Blackmouth

[speedbird]

I might ruffle some feathers with this one, but here it goes: Why is this fishery so passionately advocated for? All the fish being caught are immature fish that still have time to grow, in terms of SRKW conservation, this fishery probably does the most to reduce their food sources in Puget Sound as it takes the fish out of the water before they get the chance to grow large enough to become prey. In terms of fishery quality, this fishery seems to have the highest impacts on undersized fish, both wild and hatchery, of any fishery in Puget Sound. Also, if you left those 22" 4 pound fish in the water in November, you would easily end up with a 8 or 10 pound fish come July. Speaking of July: Every wild Chinook encountered is one less wild fish we can encounter in the summer time, when the much higher quality ocean fish return. While there is a particular romance with being out at sea in rough weather, (I'm sure it might be fun in a pilot house too) weather is keeping boats out of the water for a good chunk of the season.

The guys on the meathead forums (No offense meant, I'm a meathead once the downriggers come out too) complain endlessly about shaker impacts counting to the quota, but I have thrown back enough dead or dying shakers to know that anyone who thinks that style of fishing isn't killing undersized fish is deluding themselves. (Unrelated tangent, most interesting catch so far was an outmigrating sockeye that got hooked in the brain) If we had enough fish to sustain a good summer migratory, and winter resident Chinook season, without substantially negatively impacting wild runs, I would be all for it, and the only reason I didn't participate this year was an unservicable boat. But the fact of the matter is our wild stocks are not in a good enough position to handle this fishery. But this fishery seems to be advocated for harder than any other in the sound, including the much higher quality ocean coho and Chinook fisheries. Looking at old pamphlets there were plenty of years when Summer/Fall Chinook was closed to harvest while Blackmouth fisheries remained. I just cannot understand why so many anglers would rather harvest 2-8lb juvenile fish, than 8-25lb mature monsters.

What are you guys opinions? I'm more than happy to listen to opposing ones. And while we are at it, what do you guys think should be the future of this fishery? My idea would be to switch from a winter to a spring fishery, to give the subyearlings a chance to leave the sound, and for the barely legals to become retainable.

 

[Stonedfish]

Take this as coming from someone who is old…..
To me, blackmouth fishing wasn’t about downriggers and pilot houses, it was about mooching from small boats and providing a great winter fishing opportunity.
I don’t recall ever keeping 2 lb fish, but I do recall catching some nice double digit fish in the winter.
If you never got to fish blackmouth at the peak of its program, you really missed out. It was an insanely fun fishery.

Todays fishery is different, especially when you factor in encounters and the blackmouth program is pretty much dead.
I think if some gear restrictions were put in place, it might help but I doubt the dudes with big boats and downriggers would be happy with those restrictions.
Again, I come from an era when a lot of the boathouses on the sound were still open and you could still get fresh herring at a lot of places. Old traditions die hard.
SF

 

[Jake Watrous]

Take this as coming from someone who is old…..
To me, blackmouth fishing wasn’t about downriggers and pilot houses, it was about mooching from small boats and providing a great winter fishing opportunity.
I don’t recall ever keeping 2 lb fish, but I do recall catching some nice double digit fish in the winter.
If you never got to fish blackmouth at the peak of its program, you really missed out. It was an insanely fun fishery.

Todays fishery is different, especially when you factor in encounters and the blackmouth program is pretty much dead.
I think if some gear restrictions were put in place, it might help but I doubt the dudes with big boats and downriggers would be happy.
Again, I come from an era when a lot of the boathouses on the sound were still open and you could still get fresh herring at a lot of places. Old traditions die hard.
SF

^ for me at least, this. I’ve never been a fan of driving for fish with downriggers, dodgers, and all that gear. I’ve done it, but grew up and learned to prefer jigging for blackmouth off of PNP, Pilot Point, and Jeff Head. Pink-blue-white Point Wilson darts dropped to the bottom and jigged about 15’ off of it guaranteed limits of double-digit (often well above 20lbs) chinook every season until they were ESA listed in the mid-90s…and even after for a while it was hard to avoid them as bycatch.

 

[Wanative]

Too many psuedo commercial "anglers "
With too much high tech gear pursuing the too few fish of a overfished limited resource then bitching about short seasons and 1 fish limits.
Gimme a break.

