Stillie gamefish opportunities.

[Smalma]

I believe that the status of the North Fork Stillaguamish Chinook is much worst that what is commonly thought (if such a thing is possible).

A quick look at the coded wire tags (CWTs) shows that a significant portion of the hatchery origin (HORs) in the NF natural spawning population is from out of basin strays. It looks like as much as 40% of those HORs spawning in the NF are those out of basin strays (Skagit spring Chinook from the Marblemount hatchery were the largest contributor to those out of basin strays).

If the natural origin (NORs) in the region strays at anywhere the same rates as the HORs those NORs spawning in the NF Stillaguamish are likely being impacted by the Skagit Chinook population which is 25 times larger than the NF Stillaguamish NOR population. While it is unknown at what rate those natural produce stray if they were to stray at rates similar to that of the HORs as much as 50% of the NORs spawning in the NF could be Skagit produced fish. Remember that the Skagit and Stillaguamish basin share a common estuary. Salmo_g does that contribute to the similarity between the Skagit summer and NF chinook?

The question of whether the swamping of the natural spawning NF Chinook by out of basin strays is helping or hurting the viability of the population is another interesting rabbit hole to go down.

Curt

 

[_WW_]

I believe that the status of the North Fork Stillaguamish Chinook is much worst that what is commonly thought (if such a thing is possible).

A quick look at the coded wire tags (CWTs) shows that a significant portion of the hatchery origin (HORs) in the NF natural spawning population is from out of basin strays. It looks like as much as 40% of those HORs spawning in the NF are those out of basin strays (Skagit spring Chinook from the Marblemount hatchery were the largest contributor to those out of basin strays).

If the natural origin (NORs) in the region strays at anywhere the same rates as the HORs those NORs spawning in the NF Stillaguamish are likely being impacted by the Skagit Chinook population which is 25 times larger than the NF Stillaguamish NOR population. While it is unknown at what rate those natural produce stray if they were to stray at rates similar to that of the HORs as much as 50% of the NORs spawning in the NF could be Skagit produced fish. Remember that the Skagit and Stillaguamish basin share a common estuary. Salmo_g does that contribute to the similarity between the Skagit summer and NF chinook?

The question of whether the swamping of the natural spawning NF Chinook by out of basin strays is helping or hurting the viability of the population is another interesting rabbit hole to go down.

Curt

Would that include the fish caught by the idiots last year? Meaning eight of those fish were not even Stilly fish?

 

[Salmo_g]

Salmo_g does that contribute to the similarity between the Skagit summer and NF chinook?

Fascinating! That would do far more than a little to explain the genetic similarity of the two populations. So essentially, Skagit and Stilly Chinook are a single population if that's what the data say. So now I gotta' ask, when will salmon management catch up to salmon biology?

 

[charles sullivan]

Fascinating! That would do far more than a little to explain the genetic similarity of the two populations. So essentially, Skagit and Stilly Chinook are a single population if that's what the data say. So now I gotta' ask, when will salmon management catch up to salmon biology?

I suppose one could make the case that Stilly Chinook have a resevoir to draw from as long as Skagit chinook populations are high enough. Maybe the estuary that the fish use is as important as the stream in some scenarios.

 

[Matt B]

I suppose one could make the case that Stilly Chinook have a resevoir to draw from as long as Skagit chinook populations are high enough. Maybe the estuary that the fish use is as important as the stream in some scenarios.

Or maybe it turns out that native fish in general need all the habitats, across freshwater, estuary, and saltwater.

 

[speedbird]

I believe that the status of the North Fork Stillaguamish Chinook is much worst that what is commonly thought (if such a thing is possible).

A quick look at the coded wire tags (CWTs) shows that a significant portion of the hatchery origin (HORs) in the NF natural spawning population is from out of basin strays. It looks like as much as 40% of those HORs spawning in the NF are those out of basin strays (Skagit spring Chinook from the Marblemount hatchery were the largest contributor to those out of basin strays).

If the natural origin (NORs) in the region strays at anywhere the same rates as the HORs those NORs spawning in the NF Stillaguamish are likely being impacted by the Skagit Chinook population which is 25 times larger than the NF Stillaguamish NOR population. While it is unknown at what rate those natural produce stray if they were to stray at rates similar to that of the HORs as much as 50% of the NORs spawning in the NF could be Skagit produced fish. Remember that the Skagit and Stillaguamish basin share a common estuary. Salmo_g does that contribute to the similarity between the Skagit summer and NF chinook?

