I thought this subject needed a thread. The Willapa Policy review has been contentious at times. Due to Commission input the schedule has been extended to December. Below is the policy and the items in red are the Commission questions. There is much more to this but this will do for now.

POLICY TITLE: Willapa Bay Salmon Management POLICY NUMBER: C-3622

Cancels or Effective Date: June 13, 2015
Supersedes: NA Termination Date: December 31, 2023

See Also: Policies C-3608, C-3619 Approved June 13, 2015 by: Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission


Purpose
The objective of this policy is to achieve the conservation and restoration of wild salmon in Willapa Bay and avoid ESA designation of any salmon species . Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the commercial and recreational fishing industry in the state, provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences , and an appropriate distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Willapa Bay Basin . Enhanced transparency, information sharing, and improved technical rigor of fishery management are needed to restore and maintain public trust and support for management of Willapa Bay salmon fisheries.

Definition and Goal
This policy sets a general management direction and provides guidance for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) management of all Pacific salmon returning to the Willapa Bay Basin. The Willapa Bay Basin is defined as Willapa Bay and its freshwater tributaries.

General Policy Statement
What are the aggregate fishery impact rates and status of achieving the conservation goals of each species in the four years of policy implementation in comparison to the four-year period prior to the policy adoption?
What populations of salmon were in need of restoration during the four years prior to Policy adoption and what is their current status? (Note the distinction between population status restoration and habitat restoration as referenced in Question 10.)
What is the pattern of abundance for all areas in the ESU of each species in the 20 years prior to Policy adoption and has that pattern changed as a result of Policy C-3622 implementation?
What is the average ex-vessel value of the commercial fishery landings in the four years of policy implementation in comparison to a four-year base period prior to the policy adoption, normalized to eliminate the variations in annual run sizes and annual price per pound?
What is the number of angler trips during the four years of policy implementation in comparison to a four-year base period prior to the policy adoption, normalized to eliminate the variability of annual run sizes?
Is there a discernable measurement to show if there has been any change in non-fishing related outdoor recreational experiences available to the public? If so, does it show that this policy intent was achieved, or that there has been a change in such recreational opportunity since the Policy was adopted?
What has been the change in the distribution of fishing effort throughout the Willapa Bay Basin during 2015-18 in comparison to the four-year period prior to Policy adoption?
This policy provides a cohesive set of principles and guidance to promote the conservation of wild salmon and steelhead and improve the Department’s management of salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) recognizes that management decisions must be informed by fishery monitoring (biological and economic), and that innovation and adaptive management will be necessary to achieve the stated purpose of this policy . By improving communication, information sharing, and transparency, the Department shall promote improved public support for management of Willapa Bay salmon fisheries.

State commercial and recreational fisheries will need to increasingly focus on the harvest of abundant hatchery fish. Mark-selective fisheries are a tool that permits the harvest of abundant hatchery fish while reducing impacts on wild stocks needing protection. As a general policy, the Department shall implement mark-selective salmon fisheries , unless the wild populations substantially affected by the fishery are meeting spawner (e.g., escapement goal) and broodstock management objectives. In addition, the Department may consider avoidance, alternative gears, or other selective fishing concepts along with other management approaches provided they are as or more effective than a mark-selective fishery in achieving spawner and broodstock management objectives.

Fishery and hatchery management measures should be implemented as part of an “all-H” strategy that integrates hatchery, harvest, and habitat systems. Although the policy focuses on fishery management, this policy in no way diminishes the significance of habitat protection and restoration.

Guiding Principles
The Department shall apply the following principles in the management of salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin:

1) Prioritize the restoration and conservation of wild salmon through a comprehensive, cohesive, and progressive series of fishery, hatchery, and habitat actions.

2) Work with our partners (including Regional Fishery Enhancement Groups, nonprofit organizations, the public and Lead Entities) to protect and restore habitat productivity .

3) Implement improved broodstock management (including selective removal of hatchery fish) to reduce the genetic and ecological impacts of hatchery fish and improve the fitness and viability of salmon produced from Willapa Bay rivers (see Hatchery and

Over the course of the first four years of Policy implementation, has there been any adaptive changes to the management prescribed in the 2015 Policy as written? If so, describe the change and when it occurred, the rationale for the change, and if the change accomplished the objective.
What mark-selective fisheries have been implemented since Policy adoption that were not in place prior to Policy adoption?
What habitat restoration projects were implemented after Policy adoption as a result of this Policy? (Note the distinction between habitat restoration and population status restoration as referenced in Question 2.)
Are there HGMPs for the hatcheries in the Willapa Bay Basin? If so, insert a link in the analysis.

