MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Have questions about Saltwater areas, boats, gear or techniques? This is the place for them.
Forum rules
Forum Post Guidelines: This Forum is rated “Family Friendly”. Civil discussions are encouraged and welcomed. Name calling, negative, harassing, or threatening comments will be removed and may result in suspension or IP Ban without notice. Please refer to the Terms of Service and Forum Guidelines post for more information. Thank you
Post Reply
For Reel
Petty Officer
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:19 pm

MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by For Reel » Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:28 am

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/oct1615a/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm heading out this morning...

User avatar
G-Man
Admiral
Posts: 2685
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:01 am
Location: Bellevue, WA

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by G-Man » Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:28 am

Can we all agree to put an end to reporting encounters with wild chinook, especially shakers?

User avatar
Larry3215
Admiral
Posts: 1870
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:02 pm

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by Larry3215 » Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:55 pm

G-Man wrote:Can we all agree to put an end to reporting encounters with wild chinook, especially shakers?
Im torn on that issue.

On the one hand I see your point that reporting shakers/released fish can end a season early - and that sucks.

On the other hand, I cant help but think they have a good reason for doing that. Our salmon runs are endangered and going down hill in many if not most areas. Released salmon have a hi mortality rate - even if you're careful. Many people are not careful.

I do think we are getting screwed as far as recreational fishermen goes, but not following the conservation guidelines doesnt seem like the best way to go forward.

For Reel
Petty Officer
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by For Reel » Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:55 pm

I always try to release the shakers with care. Problem is sometimes you tow them on your line for a long time and by the time you release them it's just to late . [thumbdn]

I love the puget sound. But I think the gill nets used by the tribes needs to stop. ALL salmon fishing should be by trolling including tribal, commercial and recreational. But lets face it Tribal fisherman are nothing but commercial companies.
Larry3215 wrote:
G-Man wrote:Can we all agree to put an end to reporting encounters with wild chinook, especially shakers?
Im torn on that issue.

On the one hand I see your point that reporting shakers/released fish can end a season early - and that sucks.

On the other hand, I cant help but think they have a good reason for doing that. Our salmon runs are endangered and going down hill in many if not most areas. Released salmon have a hi mortality rate - even if you're careful. Many people are not careful.

I do think we are getting screwed as far as recreational fishermen goes, but not following the conservation guidelines doesnt seem like the best way to go forward.

User avatar
spokey9
Captain
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:18 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by spokey9 » Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:13 pm

G-Man wrote:Can we all agree to put an end to reporting encounters with wild chinook, especially shakers?
even if nobody reports encounters, wdfw uses a formula based on number fisherman and hours spent fishing to estimate the encounter. the creel checks ,imo, are a way for them to check their math.
Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except i still get to kill something.

User avatar
Matt
Admiral
Posts: 2186
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: WaRshington

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by Matt » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:26 pm

The excuse that this was based on Chinook encounters is just smoke screen.

The tribes are pushing for closures due to much lower than forecasted Coho runs and the state doesn't have the science to say otherwise..... Their in season update modeling is a joke, to say the least.

We are being out and out lied to here....

Goldrigger1
Petty Officer
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by Goldrigger1 » Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:04 pm

Reading about the tribal gill netting gives me a headache. I hate to even think about all the convoluted issues involved.

For Reel
Petty Officer
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by For Reel » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:17 pm

Well the tribes are netting the runs to extinction

fishee2
Petty Officer
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:33 am

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by fishee2 » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:19 pm

Ever since they started closing Elliot Bay back in the early 90's. EVERYTHING JUST WENT DOWN HILL from ZHIT to SCUM. The only ones who gets the blame and the zhit end of the zhit stick is US fisherman's.

Our WDFW is (you can fill in the blank here) can't think of anything good. Do get me wrong, there are hard working folks i know of.

Is just bad all around.

How MUCH you all wanna bet they are going to close AREA 9.


is disgusting and depressing at the same time. sigh! [angry] :-& [sad]

User avatar
Larry3215
Admiral
Posts: 1870
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:02 pm

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by Larry3215 » Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:59 am

Wait a minute! I am confused about this whole "encounters" thing.

