and more information about the salmon-season setting process can also be found on the webpage.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reason ... quest.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I've sent in my comments:

I would like to comment on the proposals for limiting impact on the depressed coho returns. As a long time recreational fishermen, I fully support a moratorium on coho fishing for this upcoming season. To be effective, and simplify enforcement, we need to close coho retention in salt AND in rivers. Also, if the true intent is to protect the fish. ALL must participate in the closure. Sportsmen, Commercials and Tribes. NO COHO RETENTION MEANS NO RETENITON FOR ANYBODY. If you close retention for sportsmen and allow the tribes and/or commercials to fish you will have some very upset constituents.

Close coho this year. Close both salt, sound and terminal fisheries. AND close it for retention by EVERYBODY! Have a backbone, do what's right by the fish, and fair to everyone!

[For Reel]

The proposed options are a joke. Not one of them include tribal fishing. So the tribes want to close fishing to all non-tribal fisheries but they still get their cut? Of course the tribes want us to stop Salmon fishing, they want to rule supreme and have a monopoly on the market eliminating us REC guys and the COMM guys.

Any recreational fisherman who supports this is smoking something really good. Your email will do nothing except tell another elected moron that you don't want to fish. Because you know they ain't going to take fishing from the tribes. You should have turned the table on the tribes not fishing instead of forfeiting your option to fish, which is exactly what I read from your post.

I commended your altruism for the salmon populations. But the tribes will fish, we will not, is all these options say.

The tribes can just charge parking at the casinos they own and let the morons that visit them make them money.

I say the tribes not fish for 5 years then we revisit this and see how the salmon populations are doing.

[Bay wolf]

My comment states that I support a closure, but it must be a COMPLETE CLOSURE WHICH INCLUDES ALL PARTIES. Will the tribes pull the nets out? Probably not. Will WDFW mandate closures and/or severe restrictions on rec. fishermen as the tribes have recommended? Most assuredly so. Will the power brokers reading my comments care what a lowly rec. fishermen voiced? Absolutely not.

[Larry3215]

I agree with your comments Bay Wolf and I intend to send in something similar.

[For Reel]

My comment states that I support a closure, but it must be a COMPLETE CLOSURE WHICH INCLUDES ALL PARTIES. Will the tribes pull the nets out? Probably not. Will WDFW mandate closures and/or severe restrictions on rec. fishermen as the tribes have recommended? Most assuredly so. Will the power brokers reading my comments care what a lowly rec. fishermen voiced? Absolutely not.

I know I came off a little harsh. But it wasn't personal towards you Wolf. And I understand exactly what YOU meant with your email sent to the wizards at the WDFW. However, I don't believe they will interpret YOUR exact intent. I know how Governments organizations work. They basically do whatever they want until they're pressured otherwise.

I hope the expected return rates are wrong and we have a huge return. Maybe then fish mis-mangers will get exposed.

[Hunter757]

So my question is this: How many of us are going to buy and fish saltwater this year? I understand there are Halibut and ling cod but it might be time for the sport fisherman to send a message and not buy the Saltwater license this year and send a strong message to WDFW.

Maybe it's time the us to demand a change from WDFW to do a separate license for bottom fishing/Salmon just cut the price 60% Salmon 40% bottom fish. Then the message would be strong as I truly believe that not very many would buy the Salmon part for Salt.

WDFW will always error on the side of this is worst year ever then when or if they come in stronger everyone forgets all about the mismanagement when fishing is great but if it bad they can say we said it would be. They will always caution on the worst case they can't help it. In my heart I truly hope and know these things always work out some how some way it will.

[Larry3215]

If there is no salmon fishing, I will likely not buy a licenses. Lings and halibut are pretty much extinct in Puget Sound and if there is no salmon fishing, the few spots you can still get those fish will be swamped. Plus they are only open for a super short time anyway. Total waste if thats all thats open.

[Bay wolf]

I have been hearing from some guys that the Tribes have asked for a closure (Zero Option) as one of three different options proposed, but that the tribes have said they would continue to fish per treaty rights. Rumors won't get us anywhere, so I asked the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission directly. Below is a copy of our email exchange:

From: NWIFC
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 10:30 AM
To: Baywolf
Subject: Re: NWIFC.org Contact: Coho Closure Proposal

The zero option applies to tribes as well.
It was the tribes who proposed the option because of the many unknowns regarding ths year's return


On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Combat Doc <Baywolf9@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the quick reply and the assurance that we are all working together to do what’s right.

If I might just take one more moment and ask you to clarify a point?
When you say the “zero option applies to tribes as well” are we talking both salt, sound and terminal fisheries?

Again, many of us support the proposal, and feel in order to be effective, it must include all the fisheries, not just the ocean.

Again, thank you very much for your reply and for all the cooperation.




From: NWIFC
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:18 AM
To: Baywolf
Subject: Re: NWIFC.org Contact: Coho Closure Proposal

Remember, zero is the low option of three that will be put forward.
No one hopes it gets to that, but tribes believe it needs to at least be discussed.
All we're talking about is the ocean right now.
What happens there will determine the inside fisheries.