Fishery Reform Policy C-3619). Achieve Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) broodstock management standards for Coho and Chum salmon by 2015 , and work toward a goal of achieving standards for Chinook salmon by 2020 .

4) Investigate and promote the development and implementation of alternative selective gear. The development of alternative selective gear may provide an opportunity to target fishery harvests on abundant hatchery fish stocks, reduce the number of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas, limit mortalities on non-target species and stocks, and provide commercial fishing opportunities.

5) Work through the Pacific Salmon Commission to promote the conservation of Willapa Bay salmon and, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, pursue the implementation of fishery management actions necessary to achieve agreed conservation objectives.

6) Within the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) process, support management measures that promote the attainment of Willapa Bay conservation objectives consistent with the Council’s Salmon Fishery Management Plan.

7) Monitoring, sampling, and enforcement programs will adequately account for species and population impacts (landed catch and incidental fishing mortality) of all recreational and commercial fisheries and ensure compliance with state regulations. Develop and implement enhanced enforcement strategies to improve compliance with fishing regulations and ensure orderly fisheries.

8) If it becomes apparent that a scheduled fishery will exceed the aggregated pre-season natural-origin Chinook mortality (impact) expectation, the Department shall implement in-season management actions in an effort to avoid cumulative mortalities of natural-origin Chinook in excess of the aggregated pre-season projection.

9) Salmon management and catch accounting will be timely, well documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable. The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements in the transparency of fishery management and for effective public involvement in planning Willapa Bay salmon fisheries, including rule-making processes. These shall include: a) clearly describing management objectives in a document available to the public prior to the initiation of the preseason planning process; b) enhancing opportunities for public engagement during the preseason fishery planning process; c) communicating in-season information and management actions to advisors and the public; and d) striving to improve communication with the public regarding co-management issues that are under discussion.


What are the specific wild broodstock management standards for coho and chum salmon that are referred to, and were they achieved by 2015? If not by then, have they been achieved since 2015? If not, what progress was made of the course of 2015-18 in comparison to a base period prior to Policy adoption?
What are the specific wild broodstock management standards for chinook salmon that are referred to, and what progress was made over the course of 2015-18 in comparison to a base period prior to Policy adoption?

10) monitoring, the development of new tools, and rigorous assessment of fishery models and parameters .

11) When a mark-selective fishery occurs, the mark-selective fishery shall be implemented, monitored, and enforced in a manner designed to achieve the anticipated conservation benefits .
Seek to improve fishery management and technical tools through improved fishery

Fishery and Species-Specific Guidance
Subject to the provisions of the Adaptive Management section, the following fishery-and species-specific sections describe the presumptive path for achieving conservation objectives and an appropriate distribution of fishing opportunities.


Fall Chinook Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage fall Chinook salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following additional guidance:

1) The Department shall initiate a two-phase rebuilding program to conserve and restore wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. The progressive series of actions is intended to result in achieving broodstock management standards by 2020 and spawner goals by years 16-21. Within the conservation constraints of the rebuilding program, Chinook salmon will be managed to provide for a full recreational fishing season with increased participation and/or catch anticipated in future years .

2) Rebuilding Program - Phase 1 (Years 1-4). The objectives of Phase 1 shall be to increase the number of natural-origin spawners and implement hatchery program modifications designed to meet broodstock management standards in the subsequent cycle.

a. Implement hatchery broodstock management actions to promote re-adaptation to

With the understanding that department staff as a whole is constantly in a mode of incorporating improvements in technical fishery management capabilities as new approaches or refinements are vetted, even when minor, what are the three most significant advancements in technical fishery management capabilities for Willapa Bay salmon over the course of the Policy to date? If less than three, state any that fit a threshold of reasonably high significance.
With cross reference to question 9, what has been the conservation benefit from mark-selective fisheries newly implemented as a result of this Policy, and how do they compare to the benefits anticipated when the new fishery regulations were set?
Has there been any recreational fishing closures from normally open seasons for chinook salmon over the course of 2015-18, what are the angler trip and catch estimates for the recreational fishery for chinook salmon 2015-18, and how do they compare with the four years prior to adoption of this Policy?
Has there been an increase in the overall number of natural-origin chinook spawners in the Willapa basin, or an increase in specific river systems?

the natural environment and enhance productivity of natural-origin Chinook salmon in the North/Smith, Willapa, and Naselle rivers:

• North/Smith – Manage as Wild Salmon Management Zone with no hatchery releases of Chinook salmon.