If they closed area 10 because there were too many encounters with young wild black mouth while people were fishing for coho, then why open it for chum?

Are you not going to have "encounters" when fishing for chum?????

This makes no sense to me at all.

User avatar
Matt
Admiral
Posts: 2186
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: WaRshington

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by Matt » Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:32 am

This makes no sense to anyone.

Just like their bad models, poor science regime, and inability to produce accurate in season updates.

User avatar
Matt
Admiral
Posts: 2186
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: WaRshington

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by Matt » Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:38 am

Baker Lake Estimated Sockeye Return = 48,943 Actual Return = 31,928

Difference? : A mere 17,000 + .....

Lake Washington Estimated Sockeye Return: 164,595 Actual Return = 33,426

Difference? : 131,000+


Yeah, they obviously have a good handle of how to produce preseason forecasts and inseason updates..... [thumbsup]


Based on what we know I am positive that: (a) The total Chinook population numbers are clearly accurate. (b) Our encounter rates with "Unmarked" Chinook are clearly accurate. (c) Their estimation of the post release mortality of CnRed salmon is spot on. (Sarcasm).

Lets give them a cookie.

User avatar
Bay wolf
Commander
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:52 am

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by Bay wolf » Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:51 am

Image
Just returned from Seiku. These guys were out in force from Dawn till after dark! Saw seven of them working the Seiku area and was told there were more up and down the Straits!
Forgiveness is between them and God. My job is to arrange the meeting!
US Army 1st SGT (Ret)

jbball50
Commander
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Bremerton,WA

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by jbball50 » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:49 am

Larry3215 wrote:Wait a minute! I am confused about this whole "encounters" thing.

If they closed area 10 because there were too many encounters with young wild black mouth while people were fishing for coho, then why open it for chum?

Are you not going to have "encounters" when fishing for chum?????

This makes no sense to me at all.
It makes plenty of sense, you're not going to be fishing in areas for chum where blackmouth hang out. People are going to be fishing mouths of rivers and creeks or close to them for chum. Not areas where fish sit and feed on herring/candlefish.

User avatar
Hunter757
Commander
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:05 pm
Location: Puyallup, WA

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by Hunter757 » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:42 am

jbball50 wrote:
Larry3215 wrote:Wait a minute! I am confused about this whole "encounters" thing.

If they closed area 10 because there were too many encounters with young wild black mouth while people were fishing for coho, then why open it for chum?

Are you not going to have "encounters" when fishing for chum?????

This makes no sense to me at all.
It makes plenty of sense, you're not going to be fishing in areas for chum where blackmouth hang out. People are going to be fishing mouths of rivers and creeks or close to them for chum. Not areas where fish sit and feed on herring/candlefish.

Good to know as I was not sure how or where to fish for chum on the sound. Learn something new everyday.
2005 Weldcraft Maverick 182DV
Suzuki DF140
Suzuki DF 9.9
Lowrance elite 7 HDI
Raymarine Ray49 VHF
Cannon Mag 10 HS

User avatar
Larry3215
Admiral
Posts: 1870
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:02 pm

Re: MA-10 closes AGAIN!?

Post by Larry3215 » Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:18 pm

jbball50 wrote:
Larry3215 wrote:Wait a minute! I am confused about this whole "encounters" thing.

If they closed area 10 because there were too many encounters with young wild black mouth while people were fishing for coho, then why open it for chum?

Are you not going to have "encounters" when fishing for chum?????

This makes no sense to me at all.
It makes plenty of sense, you're not going to be fishing in areas for chum where blackmouth hang out. People are going to be fishing mouths of rivers and creeks or close to them for chum. Not areas where fish sit and feed on herring/candlefish.
I suppose that might be true if you were an experienced chum fisherman. Ive never targeted chum specifically. I have heard of catching them at river mouths, but the few I have caught over the years were caught when I was fishing for coho and blackmouth. So I don't completely agree that. They are still migratory fish and can be caught anywhere.

Post Reply