no C&R of chums in the snohomish?

[natetreat]

I just spent the day this weekend catching and releasing chums, and someone brought this article to my attention. If this is the case, I could have been fined a lot of money on account of I was catching the fish and throwing them back. I was targeting the salmon that were in the river, it happened that they were chums not silvers, using the same gear that I use for silvers. Has anyone out there gotten one of these tickets or been witness to one? I don't want to break the law, but every fish I caught and released went back happily to the water fully revived.

I mean, with the silver run being so awful is salmon fishing gonna just be over up north?

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201010 ... 004/SPORTS

No chums on local rivers
By Wayne Kruse, Special to The Herald

At this point in the fall salmon season, there will be no chum fishery on the Snohomish, Stillaguamish, or Skagit river systems.

I better say that again.

There will be NO CHUM FISHING on local rivers this fall.

Sure, that information is in the regulation pamphlet. And sure, we all read the regulation pamphlet. But certain regs just seem to disappear into the ether, and these apparently haven’t registered strongly with area anglers. A lot of citations have already been handed out and more are on the way to those keeping chums while fishing for coho, or targeting chums with gear obviously not intended for coho.

Chums will be legal in the Samish, mainstem Nooksack, Whatcom Creek, and others north of us, but nothing down this way. State salmon managers say run predictions earlier this year were for depressed runs, below the level needed for spawning escapement.

Some recreational fishermen have another view.

“Overfishing for two years in a row by commercials, and poor monitoring by WDFW (Washington Fish and Wildlife Department), put our chums in a real hole,” said avid angler and fishing advocate Sam Ingram of Arlington.

State salmon manager for Puget Sound, Steve Thiesfeld, said the agency did negotiate the possibility of an in-season opening for the Snohomish and Skagit systems if the runs proved substantially larger than expected. There is only a faint hope of that happening on the Snohomish, he said, and he wasn’t ready to quote odds of it happening on the Skagit, either, although the chances there are a little better.

Thiesfeld said there will be no commercial fishing on the three systems, either, except for the possibility of small tribal subsistence and ceremonial events, and none in marine areas 9, 8-1 or 8-2. A couple of exceptions to that will be a fishery for Tulalip tribal hatchery chums in Tulalip Bay, and a Tulalip net fishery in Area 8-2 limited to 2,000 chums and designed to update in-season run size estimates.

[knotabassturd]

PERSONALLY, I wouldn't sweat it too much with this laguage in the article:

"...with gear obviously not intended for coho..."

Bobber and eggs= potential/intended for coho. Corky and yarn= potential coho. Plugs= potential coho. All IMO.

Unless they clarify in the regs exactly what is not acceptable or not 'intended' for coho, then I say if a coho will take it as much as a chum then there you go.

HOWEVER, if I saw a school of chums in the water and no coho in the group I would take a pass.

This is all obviously just my penny's worth. Can always call WDFW for clarity and just take down person's name and time that you talked to them to be safe IMO.

[goodtimesfishing]

I agree with knotabassturd. I mean what gear is there that is just for chum....that would not be used for... or catch a coho. As long as you release all chum unharmed, I think it is safe. Just my 2 cents...
have fun fishing!!!!

[curado]

the article is a bunch of bull chum is also coho and any other salmon gear, i talked to a warden about it the other day and he said if u are tageting silvers and hook dogs u are fine. trust me my guide bud is hookin a bunch lookin for silvers

[CRW]

No chums on local rivers
By Wayne Kruse, Special to The Herald


Sure, that information is in the regulation pamphlet. And sure, we all read the regulation pamphlet. But certain regs just seem to disappear into the ether, and these apparently haven’t registered strongly with area anglers. A lot of citations have already been handed out and more are on the way to those keeping chums while fishing for coho, or targeting chums with gear obviously not intended for coho.

Here we go again, you guys need to get out more. This has been debunked already on different forums.

Quote from another forum.

I would like to reply to Wayne Kruse's article regarding Chum/Coho fishing. I am the local game warden who works the Stilly system. I can guarantee you that nobody is getting tickets for using "Chum" gear. I'm not sure where Mr. Kruse is getting that information. That is ridiculuous. Yes, we do cite folks for selective gear violations or violations for the anti-snagging rule. I also see alot of fishermen targeting salmon in closed areas such as the SF Stilly. Unless they are using illegal "anti-snagging" gear, the worst that can happen is a verbal warning, unless of course they are in possession of a fish. Please, don't believe everything that you read. If you have a question, get ahold of one of us.

[Matt]

Thanks for the post CRW, that is helpful. My question is this... if the chum are so imperiled this season, why hasn't the state imparted selective gear rules, etc on the Snohomish?

[bionic_one]

I actually think the article is 1/2 right. If you were in the marine areas mentioned, and fishing with a slip bobber and a herring below it, most people would reasonably consider that 'chum' gear. But yeah, on a river you can't really say that.

[natetreat]

No chums on local rivers
By Wayne Kruse, Special to The Herald


Sure, that information is in the regulation pamphlet. And sure, we all read the regulation pamphlet. But certain regs just seem to disappear into the ether, and these apparently haven’t registered strongly with area anglers. A lot of citations have already been handed out and more are on the way to those keeping chums while fishing for coho, or targeting chums with gear obviously not intended for coho.

Here we go again, you guys need to get out more. This has been debunked already on different forums.

Quote from another forum.