 

[Salmo_g]

Given we have ESA listings of Chinook and treaty/non-treaty allocation issues, blackmouth fishing seasons should be relegated to the history books. Blackmouth seasons still exist, not because they are biologically justifiable, but because anglers with political and economic influence want them, IMO.

 

[Stonedfish]

I should have also added to my previous post that the past blackmouth program lead to some pretty memorable fly caught fish as well, especially in MA’s 11 and 13 for myself and others.
SF

 

[charles sullivan]

In A-7 we have very infrequent connections with shakers from what I have seen. You may have some just undersized fish but mostly you catch mature fish. The data seems to change as you head south. In A-7 we went from killing wild fish in winter and summer to no season winter fishing and limited hatchery only in the summer very quickly. The boat owners aren't very pleased. I understand. I enjoyed the fishery too albeit on other people boats.

The reason people advocate for it is because it is a lot of fun in a time of year when the old guys with big boats don't have a bunch of other options. They also represent the elites of the PNW fishing world. They have big boats and expensive gear. They feel entitled and have money. People listen to old wealthy white guys and those same guys are used to being listened to. They demand it.

I have always been somewhat curios as to whether the impacts are truly additive or not. It stands to reason that they may not be completely additive because the fish are not mature. A certain amount will die from other causes until the area that contains them reaches it's carrying capacity. Are we stealing from orcas or seals? I am also not sure that the resident whales eat a ton of true blackmouth since so many are much smaller than the mature sized chinook that they seek. However, the way impacts are counted they count the same. It seems like the loss of spring kings as well as other differently timed mature fish runs are really bad for the resident whales.

Anyhow, your answer IMO is in the 2nd paragraph above.

I understand people not liking the fishery. It was a whole lot of fun in the islands when I was able to take part in it. They are active feeders and you caould really get into a bunch of feeding fish. The action could be remarkable. And....they are delicious.

 

[speedbird]

In A-7 we have very infrequent connections with shakers from what I have seen. You may have some just undersized fish but mostly you catch mature fish. The data seems to change as you head south. In A-7 we went from killing wild fish in winter and summer to no season winter fishing and limited hatchery only in the summer very quickly. The boat owners aren't very pleased. I understand. I enjoyed the fishery too albeit on other people boats.

The reason people advocate for it is because it is a lot of fun in a time of year when the old guys with big boats don't have a bunch of other options. They also represent the elites of the PNW fishing world. They have big boats and expensive gear. They feel entitled and have money. People listen to old wealthy white guys and those same guys are used to being listened to. They demand it.

I have always been somewhat curios as to whether the impacts are truly additive or not. It stands to reason that they may not be completely additive because the fish are not mature. A certain amount will die from other causes until the area that contains them reaches it's carrying capacity. Are we stealing from orcas or seals? I am also not sure that the resident whales eat a ton of true blackmouth since so many are much smaller than the mature sized chinook that they seek. However, the way impacts are counted they count the same. It seems like the loss of spring kings as well as other differently timed mature fish runs are really bad for the resident whales.

Anyhow, your answer IMO is in the 2nd paragraph above.

I understand people not liking the fishery. It was a whole lot of fun in the islands when I was able to take part in it. They are active feeders and you caould really get into a bunch of feeding fish. The action could be remarkable. And....they are delicious.

In A-7 we have very infrequent connections with shakers from what I have seen. You may have some just undersized fish but mostly you catch mature fish. The data seems to change as you head south. In A-7 we went from killing wild fish in winter and summer to no season winter fishing and limited hatchery only in the summer very quickly. The boat owners aren't very pleased. I understand. I enjoyed the fishery too albeit on other people boats.

The reason people advocate for it is because it is a lot of fun in a time of year when the old guys with big boats don't have a bunch of other options. They also represent the elites of the PNW fishing world. They have big boats and expensive gear. They feel entitled and have money. People listen to old wealthy white guys and those same guys are used to being listened to. They demand it.

I have always been somewhat curios as to whether the impacts are truly additive or not. It stands to reason that they may not be completely additive because the fish are not mature. A certain amount will die from other causes until the area that contains them reaches it's carrying capacity. Are we stealing from orcas or seals? I am also not sure that the resident whales eat a ton of true blackmouth since so many are much smaller than the mature sized chinook that they seek. However, the way impacts are counted they count the same. It seems like the loss of spring kings as well as other differently timed mature fish runs are really bad for the resident whales.