• Willapa – Implement an integrated program with hatchery broodstock management strategies designed to achieve broodstock management standards consistent with a Primary designation in the subsequent cycle .

• Naselle – Implement hatchery broodstock strategies designed to achieve broodstock management standards consistent with a Contributing designation in the subsequent cycle .

b. Pursue implementation of additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear to enhance conservation and provide harvest opportunities. The Department shall provide to the Commission by January 2017 a status report and by January 2018 an assessment of options to implement additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear in Willapa Bay. The assessment shall identify the likely release mortality rates for each gear type, the benefits to rebuilding naturally spawning populations, and the benefits and impacts to the commercial fishery .

3) Rebuilding Program - Phase 2 (Years 5 – 21). The combination of fishery and harvest management actions is projected to result on average in the achievement of spawner goals for the North, Naselle, and Willapa populations in the years 16-21. Additional fishery and hatchery management actions will be considered during this time period if the progress toward the spawner objectives is inconsistent with expectations.

4) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Achieve spawner goals for the North, Naselle, and Willapa stocks of natural-origin Chinook and hatchery reform broodstock objectives through the two phase rebuilding program described above.

b. Provide for an enhanced recreational fishing season. The impact rate of the recreational fishery is anticipated to be ~3.2% during the initial years of the

What is the working definition of an “integrated program” and a “Primary designation” in this situation and what modifications of the hatchery program were implemented during 2015-18 to achieve the objective of this paragraph?
What is the working definition of a “Contributing designation” in this situation and what modifications of the hatchery program were implemented during 2015-18 to achieve the objective of this paragraph?
Were the 2017 report and the 2018 assessment of options completed and if so, what are the highlights of the reports? The links to these reports should be included in the analysis.

policy, but may increase in subsequent years to provide for an enhanced recreational season as described below:

• Manage Chinook salmon for an enhanced recreational fishing season to increase participation and/or catch including consideration of increased daily limits, earlier openings, multiple rods, and other measures .

• Conservation actions, as necessary, shall be shared equally between marine and freshwater fisheries.

c. Provide opportunities for commercial fisheries within the remaining available fishery impacts.

5) Fishery Management in 2015-2018. To facilitate a transition to the Willapa River as the primary Chinook salmon population, fisheries during the transition period will be managed with the following goal:

a. The impact rate on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin fall Chinook in Willapa Bay fisheries shall not exceed 20% . Within this impact rate cap, the priority shall be to maintain a full season of recreational fisheries for Chinook salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin.

b. To promote the catch of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon and increase the number of natural-origin spawners, within the 20% impact rate cap the following impact rates shall be set-aside for mark-selective commercial fishing gear types with an anticipated release mortality rate of less than 35% :


Fishing Year Mark-Selective Commercial Fishing Gear Set-Aside
2015 1%
2016 2%
2017 6%
2018 6%

The Commission may consider adjustments to the set-asides for 2017 and 2018 based upon the Department’s reports to the Commission on commercial mark-

What has been the chinook recreational fishery impact rate 2015-18 and the four years prior to Policy adoption?
What changes in these recreational fishery management measures occurred during 2015-18, from the four-year period prior to Policy adoption?
What are the actual aggregate Willapa Bay chinook impact rates that occurred 2015-18, in comparison to the four years prior to Policy implementation?
What were the actual annual pre-season planned impact rate set-asides for mark selective commercial fishing gear and what were the actual post-season impact rates that occurred, over the course of 2105-18, in comparison to the set-asides called for in the Policy?

selective fishing gear (paragraph 2(b)) or other adaptive management considerations.

c. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2T and 2U prior to September 16.

d. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R until after Labor Day.

6) Fishery Management After 2018. Fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will be managed with the goal of:

a. Limiting the fishery impact rate on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin fall Chinook salmon to no more than 14%.

b. No commercial fisheries shall occur within areas 2T and 2U prior to September 16.

c. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R until after September 7.

7) Maintaining Rebuilding Trajectory. If the postseason estimate (as presented at the annual Commission review) of aggregated natural-origin Chinook salmon mortality (impacts) exceeds the preseason projection, the Department staff shall make a recommendation to the Commission regarding an adjustment to the allowable impacts for the subsequent year . The recommendation shall be based upon the percentage by which the postseason estimate of impacts exceeded the preseason projection, but may consider other factors such as the predicted abundance or other relevant factors .

8) Hatchery Production. Within budgetary constraints, and at the earliest feasible date, the Department shall seek to implement the following hatchery production of fall Chinook salmon:

• 0.80 million at Naselle Hatchery
• 3.30 million at Nemah Hatchery
• 0.35 million at Forks Creek Hatchery


Coho Salmon
What has been the staff understanding of the policy intent of this provision?
What is an example of how this provision would have been implemented, and was it ever implemented 2015-18?
What are the actual fall chinook production and release location specifics for the hatcheries listed and how does this compare to the four years prior to Policy adoption?

Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage Coho salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:

1) Broodstock Management Strategies. Manage Coho salmon with the following designations and broodstock management strategies:

North/Smith Willapa Naselle
Designation Primary Primary Stabilizing
Broodstock Strategy No Hatchery Program Integrated Integrated

Coho salmon returning to all other watersheds will be managed consistent with a Contributing designation.

2) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for Coho salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Manage fisheries with the goal of achieving the aggregate spawner goal for Willapa Bay natural-origin Coho salmon. When the pre-season forecast of natural-origin adult Coho is less than the aggregate goal, or less than 10% higher than the aggregate goal, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return ;

b. Prioritize commercial fishing opportunities during the Coho fishery management period (September 16 through October 14); and

c. Provide recreational fishing opportunities .

Chum Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage Chum salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:

1) Broodstock Management Strategies. Manage Chum salmon with the following designations and broodstock management strategies:

North/Smith Palix Bear
Designation Primary Contributing Primary

What is the working definition of a “Stabilizing” designation in this situation?
Over the course of 2015-18, was the policy intent of this provision achieved, and if the “10% or less” features were used, what were the pre-season and post-season fishery impact rates for those particular years?
Over the course of 2015-18, were recreational fisheries for coho salmon closed for conservation purposes? If so, describe the commercial fishery opportunity in that same year


Broodstock Strategy No Hatchery Program No Hatchery Program No Hatchery Program

Chum salmon returning to all other watersheds will be managed consistent with a Contributing designation.

2) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for Chum salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Achieve the aggregate goal for naturally spawning Chum salmon and meet hatchery reform broodstock objectives (see bullet 3);

b. Provide commercial fishing opportunities during the Chum salmon fishery management period (October 15 through October 31); and

c. Provide recreational fishing opportunities . Recreational fisheries will be allowed to retain Chum salmon.

3) Fisheries will be managed with the goal of achieving the aggregate goal for Willapa Bay naturally spawning Chum salmon. Until the spawner goal is achieved 2 consecutive years, the maximum fishery impact shall not exceed a 10% impact rate and no commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31. If the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years, the Department shall implement the following measures :

a. The predicted fishery impact for Chum in Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return.

b. When the Chum pre-season forecast is 85% or less of the escapement goal, the predicted fishery impact for Chum in Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 5% of the adult return.

4) The Department shall evaluate opportunities to increase hatchery production of Chum salmon. If Chum salmon hatchery production is enhanced, beginning as early as 2018, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin may be implemented with a fishery impact limit of no more than 33% of the natural-origin Chum salmon return.


Adaptive Management

What is the working definition of a “Contributing” designation for the Palix River with no hatchery program in place?
Over the course of 2015-18, were recreational fisheries for chum salmon closed for conservation purposes? If so, describe the commercial fishery opportunity in that same year.
Over the course of 2015-18, was the policy intent of this provision, including 3.a and 3.b, achieved? If any of the fishery impact rate specifications were implemented 2015-18, what were the pre-season and post-season fishery impact rates for those particular years?


The Commission recognizes that adaptive management will be essential to achieve the purpose of this policy. Department staff may implement actions to manage adaptively to achieve the objectives of this policy and will coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions.

The Commission will also track implementation and results of the fishery management actions and artificial production programs in the transition period, with annual reviews beginning in 2016 and a comprehensive review at the end of the transition period (e.g., 2019). Fisheries pursuant to this Policy will be adaptive and adjustments may be made. Department staff may implement actions necessary to manage adaptively to achieve the objectives of this policy and shall coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions.

Components of the adaptive management will be shared with the public through the agency web site and will include the following elements:

1) Conduct Annual Fishery Management Review. The Department shall annually evaluate fishery management tools and parameters, and identify improvements as necessary to accurately predict fishery performance and escapement.

2) Improve In-season Management. The Department shall develop, evaluate, and implement fishery management models, procedures, and management measures that are projected to enhance the effectiveness of fishery management relative to management based on preseason predictions.

3) Review Spawner Goals. The Department shall review spawner goals to ensure that they reflect the current productivity of salmon within the following timelines:

a. Chum: September 1, 2016
b. Coho: January 1, 2016
c. Chinook: January 1, 2020

4) Comprehensive Hatchery Assessment. The Department shall complete a comprehensive review of the hatchery programs in the Willapa Bay region by June 2016 . The review shall identify the capital funding necessary to maintain or enhance current hatchery programs, identify changes in release locations or species that would enhance recreational and commercial fishing opportunities, identify improvements or new weirs to increase compliance with broodstock management, and the use of re-use water systems, water temperature manipulation to increase production hatchery capacity.