I hope this helps stop some rumors... we can accomplish more if we communicate together.

[geekgiant]

The "zero" option for tribal commercial is zero coho.

That's the issue. I struggle to see why there's still a chinook season allowed for that group, but not for everybody else. Last time I checked, 50% of zero is, well, zero.

For those interested in the language behind this:
Table outlining sport options: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uplo ... s_2016.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Table outlining tribal options: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uplo ... __Alts.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the zero option includes gill nets out of the rivers, I'm all for it.

[Gonefishing]

I know I'm getting a fresh water license but until they figure out which option exists for salt - I'm going to hold. Sad to see that this may have to happen but the resource is more important. I don't do Halibut. Lingcod season is too short to warrant the license. Only leaves flounder (boring), Perch (won't eat), and little else in the sound as I don't crab (OK so I am doing the whinny version right now) I don't clam, but I do squid but that is rare.

[Blunatic]

Whelp...can't say i didn't see this coming...
I can't possibly justify buying a saltwater licence if they close it now!
I barely fish the salt as it is but I have always bought a licence just in case one of my friends invites me out...now there will be no point ... I do go squidding and clamming a few times a year too but now I may have to rethink my strategy and just harvest my shellfish at the store and calimari at the bar

[For Reel]

I kind of wonder what the WDFW really get paid to do. Seems like every year is just more bad news...

[Larry3215]

When Im feeling charitable towards them - which isnt often these days - I realize they have an impossible job. There is no way to win. They are up against big money and treaties.

They cant stop the commercial guys and can just barely regulate them to any degree - they pay the politicians to force WDFW to keep hands off so they can net as they please.

They cant stop the tribes from netting because the tribes are off limits by treaty.

That just leaves them blaming the weather and dumping on us.

[spokey9]

I'm all for a closure. I don't see any way possible that enough coho will return this year to justify any fisheries. It'll be tough but i'll find other species to fish for that time of year.

[BARCHASER10]

Have any of you guys sent in comments about the seasons? I sent in a suggestion that they allow a Chinook fishery at Sekiu this summer. A Sekiu season would only allow a close to shore fishery, maybe within 1/2 or 1/4 mile from shore. I've been fishing Sekiu since the 80's. Catching Coho close to shore at Sekiu in July/August happens but it is not common. Last summer I fished there twice, 4 days each with 2 or 3 rods and we got zero Coho. Give it shot anyway.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/ ... _list.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[NWBoater45]

I don't know how many of you get extremely pissed off when reading about these closures. It just makes the hair on my neck stand up and damn that's a lot of hair. I challenge each and everyone of you to download and read the Boldt Act. Reading that will piss you off even more. It gives the Tribes the right to fish by ANY means necessary to reach their quotas. BUT there is also requirements in the Act that I don't think are followed. For example the Tribes are only allowed to fish from TRADITIONAL areas. All I see them do is go up and down the rivers chasing the schools. Also each and every Tribal fisherman is to submit a itinerary of when in where they will be fishing. I bet this is also done. Anyways, more thoughts:

1. Of course the Tribal Nations want the ocean waters closed. When was the last time you saw a Tribal Member netting in the ocean???? They get their quotas for Killnetting the rivers. So as a sport fisherman we need to keep the oceans open! If the oceans close then the rivers should close as well.

2. Also as Sport fisherman we need to let it be know that a selective fishery is a selective fishery PERIOD! Killnets do not discriminate on the fish they retain. Any native fish is going to die in a killnet. If there is any chance on restoring a native run then the nets need to come out of the waters.

3. The Boldt Act needs to be revised, PERIOD. As long as this act remains in place we as sports fisherman basically have no say. This is a time dated document that serviced its purpose 42 years ago. It was passed in 1974. Yes some of us remember the glory years for 4 fish limits prior to that. There are approx. 60,000 registered tribal members which is about 1% of the states population. Why should 1% get 50% of the fish? One of the main arguments the Tribes used in the Boldt Act was they needed to feed their Nations. There are currently about 28 casinos for 26 Tribal Nations in Washington all of course where built after the Boldt ACT. The total revenues brought in by these casinos is about $3.5 BILLION a year. And because this State has such great law makers the Tribes are not required to disclose their net profits. I just have a little hunch that Tribes can help support those in need in their Nations. And how much of that $3.5 Billion do they spend on lobbyists in Olympia? The Boldt Act is their leverage and we need to change that.

That's just my $0.02 thoughts.

Sport Fishmen/women we need to stand up and start fighting for our rights as well.

[Onmygame]

NWBoater -

First off, I am a white male sport fisherman - with no interests in tribal fisheries, save for the history of it.

The Boldt decision allotting 50% to the tribes may seem generous in their favor, but is actually generous to us when you consider that the tribes agreed to moving on the reservations, and giving way to any claim on their traditional grounds PROVIDED they get to keep the fish. It was the one and only caveat, and the U.S. government agreed. It is in the original treaty.