The question of whether the swamping of the natural spawning NF Chinook by out of basin strays is helping or hurting the viability of the population is another interesting rabbit hole to go down.

Curt

That's really cool. And also emphasizes why conservation of different ESU's is important. Makes you wonder how the basin would look if it provided better habitat. Lets say in the distant future by some miracle the Stilly recovers, and the Skagit Springs continue to have an upward trajectory. Would a natural Spring chinook population eventually establish in the stilly?

 

[charles sullivan]

Or maybe it turns out that native fish in general need all the habitats, across freshwater, qestuary, and saltwater.

I don't know as that perspective is oppositional in any way.
It's sort of a lumper vs. splitter deal.

 

[Smalma]

Ever since the Ice left Puget Sound the salmonids have been exchanging individuals from the various populations. That is what they do which assures that the species can colonize habitats that become available. It is thought that exchange rate is low. Colonizing fish typically quickly adapt to the new environment (to Matt's point all pieces of that new habitat), natural selection in action. While I can not find documentation of what the historic stray rate might be for the current Skagit/Stillaguamish it might be in a 2 to 3% range.

This process has become key in understanding what may be going on with the Stillaguamish fish. If we assume a 2% straight rate between the North Fork Stillaguamish and the Skagit then at current levels the 500 or so NORs from the Stillaguamish would contribute 5 fish to the Skagit while the Skagit would contribute 250 to the Stilli. Under this scenario even if the survival of Chinook spawning fell to zero the number of NOR spawners each year in the Stilli would be about 1/2 of what it is currently is. The bottom of the rapid decline we have been seeing on Stillaguamish. In the 1990s the estimate recruit/spawner (R/S) was just over 1.00. For the period 2000 to 2014 the R/S value fell to 0.64, (some of those recruits were likely non-Stillaguamish fish).

This also becomes a problem for the Stillaguamish Chinook adapting to the changing habitat. Just an example, currently the NF Stilli experiences elevated stream temperatures in August and early September and those temperatures are such that one would expect elevated mortality of the eggs and embryo's. Typically, in that situation the population would develop a later spawning timing, those early spawning fish are less successful. Unfortunately for some of the Skagit populations (especially the Marblemount hatchery spring Chinook) having an early spawning time those "strays" hinder that ability of the natural spawning Chinook in the North Fork to adapt to the changing conditions.

These kinds of issues are interesting, but more importantly understanding what the forecasts that are drive the success or lack of success form the foundation to make informed decisions in things like salmon recovery.

Curt

 

[Matt B]

I don't know as that perspective is oppositional in any way.
It's sort of a lumper vs. splitter deal.

True. ‘Twas meant more as a backhanded swipe at the idea that it’s one habitat type or another that’s the limiting factor, and we just need to fix that, and we will finally see a difference. Because I have heard that before, and I’m not so sure…

Making room for salmon | Encyclopedia of Puget Sound

How can Puget Sound generate more salmon? That question has been at the center of ecosystem recovery efforts for decades. But even as scientists and conservationists make progress on many fronts — from breaching dams to cleaning up the water — they have faced one especially complicated and...

www.eopugetsound.org

Juvenile salmon response to landscape connectivity change within two Puget Sound river estuaries - Salish Sea Wiki

salishsearestoration.org

 

[_WW_]

So now I gotta' ask, when will salmon management catch up to salmon biology?

In the future, forensically with samples from museum stuffed fish. That's when the light bulb moment will happen.

 

[Dr. Magill]

I believe this evolution @Smalma indicates would take generations

 

[Smalma]

Returning to Stillaguamish game fish opportunities.

At the first NOF it was announced that several Chinook stocks (SF Nooksack, Skagit summers, NF Stillaguamish and Snohomish/Snoqualmie) were likely to most limiting on 2024 salmon seasons and the amount of salmon fishing opportunities. Typically, in that case since most of salmon opportunity occurs in marine mixed stock areas the non-treaty share of the most limiting stock reaches a 50/50 sharing between the treaty and non-treaty users. On the other stocks there potentially can be additional balancing of impact sharing in freshwater areas - again typically as additional salmon opportunity in the freshwater.

In short it was pretty obvious by the first of March 2024 with the Snohomish stock being most limiting it was unlikely that the non-treaty would not be able to use up to 50% of the allowable of the other stocks. How was that potential Stillaguamish useable impacts (less than 50%) was used?

