Another's letter to the Commission & Director

Dear Commissioners and Director,

I am writing to provide feedback on the ongoing Willapa bay salmon rule change and policy revision. I have followed the management of Willapa bay fisheries for 20 years and served as a WB recreational advisor in the past during the initial Willapa bay policy development process. As a recreational angler for salmon, I view the process through the prism of angler opportunity and have advocated for a Willapa bay policy that maximizes economic benefits while achieving the Fish and Wildlife Commission’s stated conservation goals.

The Director’s recent comments in the press would suggest WDFW staff is mystified by a dearth of public support for the agency. Even a casual examination of the Willapa bay process over the past decade should place the reasons clearly in focus. Unlike other most other salmon management situations in the state, WDFW has sole responsibility for WB salmon management and it is obvious and unmitigated fisheries management disaster. Worse, WDFW seems committed to maintaining the status quo. Chinook management on WB seems the most obvious failing of WDFW to me.

As written the Willapa bay Salmon policy for chinook is an abject failure for many reasons:

· It fails to optimize the economic benefits of limited natural origin chinook impacts.
· It lacks basis in biological reality with overly optimistic escapement goals for chinook.
· It was formulated in the absence of critical habitat evaluation of the Naselle and Willapa Rivers.
· It fails to implement an actual recreational priority, but rather eliminates recreational fishing.

While the veneer of conservation language might suggest to naïve readers that strong conservation goals have been set, it has been clear from the outset that they are unattainable and have little basis in biological reality. For example, the data used to formulate the policy was mostly derived from a time prior to mass marking of hatchery chinook in WB hatcheries. So for instance, the data to derive realistic escapement goals was lacking at the outset. Likewise, despite repeated advisor requests for comparative quantitative habitat analysis, primary stream and contributing stream designations were made in the absence of contemporary habitat considerations. Furthermore, coded wire tag data clearly showing that the recreational catch was mostly composed of hatchery origin Forks Creek hatchery fish was disregarded counter to the state objectives of the policy of having a recreational priority. Taken together this lack of science driven decision making necessitates a full reconsidering of stream designations and revision of the policy to meet the Commission’s stated objectives for Willapa bay chinook management.

The consideration of what a meaningful recreational priority for chinook management might look like is also important because historically, Willapa bay has long been the top small boat marine chinook fishing destination in a state with very few remaining chinook fishing destinations. While the policy has been successful in mitigating gear conflict, which is an important aspect of recreational priority, it has done so at the expense of maintaining the one key hatchery stock (Fork’s Creek) making up the majority of marine recreational catch. As production has tapered back at Fork’s Creek, marine angler success has plummeted. Some Willapa bay advisors suggest that the recreational fleet move south in the bay to follow the fish, but these fish are largely inaccessible to the recreational fleet due to intense weeds, navigational hazards, swift currents, shoals, and long runs from primitive launches exposed to strong winds. Combined with a relative isolation from marine infrastructure (harbors, launches, emergency services) these hazards will contribute to significant risk to the typical small boat angler and will dramatically decrease the accessibility and safety of the fishery.
To conclude, it is clear that a significant revision of the Willapa Bay chinook policy is needed. If a recreational priority is to be an important piece of that revision, the primary stream designation should be shifted back to the Naselle River and hatchery chinook production restored at the Forks Creek hatchery. At the very least a biological evaluation of the stream designation is essential.

As a devoted recreational angler, I have previously spent all my recreational time, effort, and money in the state of Washington. And usually 2+ weeks of the summer on Willapa bay. However, given the declining state of summer fishing opportunity, I am switching more of that time, effort, and especially money to neighboring states that value and support recreational angling opportunities for salmon and other gamefish. If the trajectory of WDFW policy decisions continue to deemphasize angling opportunity, I will stop angling in this state altogether.

Sincerely,