What changes, if any, occurred as a result of this review? The analysis should provide the links to these reviews.
What are the most significant results of this review? The analysis should provide the link to this review.


5) Ocean Ranching Opportunities. The Department shall complete by January 2016 a comprehensive review of opportunities and constraints to implement ocean ranching of salmon in Willapa Bay .

Delegation of Authority
The Commission delegates the authority to the Director, through the North of Falcon stakeholder consultation process, to set seasons for recreational and commercial fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin, and to adopt permanent and emergency regulations to implement these fisheries.

This guidance establishes a number of important conservation and allocation principles for the Director and agency staff to apply when managing the fishery resources of Willapa Bay. While this policy establishes a clear presumptive path forward with regard to many of the identified objectives, those principles and concrete objectives are intended to guide decision-making and are not intended to foreclose adaptive management based upon new information. Nor does this guidance preclude the need to gather and consider additional information during the annual process of developing fishery plans and the associated rule-making processes that open fisheries in Willapa Bay. The Commission fully expects that the Director and agency staff will continue to communicate with the public, and the Commission, to consider new information, evaluate alternate means for carrying out policy objectives, and consider instances in which it may make sense to deviate from the presumptive path forward. That is the nature of both adaptive management, and policy implementation, when faced with a dynamic natural environment.

What key opportunity and constraints were identified in this report? The analysis should provide the link to this review

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,

The above letter makes all the sense in the world. I have not been a Willapa Bay activist, but WDFW's WB policy looks like something that was intended from the outset to be as bass-ackwards as possible. The whole idea of managing for significant natural fall Chinook production in an environment that historically and naturally was never a major producer of fall Chinook is a questionable intention. And then to select the Willapa River as the bastion of natural Chinook production, when it has no environmental possibility of ever achieving that status makes a rational person's head spin. At the very least the policy should include environmental analyses of the Willlapa and Naselle basins to assess natural Chinook production feasibility now, and into the future.

I sent a lengthy letter to the Director and Commission in early June listing eight "gripes" pertaining to the Department being stuck in the 20th century and running headlong over the cliff of irrelevancy by working against the interest of recreational angling. Two months later I received an 8-page reply which doubled down on the dumb-foolery that indeed, the Department that is committed to transparency must conduct meetings behind closed doors, and supports recreational fishing by closing several key recreational fisheries lest the treaty tribes object, and spend our tax and license fee dollars to support salmon fishing in Canada and commercial fishing in Washington. And yes, the Department and Commission think it reasonable to expect that we will lobby the Legislature to increase its General Fund appropriation and an increase in recreational license fees to continue the Department's status quo effort that undermines recreational fishing in Washington State. Yee gads.

Probably the next big step in WA will be the creation of private hunting and fishing situations. Create a lake, stock it, charge for fishing. There are already some; will be more. Create more Texas-style hunting ranches. Use exotics. It will, unfortunately, be pay to play but right now it is pay to sit on the sidelines.

It's going to hurt my fishing interests, but the way WDFW is going, instead of asking the Legislature for more WDFW funding, I'm going to lobby against the Department's requested budget increase, and argue for the Legislature to enact a further reduction in the General Fund appropriation. At some point WDFW will have to recognize that biting the hand that feeds it is a really poor business plan.

Have to agree with that sentiment. Sad.

Salmo, do you really think that gutting the wdfw budget and slashing the amount of money they have is going to improve fishing? You are smarter than that. There are a bunch of legislators that would gladly cut the wdfw budget but they aren't going to lift one finger to help your fishing or pressure wdfw to do so. Its nuts to think that having less money for hatcheries or monitoring or enforcement or just day to day business is going to result in a better fishing in the future.

In the shot term, fishing might get worse. But keeping on with SSDD is certainly not going to make things any better.

I have to agree with darth baiter. Without a doubt WDW has lost respect of much of its historic base and has done little to instill confidence that they even care about the fishers and hunters of this state or even demonstrated why any of us should support their budget request. But at the same time I realize that fishing and hunting are become more and more a niche sports that surely will become less important if financial support for traditional programs continue to be decreased.