Anyhow, your answer IMO is in the 2nd paragraph above.

I understand people not liking the fishery. It was a whole lot of fun in the islands when I was able to take part in it. They are active feeders and you caould really get into a bunch of feeding fish. The action could be remarkable. And....they are delicious

I chatted with a gentleman who used to organize the derbies up there. Sometimes they would hook into fish upwards of 20lbs, even a rare 30lber in late winter. Scale tests determined a good chunk of those were Marblemount hatchery Spring fish, but also Fraser native spring runs. You guys used to have a season in the Fall for the Fraser run fish, but I have no idea what is happening with those stocks because the Canadians don’t make the run data as easy to access as we do. (If anyone has forecasts and historical data for that river I would really appreciate it!)

The one time I believe I tied into Fraser fish based off nothing but catching multiple white flesh hatchery fish which compose an unusually high percentage of the Harrison tributary Chinook, and the distinct spot patterns from columbia stock fish, the fish were ridiculously large. I was a little kid at the time but looking back at the family photos it wasn’t just my imagination, six fish on deck and multiple were pushing 30, none were smaller than high teens

 

[doublespey]

To get people to buy big saltwater boats, downriggers, etc you need to have seasons for -something. You think Blackmouth are small? Check out the Kokanee people chase with their big saltwater boats and downriggers. There's also that sense of desperation, similar to the one that surrounds the Spey/Steelhead crowd, watching your fisheries and seasons diminishing year after year. The future doesn't look very good for our Salmonids. Those who profit from sales don't want their cash cow to end. And people who remember the good ol' days don't want to accept that they may be over. Watch "Rivers of a Lost Coast" - IMO same deal happening here in Puget Sound.

 

[Scudley Do Right]

I think it's strange most people think you need to use downriggers to catch salmon. If that was the case I would sell the boat and mow the grass more in the summer.

 

[Smalma]

The harsh reality is that Puget Sound recreational fisheries are mixed stock fisheries that are always limited by the weakest stock. In recent years and for the foreseeable future that limiting stock has been Stillaguamish Chinook.

Looking at WDFW's mark selective fishery reports from 2008 and 2021 and the code wire tag recoveries during the creel checks in those fisheries Stillaguamish Chinook are encountered differentially in the winter and summer. Look at all the winter Chinook fisheries for those years a total of 121 NF Stillaguamish Chinook CWTs were recovered. Also the totals for all those winter fisheries was a total of nearly 25,000 Chinook kept while fishing 370,000 days. In the summer fisheries a total of 60 NF Stillaguamish CWTs were recovered with a catch of 70,000 Chinook and 1,674,000 angler trips.

In the winter Chinook season for every Stillaguamish tag recovered 205 Chinook were harvested and 3,055 angler days were generated. In the summer seasons for every Stillaguamish tag recovered 1,166 Chinook were harvested and 27,899 angler days were generated. Is anyone surprised that most anglers prefer using Stillaguamish encounters in the summer rather than the winter?

A major complaint from the angling community is that discrepancy between the tribal and non-tribal Chinook catches. This is a natural result of relying on the recreational fleet preferring to fish in mixed stock areas. If the desire is to balance that catch as much as possible as long as Stillaguamish Chinook are the limiting stock it makes no sense to fish in the winter.

BTW the heaviest consumer of Stillaguamish Chinook encounters in the above data was in the MA 7 winter seasons.

Curt

 

[charles sullivan]

The harsh reality is that Puget Sound recreational fisheries are mixed stock fisheries that are always limited by the weakest stock. In recent years and for the foreseeable future that limiting stock has been Stillaguamish Chinook.

Looking at WDFW's mark selective fishery reports from 2008 and 2021 and the code wire tag recoveries during the creel checks in those fisheries Stillaguamish Chinook are encountered differentially in the winter and summer. Look at all the winter Chinook fisheries for those years a total of 121 NF Stillaguamish Chinook CWTs were recovered. Also the totals for all those winter fisheries was a total of nearly 25,000 Chinook kept while fishing 370,000 days. In the summer fisheries a total of 60 NF Stillaguamish CWTs were recovered with a catch of 70,000 Chinook and 1,674,000 angler trips.

