Eyefish posted: "When one considers that the principle objective of the policy is conservation/recovery of a self-sustaining wild chinook population, choosing Willlapa/Forks as the primary stream is still arguably the better choice in giving the agency the best opportunity for success."

Ignoring for the moment Carcassman's excellent strong point that WB historically never was a Chinook ecosystem (it was far and away coho and chum dominant), let's examine the assertion that Willapa/Forks as primary over Naselle is the better opportunity for success. I don't see how this could be possible. My familiarity with the habitats throughout the WB watersheds is admittedly less than I would like, but I think Geoduck agrees that habitat quality in Naselle for natural Chinook production is better than the Willapa River.

Eyefish, I think you have agreed with me that naturally self-sustaining Tule Chinook recovery in the LCR tributaries is functionally impossible given the current habitat conditions in those streams and the prospective habitat conditions over the next 50 to 100 years. The Willapa River is the same. The lowland habitat areas are managed for intensive agriculture, and the uplands are in sustainable tree farm forestry management. This means that for the foreseeable future, stream channel simplification and heavy fine particle sedimentation that causes low egg to fry survival will preclude fall Chinook recovery to that natural self-sustaining level that includes production of harvestable numbers of adult fish.

Now, the Naselle River is hardly pristine, and ag and forestry are still the main land uses in that watershed as well. However, I think the basin's geomorphic character includes a higher average gradient and somewhat lower degree of sedimentation in the areas where Chinook would spawn. I don't know if the habitat quality is good enough to satisfy the recovery standard, but I think its probability is arguably better than that of the Willapa. If I am wrong about any of this, please do correct and educate me.

There are additonal practical considerations that argue against Willapa/Forks as primary. The Naselle hatchery has been problematic since it opened back in 1978 or 79. The weir is not successful in separating returning hatchery and "wild" Chinook. The Willapa/Forks hatchery has had significant improvements and is the best salmon fish culture station in WB. Closing the Naselle hatchery is in the best interests of WA taxpayers and fishing license buyers and would certainly facilitate designating Naselle as primary for natural Chinook production.

Which begs the question, why should any WB tributary be managed as "primary" for natural Chinook production when the WB is not ecologically oriented for or particularly suited to natural Chinook production?

So now I'm going to take a soapbox moment. Absent hatchery Chinook, there would be no commercial fishery for Chinook in WB because WB doesn't and cannot produce significant numbers of natural Chinook and especially it cannot do so at terminal harvest levels. So why even produce hatchery Chinook in WB? Most of the harvest accrues to BC (and possibly AK, but I think mainly BC). The welfare hatchery subsidy to the terminal commercial gillnetters has to come to an end some day. And with WDFW's ongoing and probably perpetual budget issues, ending or phasing out to end the subsidy is economically and socially justified.

If it pencils out, WDFW should culture hatchery Chinook in WB to support the terminal area recreational fishery. And it should do so at the best facility which is Willapa/Forks.

OK, off the soapbox.

Sg