It is my understanding that for the Stillaguamish freshwater fisheries the allowable impacts were increased from 2 to 3 - that is a total of 30 encounters. This should provide for a long season. Initially the proposed freshwater season were a main stem season from 9/29 through October 31 (a coho season) and a 9/21 to October 31 North Fork (a game fish season). Late in the process the game fish season was modified to a starting day of 9/16, the same as in 2023. It was announced in the morning calls during the final stage of NOF that the final sharing of Stillaguamish impacts was 59 on the non-treaty side and 64 on the Tribal side. While we can bet if the Department of Salmon could have figured out a way to use any of those impacts for even a few days of additional marine salmon fishing they would have done so.

Some it appears that using even one of those impacts for an enhanced NF game fishing opportunity either did not occur to the State or it was not worth pursuing. I suggested that use of a portion of that to either starting the game fish season earlier or extend the fishery upstream both of which would have provided increase opportunities but that was clearly too late in the process.

Double frustrating, not only was increased opportunity was lost the chance to monitoring a different season structure to assess potential Chinook impacts might be that increase opportunity. That new piece of information might have proven critical in planning any future expansion game fish seasons.

Curt

 

[SeaRunner]

Returning to Stillaguamish game fish opportunities.

At the first NOF it was announced that several Chinook stocks (SF Nooksack, Skagit summers, NF Stillaguamish and Snohomish/Snoqualmie) were likely to most limiting on 2024 salmon seasons and the amount of salmon fishing opportunities. Typically, in that case since most of salmon opportunity occurs in marine mixed stock areas the non-treaty share of the most limiting stock reaches a 50/50 sharing between the treaty and non-treaty users. On the other stocks there potentially can be additional balancing of impact sharing in freshwater areas - again typically as additional salmon opportunity in the freshwater.

In short it was pretty obvious by the first of March 2024 with the Snohomish stock being most limiting it was unlikely that the non-treaty would not be able to use up to 50% of the allowable of the other stocks. How was that potential Stillaguamish useable impacts (less than 50%) was used?

It is my understanding that for the Stillaguamish freshwater fisheries the allowable impacts were increased from 2 to 3 - that is a total of 30 encounters. This should provide for a long season. Initially the proposed freshwater season were a main stem season from 9/29 through October 31 (a coho season) and a 9/21 to October 31 North Fork (a game fish season). Late in the process the game fish season was modified to a starting day of 9/16, the same as in 2023. It was announced in the morning calls during the final stage of NOF that the final sharing of Stillaguamish impacts was 59 on the non-treaty side and 64 on the Tribal side. While we can bet if the Department of Salmon could have figured out a way to use any of those impacts for even a few days of additional marine salmon fishing they would have done so.

Some it appears that using even one of those impacts for an enhanced NF game fishing opportunity either did not occur to the State or it was not worth pursuing. I suggested that use of a portion of that to either starting the game fish season earlier or extend the fishery upstream both of which would have provided increase opportunities but that was clearly too late in the process.

Double frustrating, not only was increased opportunity was lost the chance to monitoring a different season structure to assess potential Chinook impacts might be that increase opportunity. That new piece of information might have proven critical in planning any future expansion game fish seasons.

Curt

It does seem like this year was an ideal year for 1:1 trading of Stillaguamish impacts in freshwater fisheries to achieve the 50/50 sharing that we've been told is very important to the Stillaguamish Tribe. I wonder if there are other reasons for the State apparently not pursuing that. I question the State's ability to conduct the various fisheries monitoring it has agreed to and wonder whether that is an unspoken limiter to expansion, both in freshwater and marine fisheries. I wonder how open the Stillaguamish Tribe is to expanded fisheries on the river even when the numbers might suggest it would be feasible. Finally, it appears to me that the State is terrified of the Stillaguamish payback provision in the new management plan and I wonder if they prefer to leave a few impacts as "buffer". If that is the case I wonder what the opportunity cost of that approach will be over time.

I share your frustration on the inability or unwillingness of the comanagers to test different season structures. My understanding is that is a core tenant of adaptive management, something which I believe I have heard the State say they support.

 

[Smalma]

The tribe has not been an enthusiastic about freshwater fishing seasons and have demanded monitoring of any such fisheries. This is fair enough but in that framework I will continue to believe not taking advantage of additional impact or two to test the potential impact of a new season structure was an opportunity missed.