In the winter Chinook season for every Stillaguamish tag recovered 205 Chinook were harvested and 3,055 angler days were generated. In the summer seasons for every Stillaguamish tag recovered 1,166 Chinook were harvested and 27,899 angler days were generated. Is anyone surprised that most anglers prefer using Stillaguamish encounters in the summer rather than the winter?

A major complaint from the angling community is that discrepancy between the tribal and non-tribal Chinook catches. This is a natural result of relying on the recreational fleet preferring to fish in mixed stock areas. If the desire is to balance that catch as much as possible as long as Stillaguamish Chinook are the limiting stock it makes no sense to fish in the winter.

BTW the heaviest consumer of Stillaguamish Chinook encounters in the above data was in the MA 7 winter seasons.

Curt

You explained the situation exceptionally well, Curt. Thank you. What you have laid out is the harvest paradigm for chinook in the PS and especially A-7.
It is hard for many to understand the fist sentence:

The harsh reality is that Puget Sound recreational fisheries are mixed stock fisheries that are always limited by the weakest stock.

The thing that bugs some of my friends who fish A-7 is that the protected stock is a hatchery stock. It is a rescue hatchery of sorts but still a hatchery stock.

Given how battered the Stilly drainage is, it goes to show you how important habitat is to having any fisheries at all. I do not know how to meaningfully improve the habitat in the Stilly basin or how to improve returns of hatchery (or wild) fish from the stilly. I do know that improved returns are the only way that the salt water anglers can get their seasons back.

I also often think that if S.Fork Nooksack fish or Sauk river springs etc. were examined that they may be just as limiting as Stilly chinook. What I mean is that if we magically healed the Stilly and it did not restrain the salt water fisheries, would the seasons remain similar because of impacts on other PS stocks that are in dire straights. I know that Lilliwaup kings have been discussed as limiting. Aren't their a number of chinook stocks that are pretty much as limiting as stilly fish?

I used to think that the ocean fisheries would be the last to go. I no longer do. In fact, it would make sense in many ways to eliminate most of them in favor of in-river fisheries because the in-river fisheries are better able to limit impacts on the stocks that limit fisheries. If 121 Stilly chinook were not harvested in the salt, could we fish for Stilly steelhead and cutts? What other potential in-river fisheries are limited by the mixed stock salt water fisheries?

I understand that it is fighting over the scraps but there seems to be more efficient ways to distribute the allowable impacts.

 

[charles sullivan]

I think it's strange most people think you need to use downriggers to catch salmon. If that was the case I would sell the boat and mow the grass more in the summer.

The 1st saltwater king that I ever saw caught was with a jig in the islands. 15lbs of shining Fraser stubby. It remains one of my fondest saltwater memories.

 

[Stonedfish]

You explained the situation exceptionally well, Curt. Thank you. What you have laid out is the harvest paradigm for chinook in the PS and especially A-7.
It is hard for many to understand the fist sentence:

The thing that bugs some of my friends who fish A-7 is that the protected stock is a hatchery stock. It is a rescue hatchery of sorts but still a hatchery stock.

Given how battered the Stilly drainage is, it goes to show you how important habitat is to having any fisheries at all. I do not know how to meaningfully improve the habitat in the Stilly basin or how to improve returns of hatchery (or wild) fish from the stilly. I do know that improved returns are the only way that the salt water anglers can get their seasons back.

I also often think that if S.Fork Nooksack fish or Sauk river springs etc. were examined that they may be just as limiting as Stilly chinook. What I mean is that if we magically healed the Stilly and it did not restrain the salt water fisheries, would the seasons remain similar because of impacts on other PS stocks that are in dire straights. I know that Lilliwaup kings have been discussed as limiting. Aren't their a number of chinook stocks that are pretty much as limiting as stilly fish?

I used to think that the ocean fisheries would be the last to go. I no longer do. In fact, it would make sense in many ways to eliminate most of them in favor of in-river fisheries because the in-river fisheries are better able to limit impacts on the stocks that limit fisheries. If 121 Stilly chinook were not harvested in the salt, could we fish for Stilly steelhead and cutts? What other potential in-river fisheries are limited by the mixed stock salt water fisheries?

