I'm being taken to task on the accuracy of that opening assertion.

In all fairness, I'll take this opportunity to clarify the statement to prevent fracturing what has been a mutually beneficial dialogue with Region 6.

For the record, WDFW came into the discussion with grave concerns for chinook impacts in MA 2-2. While the Tier Plan specified a start date of Sept 16 to target coho, WDFW was uncomfortable with the potential chinook impact with that opening date AND the broad access to chinook encounters over the ENTIRE customary fishing zone. WDFW proposed an Oct 1 start date with a lower MA2-2 deadline at Stafford Creek (Prison Water Tower).

I countered that the Plan clearly states an opener no later than Sept 16 and that an Oct 1 opener was unacceptable, especially given the abundance of harvestable hatchery coho in that area in the last two weeks of September. An October 1 opener was simply too much forgone harvest opportunity for the recreational community to bear. Certain gillnetters countered that the only thing in the bay at that time was chinook and that's all the rec guys were there to catch. Good thing I came armed with previous years' fishing logs and a mess of supporting fish porn to corroborate the abundance of said coho.... and caught during what is some of the best weather Grays Harbor has to offer all year! Squandering that kind of opportunity would be criminal!

I also raised objections to the Stafford Creek line... reduced area = reduced harvest opportunity on abundant hatchery coho. There simply was no justification for it.

Phil Anderson made it VERY clear that if a Sept 16 opener was going to happen, sports would NOT get the entire bay if the simultaneous objective of chinook conservation was to be achieved. He was willing to give on timing, but sports would have to be willing to give on area. He struck the Goal Posts off the list of potential deadlines. I suggested he strike Stafford off the list in turn. The three big remaining landmarks were the Johns River mouth, the Farm House, and the Cell Tower near the O'Leahry Creek mouth.

After considerable negotiating with the entire group, it was gonna come down to either O'Leahry Creek or the Cell Tower a few hundred yards west. The competing points came down to which landmark would better facilitate compliance/enforcement. Points favoring the Cell Tower were its large physical presence (easily identifiable even from a long distance), and the blinking strobe at its apex making it more readily identifiable in poor viz conditions (rain, clouds, fog) particularly for those without sophisticated electronics. Points in favor of O'Leahry Creek were the fact that it is actually a charted geographic landmark and ??? (I sure as hell couldn't think of any others.... not sure WDFW could either)

I left the meeting for a surgical conference in Seattle before a final decision was made... but hey, y'all know the final outcome now.

So getting back to the original intent of this post.....

Reducing the fishing area in MA 2-2 was the brainchild of WDFW Arriving at the O'Leahry Creek line was the product of bipartisan compromise.

And it's in that bipartisan spirit that we should all engage this NOF process. Nobody gets everything on the wish list. If you want to get something you like, be prepared to give a little, too.

Truce?