WDFW has voiced their desire to avoid of going over the 50% mark and being in a position to have to pay back any overage. However there has been no mention of any benefit of being under that mark.

When I looked at how the State did in managing the 2023 Chinook seasons and not exceeding the limiting impacts in various fishery I can see cause for worry. For the various fishery the frequency of the exceedance of 100% of limiting factor is not a great picture.

curt

 

[SeaRunner]

The tribe has not been an enthusiastic about freshwater fishing seasons and have demanded monitoring of any such fisheries. This is fair enough but in that framework I will continue to believe not taking advantage of additional impact or two to test the potential impact of a new season structure was an opportunity missed.

WDFW has voiced their desire to avoid of going over the 50% mark and being in a position to have to pay back any overage. However there has been no mention of any benefit of being under that mark.

When I looked at how the State did in managing the 2023 Chinook seasons and not exceeding the limiting impacts in various fishery I can see cause for worry. For the various fishery the frequency of the exceedance of 100% of limiting factor is not a great picture.

curt

No disagreement on it being an opportunity missed.

I'm not sure that a fishery going over one of the various fishery controls is too much cause for concern in this context assuming that it is exploitation rates that really matter. State fisheries have frequently exceeded various NOF controls over the past several years and yet the Stillaguamish provision was still met in the evaluation this past winter. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that at least some of the fishery controls coming out of NOF are not critical to that evaluation. The interplay between the various fishery controls that come out of NOF and the exploitation rate management in the chinook management plan is interesting to me. For instance, the modeled vs actual exploitation rates when a 6 week fishery is cut down to just a handful of days due to impacts on marked sublegal chinook. At times it feels as though two different languages are being used.

 

[Smalma]

Recently received from Region IV WDFW enforcement staff; in 2023 on the Stillaguamish/NF/SF there were 67 tickets written and 39 warnings issued.

In 2023 they were short staffed but with a transfer and a new hire they will soon be at full staffing.

Curt

 

[Dr. Magill]

Recently received from Region IV WDFW enforcement staff; in 2023 on the Stillaguamish/NF/SF there were 67 tickets written and 39 warnings issued.

In 2023 they were short staffed but with a transfer and a new hire they will soon be at full staffing.

Curt

I wonder what the infractions were

 

[HauntedByWaters]

Recently received from Region IV WDFW enforcement staff; in 2023 on the Stillaguamish/NF/SF there were 67 tickets written and 39 warnings issued.

In 2023 they were short staffed but with a transfer and a new hire they will soon be at full staffing.

Curt

This makes me feel good! That is a lot of tickets and a lot of people who may think twice next time.

 

[_WW_]

Recently received from Region IV WDFW enforcement staff; in 2023 on the Stillaguamish/NF/SF there were 67 tickets written and 39 warnings issued.

In 2023 they were short staffed but with a transfer and a new hire they will soon be at full staffing.

Curt

Are all of these game violations? As we know from watching them on TV they do other things too.

 

[Smalma]

SkyRunner in post #73 you questioned "...the state's ability to conduct the various fisheries monitoring it has agreed to..."

The state certainly has the tools to monitor those various fisheries, A solid statistical model (that has been reviewed a number of times), funding for test fishing to get sublegal, unmarked portion, etc. in the fishery, funding/manpower to adequately sample the fishery (more than 20% of the effort?). The real question are they able to efficiently use those tools. Here is a quick summary of this past season upon which you may be able to answer that question yourself.

Summer fisheries
MA 5 limited by 7,254 legal size encounters with the fishery taking 104%.
MA 6 limited by 11,516 legal size encounters; after a full 6-week season taking 86%.
MA 7 limited by 2,541 sublegal encounters with the fishery taking 106%.
MA 9 limited by a 4,300 harvest quota with the fishery taking 106%.
MA 10 limited by 7,748 sublegal encounters with the fishery taking 117%.
MA 11 in June limited by 259 unmarked encounters with the fishery taking 115%.
MA 11 in July limited by 3,845 sublegal encounters with the fishery taking 97%.
Winter
MA 5 limited by sublegal encounters with the fishery taking 98%.
MA 10 limited 4,953 total encounters with the fishery taking 145% (also took 125% of the unmarked encounters).
MA 11 limited by 259 unmarked encounters with the fishery taking 155%.

Curt