I understand that it is fighting over the scraps but there seems to be more efficient ways to distribute the allowable impacts.

If I recall correctly based on one of the meetings I attended, a WDFW employee mentioned encounters with mid canal chinook in MA 11.
That is another stock of concern. I thought that was rather interesting and unexpected information. I also wonder how many of those fish are products of strays from other canal programs
SF.

 

[Smalma]

Charles -
You are correct of course the marine recreational fisheries will always be limited by one or another weak stock. However if the current weakest stock status was improved moving the next weakest stock would result in some increase in potential fishing. Of course, the flip, side is also true. If the status of one the weaker stock declines it is likely there will be less fishing. That is the major frustration with PS Chinook recovery efforts; a number of the listed stocks have gotten worst since the listing - thus it continues to become more difficult to craft fisheries.

Surprisingly a closer look at the Skagit spring stocks indicates that generally speaking they are doing better than most Puget Sound stocks. Comparing the recent natural origin escapements to the high productive goals listed in the recovery plan the three Skagit spring stocks (Cascade, upper Sauk, and Suiattle) are among the 4 "healthiest" Puget Sound stocks (upper Skagit summers is the other). The stock closest to the recovery goals is the Suiattle spring stock. Maybe the fact that vast majority of those Suiattle fish are spawning in waters that are in are immediately below wilderness areas - nah it can be having intact forests are important to having healthy salmon populations.

Curt

 

[charles sullivan]

Charles -
You are correct of course the marine recreational fisheries will always be limited by one or another weak stock. However if the current weakest stock status was improved moving the next weakest stock would result in some increase in potential fishing. Of course, the flip, side is also true. If the status of one the weaker stock declines it is likely there will be less fishing. That is the major frustration with PS Chinook recovery efforts; a number of the listed stocks have gotten worst since the listing - thus it continues to become more difficult to craft fisheries.

Surprisingly a closer look at the Skagit spring stocks indicates that generally speaking they are doing better than most Puget Sound stocks. Comparing the recent natural origin escapements to the high productive goals listed in the recovery plan the three Skagit spring stocks (Cascade, upper Sauk, and Suiattle) are among the 4 "healthiest" Puget Sound stocks (upper Skagit summers is the other). The stock closest to the recovery goals is the Suiattle spring stock. Maybe the fact that vast majority of those Suiattle fish are spawning in waters that are in are immediately below wilderness areas - nah it can be having intact forests are important to having healthy salmon populations.

Curt

You and I both know that habitat does not matter. It has to be something else!

 

[SeaRunner]

The harsh reality is that Puget Sound recreational fisheries are mixed stock fisheries that are always limited by the weakest stock. In recent years and for the foreseeable future that limiting stock has been Stillaguamish Chinook.

Looking at WDFW's mark selective fishery reports from 2008 and 2021 and the code wire tag recoveries during the creel checks in those fisheries Stillaguamish Chinook are encountered differentially in the winter and summer. Look at all the winter Chinook fisheries for those years a total of 121 NF Stillaguamish Chinook CWTs were recovered. Also the totals for all those winter fisheries was a total of nearly 25,000 Chinook kept while fishing 370,000 days. In the summer fisheries a total of 60 NF Stillaguamish CWTs were recovered with a catch of 70,000 Chinook and 1,674,000 angler trips.

In the winter Chinook season for every Stillaguamish tag recovered 205 Chinook were harvested and 3,055 angler days were generated. In the summer seasons for every Stillaguamish tag recovered 1,166 Chinook were harvested and 27,899 angler days were generated. Is anyone surprised that most anglers prefer using Stillaguamish encounters in the summer rather than the winter?

A major complaint from the angling community is that discrepancy between the tribal and non-tribal Chinook catches. This is a natural result of relying on the recreational fleet preferring to fish in mixed stock areas. If the desire is to balance that catch as much as possible as long as Stillaguamish Chinook are the limiting stock it makes no sense to fish in the winter.

BTW the heaviest consumer of Stillaguamish Chinook encounters in the above data was in the MA 7 winter seasons.