My assessment is that as interest in the our outdoor activities decrease there is zero chance that this State's legislators will come to our rescue. On there other hand there is the remote chance that WDFW leadership might come to its collectively sense. Doing so will require that they come to grip with their past management mistakes, figure out how to effectively communicate with its potential constitutes, actually follow its own mandates and policies and actually move from a reactive management to one focusing on vision for the future with a proactive management strategy to achieve that vision. And yes I agree that chances of those changes happen are slight but still not zero! That is why I continue to expend significant time trying to move the WDFW management needle in that direction.

That said like many I find myself spending more time recreating out of Washington. For decades a major focus of my fall fishing has been chasing sea-run cutthroat on my home rivers with a fly rod. Now in spite of continued abundant cutthroat populations in those rivers in a few hours I'm leaving for a week of trout fishing on an interior BC lake.

Curt

I believe Salmo's comments represent the frustration that many, many of us feel with the current trends we see coming out of WDFW. For many of us, there is the feeling of being taken advantage of, having carried the burden of the largest portion of financial support, yet seeing decisions and management practices that are not in the recreational fishermen's interest.
Couple this with the fundamental truth that we (individual fishermen) are essentially powerless compared to the tribes and commercial interests, both financial and politically.

This frustration has grown to the point that a lot of recreational fishermen feel helpless and think the only real impact that's left is to "gut" the department with a financial knife. Is it cutting off your nose to spite your face? Yes. Of course the programs that will be cut will be those programs that most benefit the recreational angler. The department has used that tactic to extort the rec's for years. But in reality, what else is there?
Attending all the meetings in the world, showing up and voicing your opinion, getting on the committee's and boards and groups, paying dues to organizations and clubs and associations? I mean, really, most of us have been doing this for years, thousands and thousands of hours and where are we?
There is a fundamental problem with the way in which our "PUBLIC" resources are managed in this state, and that problem is; they are managed for financial gain for a select minority.
As long as politicians can be bought, and our commissioners answer to the tribes and Governor things will not ever be better for the recreational fishermen. We are the majority in population but a meaningless minority as far as political power. And in this day and age, being right means nothing, being powerful means you get what you want.

Just look at the response from WDFW to Salmo. Essentially, we're doing fine, there are no problems that we need to change, and we need more money.

Opportunities have eroded, WDFW seems focused on ocean salmon and the rest can close, the tribes simply dictate what they will allow. What has been accomplished towards recovery of salmon, steelhead, SRKWs that have been listed for close to 20 years? What have they accomplished?

I suspect folks would be more supportive if progress in population rebound and fishery expansion was being seen.

I realize that the problems affecting marine resources include other states and countries, they include the ocean, and there is a lot going on. And it really doesn't seem that we are looking at it all, holistically. WDG started a long-term steelhead life history and population dynamics research program in 1976; what has it found out since it should cover a couple of PDO shifts, el Ninos, la Ninas, increases and decreases in con-rearing salmon. They should have a pretty good idea of what's going on with them.

Other than not providing financial and political support how can one get their attention? Like Bay Wolf, Salmo, and Rivrguy have detailed, they don't intend to change.

Darth baiter,

Cutting WDFW's budget won't improve fishing; not immediately at least. I'm fairly certain of that. My strategy is on a longer game, not near term.

My strategy is aimed at getting WDFW to appreciate where its money comes from, recognizing that fishing license buyers are the principle constituents of its Fish Program, and making clear by example that biting the hand that feeds it is bad business policy. To do so, we have to make the Department hurt in the only way that it recognizes, and that is the budget.

In the near term I expect WDFW, as a reactionary agency, to retaliate by cutting expenses in the area that still benefit recreational angling for anadromous fish. But let's consider a reduction in hatchery funding. At present 72.8% of hatchery funding is for salmon and steelhead, mostly salmon. At present, recreational anglers get pathetically little in return of hatchery steelhead these days, and the lion's share of hatchery salmon accrue to B.C. and WA commercial and treaty fishing, not recreational. We're just about at the point where, as recreational anglers, it's appropriate to ask, "What do we have left to lose?"

I suggested that WDFW audit hatcheries based on their return to WA recreational angling per $ spent. The Department replied that it continually assesses hatchery performance, as if I don't already know that. Of course CWT is used to evaluate SAR and harvest contributions to the various fisheries. But I haven't seen any compilation of how much of the money spent returns to WA sportfishing. Looking at where the most WA sport salmon originate, seems to be the Columbia River (ocean sport, CR and trib. sport) which mainly gets its funding from hydro mitigation and Mitchell Act (federal money), not from WA GF or license fees. I think if WDFW needs to save some money, the first course of action is to shut down or convert hatcheries that return very few fish to WA sport fishers.