Those thinking they should fish only for ceremonial purposes instead of for dollars are clueless to the history here in the NW. Before white settlers even started calling the NW home, the local tribes were the richest in the country from fishing salmon. They had been not only trading with other tribes, but had been selling to Hudson Bay Co for decades - making everyone extremely wealthy.

It was decades of abuses, ranging from over fishing by the non natives to them being cut off to access to the fish via private land owners that forced Judge Boldt's hand.

Any person that is 'upset' about the outcome in 1974 really needs to go back a bit further and read the history of this issue in it's entirety beginning with the 1800s.

I used to have a misguided chip on my shoulder myself about the Indians getting 50% of the fish when I was younger and didn't know the facts. Now, all things considered...that chip has turned into more of an embarrassment.

Another thing to consider - is that a good percentage of the fish that are netted by tribal fishermen - are reared in tribal hatcheries.

onmygame

[BARCHASER10]

Well there are two widely different opinions for sure! Me.. I'm just trying to keep one little Chinook fishery alive this summer, as follows.


Dear Mr. Unsworth,

I sent you an email last summer and you were very gracious in responding to me. So I thought I'd try another email. I fully appreciate and agree with the expected Coho closures this year. It is with a heavy heart that I say that because the Coho fishery in Puget Sound has long been a highlight for me and my friends.

We also fish at Sekiu every year for 30+ years. I did send in a suggestion concerning Sekiu to your North of Falcon comment website.

I suggest that a close to shore fishery be allowed at Sekiu in July/August. This Chinook only fishery would be within 1/4 or maybe 1/2 miles of shore. Catching Coho this close in does happen but it is not common. Last summer we fished Sekiu twice for four days each and we did not catch a single Coho.

Just my ten cents, Thank you doing a very difficult job.

[Salmon King]

NWBoater -

First off, I am a white male sport fisherman - with no interests in tribal fisheries, save for the history of it.

The Boldt decision allotting 50% to the tribes may seem generous in their favor, but is actually generous to us when you consider that the tribes agreed to moving on the reservations, and giving way to any claim on their traditional grounds PROVIDED they get to keep the fish. It was the one and only caveat, and the U.S. government agreed. It is in the original treaty.

Those thinking they should fish only for ceremonial purposes instead of for dollars are clueless to the history here in the NW. Before white settlers even started calling the NW home, the local tribes were the richest in the country from fishing salmon. They had been not only trading with other tribes, but had been selling to Hudson Bay Co for decades - making everyone extremely wealthy.

It was decades of abuses, ranging from over fishing by the non natives to them being cut off to access to the fish via private land owners that forced Judge Boldt's hand.

Any person that is 'upset' about the outcome in 1974 really needs to go back a bit further and read the history of this issue in it's entirety beginning with the 1800s.

I used to have a misguided chip on my shoulder myself about the Indians getting 50% of the fish when I was younger and didn't know the facts. Now, all things considered...that chip has turned into more of an embarrassment.

Another thing to consider - is that a good percentage of the fish that are netted by tribal fishermen - are reared in tribal hatcheries.

onmygame

Well put sir....
My issue is however is NOT with the decision to give them 50% of said fish.
Rather it is with the methods they are alllowed (or encouraged) use.
With the exception of landing nets I am adamately against ANYONE using nets to harvest fish (i.e. gill nets or seine nets)...period.
It is my belief that everyone should be required to use a hook and line.
If a tribe desires to use a means other than a hook and line then they should be required to use the same traditional methods used when rhe treaties were enacted. While I'm not positive I don't believe they used non-biodegradable nets at that time.

In that vein I have this to suggest to our leaders....

1. PLACE A MORATORIUM ON ALL SALMON RETENTION FOR A MINIMUM OF 1 COMPLETE LIFE CYCE.
1 season closure for 1 species will have next to no affect on future returns.
Add in the net by-catches and you have not accomplished a thing.

2. BAN ALL NETS IN PUGET SOUND AND ALL RIVERS PERMANENTLY BY ALL PARTIES (TRIBAL AND NON-TRIBAL).
Once retention resumes all users must fish by using hook and line ONLY.
This will ensure proper escapement to enhance future runs.

And that is what I sent to my representatives, (in addition to the rather well written letter above), and the suggestion that the Bolt decision should be revisited and amended as times have changed dramically and thst ruling is now antiquated.
Of course there was more substance to it but this was he shorter version and I'm sure you get the gist of it.

Yes this is only my opinion and as such carries absolutely no weight whatsoever but it is a voice and if enough individusls express their voice to our leaders rather than complain on a forum I still believe it could make a difference.

[BARCHASER10]

Most of the current problem is ocean conditions, the warm water blob, El Nino, maybe global warming. It is all about Krill, which is the beginning of the food chain. The Krill die off with warmer water, which means a drastic decrease in baitfish... Herring, Pilchard etc. with an obvious bad effect on salmon. Juvenile salmon also feed on Krill. Witness the really puny, underfed Coho we had last year. If this continues there wont be Coho to catch by anybody, nets or not. Chinooks aren't as adversely impacted because their life cycle is further north and more inshore, thus they are further away from the warm water blob. But if this continues, Chinooks will eventually get impacted as well.

JMHO