So how did the Adviser meeting go? Interesting to what the he-- is my read so the high points.

1. Ron Warren outlined that the QIN had obtained grants to do a biological assessment for Chinook escapement needs and that PFMC had agreed to the results. Simply put the accumulative escapement goals for Grays Harbor Chinook are to be reduced. Going to mean some real changes for the future harvest allocations for both treaty and non treaty.

2. WDF&W staff hoped to develop harvest options to take to the public but not sure that was accomplished. On the Rec side the Adviser's went right at the harvest model to overlay the new policy guidelines to see what was possible this season. Not so much on the commercial side. They had problems with the guidelines, new selective fishery mortalities rates, and in general staying real as to what was possible in the model.

3. Considerable disagreement emerged over the fact that in Grays Harbor & Willapa a drop out rate has not been utilized for either Rec or Commercial nets ( both QIN or NT Nets ). Agency staff preference was to let it ride and fix it next year. That I and others objected to but some agreed with the staff thoughts. In the end the Commercials came to put the drop out rates in also so the issue is undecided at this moment. One of those you know the impact number is incorrect, lot of effort to fix it ( agency thoughts ) so to fix or not is the question left on the table.

4. Now a real failure. This past year the Adviser meetings were opened to the public for citizens to set in and observe the process and comment at the end. That was a good thing but it left some citizens not familiar to the process ... ah confused? Nah lets tell it like it is ticked off. I think, incorrect, know that it appeared to some non Advisers that a group of Advisers were setting down and dividing up the harvest. Now that criticism was probably valid in the past but not so much presently. All Region 6 was attempting to do is take input to get the new harvest guidelines flushed out with options that the public could review and comment on AND provide additional input on good / bad / otherwise.

That was not communicated properly or reinforced as the meeting progressed resulting in confusion and anger. How WDF&W communicates exactly the process underway to the public needs to be addressed. The old way of doing things is history but if your a citizen not familiar with allocation of harvest and how all public input gathered and it is not clearly defined then confusion followed by anger is pretty much the reaction most folks will have. That is unfortunate and Region 6 staff need to address it sooner than later.