BTW, a word about commercial and treaty fishing. First, I'm not opposed to either. I'm simply opposed to subsidizing them when there is no benefit to my sport fishing interest. If NT commercial fishermen want to contribute more financially to the hatchery salmon they harvest, by all means, please do. I'm just not interested in paying for it with my taxes or license fees. Same with treaty fishing, although I understand the special legal status it enjoys.

WDFW does have some leverage that it apparently does not employ. In US - Canada negotiations, WDFW could advance the position that unless a reasonable proportion of the fish WA produces accrue to WA sport fishing, WA will no longer produce those hatchery fish caught by Canada. Same with treaty fishing. While the tribes are entitled to their legal share and allocation, unless a reasonable proportion of the hatchery fish are allowed to accrue to WA sport fishing, then WDFW will no longer produce those hatchery salmon. The tail should not wag the dog. (It has not been legally adjudicated that WA must produce hatchery salmon for treaty fishing, only that treaty fishing rights do apply to those salmon that are produced in hatcheries.)

WA NT commercial and treaty fishermen make up less than 2% of the state population. That means that most of WDFW's funding comes from the other 98% of taxpayers and license purchasers. In a pay-to-play environment, WA sport fishers are being way more than severely short-changed. Unless the equation can be shifted to provide some economic equity to the WA sport fishery, we should simply stop paying to produce most of those salmon that come from the 72.8% of WDFW's hatchery budget.

If WDFW feels sufficient pain, then the possibility exists that it will choose to direct its efforts toward those constituents who provide the Department's money. I don't see that happening without the pain occurring first. Look at it in the context of personal life and relationships: A person tries drugs (GF and abundant license fees) and enjoys the experience and finally becomes addicted and has to steal money from family, friends, and strangers (taxpayers) to continue feeding the habit (hatchery salmon for Canada and commercial fishing). The addict cannot and won't change (rehab) until they hit rock bottom (they lose their job (funding) children leave, spouse divorces them, and just maybe, they finally see that the only positive future is a drug free (spending sport $ on Canada and commercial fishing) lifestyle, where actions do have consequences, so they choose positive actions to achieve positive consequences (funding sufficient to support programs that benefit the people who pay for them).

Or, we can continue along the current pathway, lobby our Legislature for a GF increase, license fee increase, and our reward will be more Puget Sound river recreational fishing closures (ala Stillaguamish & Skokomish) until all PS rivers are closed to sportfishing (a goal of some PS tribes) and even more PS marine water salmon fishing is closed. This is the future, and it is coming to a region and state near you if you live in western WA.

We have choices to make. I don't want to be an activist. I'd rather go fishing. But it's not hard to see that without activism, there will be precious little fishing in the not-to-distant future. When WDFW decides to work for me, I will work for WDFW. Quid pro quo. Pretty simple.

Nailed it salmo. Especially the last two paragraphs.
I've lived in Washington my whole life along with many others here.
We have seen our tax and license money do nothing to help our local fisheries.
I'm with you salmo. The state is not scratching our backs why should we fund them.
If they raise license fees and we loose fisheries, I will sell all my salmon/steel gear. I got way more pride than that. As much as I love to fish, I will not help fund an agency that is not in it for the people that like you said helps fund about 98%.
You guys can give me grief. I will still have my pride and not be pushed over.

It could not have been illustrated better Salmo. However, let me play devils advocate for just a moment.

As eloquent as your argument is, unless there is a paradigm shift in the mindset of the recreational fishing community, where it is believed that "some fishing is better than no fishing", you are yelling in the wilderness. I would imagine it will not be long, before one of these short sited thinkers will post a reply to you that reads something like:

"Go ahead, stop fishing. Leaves more for me."

I don't know what it will take, but we are being killed off slowly and methodically, like the analogy of boiling a frog. And unfortunately, too many guys are so busy trying to catch the last fish, they don't see the mountain disappearing a pebble at a time.

Thats ok I'll have more money in my pocket and have my pride intact.
That means a lot more to me than catching the last coho in the river.
We depend on the state with our funding to help manage our recourses and solve these problems when they arise, that is what we pay them for. All we get in return is smaller fisheries, More closures and shrugged shoulders when we question them.
I understand we all have a little part to play when it comes to protecting our recources wether it small or big.
They have scientists/biologists that are trained to know these problems and taught how to fix them. We shouldn't be the ones to show these guys the answers that are right in front of them, in which they turn the other cheek.
We need a leader that's going to go to bat for the people.
That last paragraph was dead on bay wolf. We need to pray for the west side of WA. It's slowly going in the chitter.
Kind of off topic but another problem by the state that they cannot fix is the population boom over the last 30 years. They have no problem selling all the building permits in the world and clogging up all of our side streets we used to use to avoid the already screwed freeway system here with no more room for road expansion. We have to suffer at the hand of the state and their negligence and greed to rake it all in, at any cost.