I would like to reply to Wayne Kruse's article regarding Chum/Coho fishing. I am the local game warden who works the Stilly system. I can guarantee you that nobody is getting tickets for using "Chum" gear. I'm not sure where Mr. Kruse is getting that information. That is ridiculuous. Yes, we do cite folks for selective gear violations or violations for the anti-snagging rule. I also see alot of fishermen targeting salmon in closed areas such as the SF Stilly. Unless they are using illegal "anti-snagging" gear, the worst that can happen is a verbal warning, unless of course they are in possession of a fish. Please, don't believe everything that you read. If you have a question, get ahold of one of us.

I read that too, but I was looking for firsthand experience. Wayne Kruse is a columnist that has a lot of experience and credit, an anonymous game warden on the other hand especially on the internet could be anybody. Why would he make up this nonsense? Figured that it was something that could matter.

Also this raises issues about C&Ring chum. If there are very few if any coho in the river, are we just not supposed to fish? Targeting chum for sport, rather than retention? The game laws only talk about retention rules and the rivers are open during the time of the main chum runs for the most part. If I'm going to get a ticket for C&Ring chum because I know that the chances are small that I'll catch a silver, I won't fish the rivers that are closed for chum.

[G-Man]

You make up a bogus story like that to chase off gullible folks and cut down on the number of people fishing the river. Maybe you do it because you feel the fish need the break of maybe you do it for selfish reasons, not sure which applies in this case. I do know that if the WDFW really did come up with a definition of "Chum Gear" then it would have to be posted somewhere, which it is not. However, I do believe that folks hit a river just to target chums and certain gear and areas are more effective than others. The real point to be made is, if the river is closed for chums, leave them alone. The reason chum are off limits is due to low returns and catching and releasing the few that have returned won't help their chances of spawning successfully.

[knotabassturd]

I actually think the article is 1/2 right. If you were in the marine areas mentioned, and fishing with a slip bobber and a herring below it, most people would reasonably consider that 'chum' gear. But yeah, on a river you can't really say that.

Au contraire mon frere. That is a decent little salt water rig for silvers and pinks too (:-$ ) off the local piers. Especially if the fish are thinned out and not in easy-to-spot schools IMO when tide change is minimal (water more slack)

I'm more with G-man, maybe it is someone with an ulterior motive to bend reality a little? I don't think the article specifically said people were being ticketed for targeting chums. Instead, it say this:

"...to those keeping chums while fishing for coho, or targeting chums with gear obviously not intended for coho."

Notice it says KEEPING chums and uses the word OR targeting chums not AND. Could be a writer wanting to play semantics for practicing to become a politician:pale:

Come to think of it bionic you were spont on, it is about HALF right LOL (keeping chums only not targeting).:thumright

[natetreat]

I dunno. They should just close the river then, because there are nothing but Chums out there and all the silvers are dead and there are ten times more chums out there then there have been silvers all season. IMO the low hatchery returns of the Silvers are lower than the chum. C&R fishing isn't hurting the run, they go right back to doing what they were gonna do in the first place. I've been on the rivers a hell of a lot this year, three, sometimes four days a week. The fish just aren't there. If the silvers in the sound keep having such a disparity with the other rivers, they're gonna end up closing all the rivers in the sound. The chum is just the first step. How come we can C&R wild steelhead and trout but not salmon? That bothers me. I never retain fish that aren't legal and I follow all selective gear guidelines, to the point that if I don't intend to keep fish, I switch up to barbless anyways. So I wanna catch a fish?

I'm with knot on the bobber and herring thing. I lived on the sound growing up and we'd catch kings, silvers and chums on a bobber and herring. Fished off the dock, and I brought 'em all in.

Long story short, there can't be specific "chum gear" IMO. Just bothers me that you can't C&R them either.

[goodtimesfishing]

I still don't believe it says that we can't c&r chum, only that we can't retain them. Has anyone actually talked to anyone with authority on this matter? Also, it seems to me that the silver run is what is hurting this year, not the chum.

[G-Man]

The issue with catch and release of salmon once they hit freshwater is that they are on a one way mission. Having them fight with an angler makes them expend precious energy that was intended to get the fish to the spawning grounds, fight off rivals and dig a nice redd. For trout and steelhead, it is not always a one way mission and unlike salmon they will continue to eat if food is present and they need the energy. The folks who go out with light gear for the sole purpose of catching and releasing salmon, pretty much are killing most of the fish they catch. They might swim away fine, but they just wasted a bunch of evergy they will never get back and many die from the ordeal. The State is trying to appease the sportfisherman by keeping rivers open for selective harvesting, which is not always in the best interest of the run(s) that is/are in jeapordy. The more folks understand what is going on the more likely they will self police themselves and do what is best to preserve the run(s), which is to leave the fish alone.

[Splitshot]

This is "somewhat" off topic but if you don't mind me asking:

They quit planting steelhead on the Pilchuck. When there are no more hatchery fish left- just the wild run, will all fishing have to stop?

[G-Man]

The goal is for the river system to become self sustaining which would eventually allow for retention of native fish. It is a stretch goal for sure as most any system that is close to a large metropolitan area will get too much pressure for this to become a reality without more stringent restrictions.

[goodtimesfishing]

little off topic here also, but here goes. Being close to metropolitan area does put extra preasure on river systems, however, even with sport fishing allowed, if we could stop allowing tribal and/or other nets in the river systems and the fish populations will rise. I get frustrated with nets being strung accross our rivers catching any and all fish including wild steelhead, with about zero percent survival. Then not allowing sport fishing. I would be curious the numbers...tribal nets vs. sport fishing (fish prevented from spawning)
Just my opinion