Curt

I believe your numbers also show a higher chinook kept per angler day in the winter than summer. Is it enough to overcome the higher total numbers generated by summer fisheries? Maybe not, but I can see why anglers push for winter seasons. The fish are actively feeding and generally more aggressive biters. For what its worth, I do not think that North Sound winter seasons are viable or worthwhile given the current management environment and status of Stillaguamish chinook.

Going back to the original post I would selfishly love to see a mooching/jig only fishery. I would also like to see MA 10/11 seasons moved to the March/April time frame. The WDFW press release regarding MA 10 this year stated, "In February, WDFW suspended salmon fishing in Marine Area 10 to preserve opportunity later in the season when the unmarked encounter rate is usually significantly lower." If WDFW has data suggesting that is the case why are we opening in February in the first place?

 

[Chucker]

I believe your numbers also show a higher chinook kept per angler day in the winter than summer. Is it enough to overcome the higher total numbers generated by summer fisheries? Maybe not, but I can see why anglers push for winter seasons. The fish are actively feeding and generally more aggressive biters. For what its worth, I do not think that North Sound winter seasons are viable or worthwhile given the current management environment and status of Stillaguamish chinook.

Going back to the original post I would selfishly love to see a mooching/jig only fishery. I would also like to see MA 10/11 seasons moved to the March/April time frame. The WDFW press release regarding MA 10 this year stated, "In February, WDFW suspended salmon fishing in Marine Area 10 to preserve opportunity later in the season when the unmarked encounter rate is usually significantly lower." If WDFW has data suggesting that is the case why are we opening in February in the first place?

I didn’t fish the blackmouth season this year, but in previous years in area 10 the ratio of undersized fish to keepers seemed to be something like 100:1. I can’t see any way that could be justified. The most common size of fish was 18-20”. Even by late April, most of those fish wouldn’t have reached the 22” size limit.

 

[SeaRunner]

I didn’t fish the blackmouth season this year, but in previous years in area 10 the ratio of undersized fish to keepers seemed to be something like 100:1. I can’t see any way that could be justified. The most common size of fish was 18-20”. Even by late April, most of those fish wouldn’t have reached the 22” size limit.

I know your post about ratio is tongue in cheek, and I agree that there can be undersized fish in A10. I looked back at the 2014 post-season report and the ratio of non-keepers to keepers was about 10:1 for a season that ran mid-winter. The 2014 summer ratio non-keepers/keepers was 3:1. I wonder what impact a size limit reduction to 18-20" would have. Presumably it would improve the ratios we're discussing here if that is the end goal. Maybe it would get keepers in the box and people off the water faster and reduce their total impacts per day, but I don't know what impact that would have on catch sharing.

We also need to be careful about terms here. A10 wasn't closed this winter because of sublegal encounters. It was closed due to unmarked encounters. Unmarked encounters were the most stringent constraint on this year's winter season for A10 at only 1,089. At the time A10 closed only 55% of sublegal encounters had been used.

 

[Chucker]

I know your post about ratio is tongue in cheek, and I agree that there can be undersized fish in A10. I looked back at the 2014 post-season report and the ratio of non-keepers to keepers was about 10:1 for a season that ran mid-winter. The 2014 summer ratio non-keepers/keepers was 3:1. I wonder what impact a size limit reduction to 18-20" would have. Presumably it would improve the ratios we're discussing here if that is the end goal. Maybe it would get keepers in the box and people off the water faster and reduce their total impacts per day, but I don't know what impact that would have on catch sharing.

We also need to be careful about terms here. A10 wasn't closed this winter because of sublegal encounters. It was closed due to unmarked encounters. Unmarked encounters were the most stringent constraint on this year's winter season for A10 at only 1,089. At the time A10 closed only 55% of sublegal encounters had been used.

Well, yes, 100:1 is an exaggeration, but things have changed since 2014. The number of undersized fish in the last couple of seasons I fished was way higher. I don’t know what the total catch of retained legal sized fish was over the entire fishery this year, but the creel reports show about 70 over 7 days of sampling. If the total was double that, then with about 3800 total fish caught the ratio is 27:1

The point being that the fishery needs a reassessment. It is not what it used to be. I think your suggestion of a lower minimum size plus moving the season to April might be one way to do it, though it might need to go with a rule that you have to keep the first legal fish you catch, and that would be really unpopular!