I think Smalma hit the nail on the head. The legislature does not care.
The idea that sportsfishermen can motivate our lawmakers is laughable, either for pro or anti-WDFW legislation. I doubt we could collectively lobby as a group for budget cuts and be effective. Unless there is someone willing to pony up lots of lobbying $$$. Generally sportsfishermen don't have that kind of dough.

I also agree with Salmo that very little besides its budget motivates WDFW. Avoiding lawsuits is another apparent motivating factor for WDFW.

Certainly bang for the buck in hatchery production is not a consideration.
Returning back to Willapa bay rather than generic WDFW bashing, it was clear from the outset of the WB policy discussions that the only chinook hatchery producing significant returns for willapa bay marine anglers was forks creek (based on CWT data). Despite this they plowed ahead with the policy we now have that gutted forks creek and said it would not matter due to increased production from the naselle (never mind that Naselle origin CWT contribute almost nothing for the marine catch). Obviously the policy has failed recreational anglers.

The exact scenario Salmo alluded to above is at play in WB right now. The WB hatcheries benefit the Canadian chinook fisheries, Alaska chinook fisheries, private access only in-river chinook fisheries on the Nemah River, and WB gillnet fisheries (in that order). It makes very little sense to pay the freight on these hatcheries for the rank and file recreational marine angler given they have no meaningful access to the fish produced.

Given WDFWs systemic unwillingness to listen to rank and file anglers, I think drastic actions will likely be required to get their attention. I am certainly about done attending advisory groups, NOF meetings, etc. Also, writing letters gets one nothing but platitudes if you are lucky.

I agree that something significantly disruptive will likely be required for WDFW to consider changing the status quo and end the fisheries management malpractice we've been experiencing for the past decade or so. I had hoped that a new director would shake up the agency to address these issues, but his approach appears to be doubling down on status quo. Disappointing.

I think there are two approaches that might yield change, but at high cost:
1. A license purchase boycott
2. Lawsuits

While personally I find both approach # 1 and #2 distasteful, I don't see another path forward that will get WDFW to recognize they are failing us and we pay their bills.

I think either of the above have significant downsides and may have very deleterious unintended consequences. The lobbying approach mentioned above, will almost certainly fail, but even if successful has the same scattershot risk of unintended consequence. Are there other options that might motivate change in the agency without risking its destruction? I have not heard or thought of others that seem workable. Maybe some creative thinking is in order.

thoughts?

Doubt #1 would work as people are people. #2 is the only option that will force change. Every time they break a rule for anything sue their lips off. Nothing else will get any changes.

Oh, it is always about budget but they will never trim back non essential staff. WDFW is so top heavy now a days I am not sure they can let alone know how to shed things that are not necessary. It is not in the agency culture.

I just don’t understand “I’m going to sell all my gear/boat/truck and stop fishing” mindset.

Just fish. Sure, it might send a message if a bunch of recreational anglers stopped buying licenses. That’s step one. Step 2: keep fishing. In big groups, without punch cards or licenses. Make them ticket you and go to court in big groups together.

Why take your ball and go home, when you can have yours and the states ball? I’m not going to quit fishing, neither should you.

Why not start a fb event and have a bunch of unlicensed fisherman fish a local river, in protest to the anti recreational fishing attitude of the WDFW.

It’s not about being a badass. It’s about really sticking it to the state. If you quit, and sell your gear, they win.

Geoduck posted: " The lobbying approach mentioned above, will almost certainly fail, . . ."

This alternative has potential. I believe that because in the last Legislative session (2019), recreational anglers, nudged by CCA, lobbied the Legislature against WDFW's requested General Fund increase, license fee increase, and extension of the Columbia River Endorsement fee. And all three went down in flames. The primary motivator was WDFW and the Commission double-crossing sportfishing by rescinding the 2013 Columbia River policy to phase out non-treaty gillnetting in the lower Columbia River. That action had such horribly bad optics, I'm still astonished that the Department and Commission didn't expect the outcome to be any different than it was.

So lobbying the Legislature has potential. And if we can cause sufficient financial pain to WDFW, and they know who and why it's happening, then that creates the environment where they can decide to change by stop expecting us to pay them to screw over sport fishing for anadromous fish. That does not mean that sport fishing for salmon will be like the good old days, because those days and ocean survival conditions are gone. It does mean that sport fishing for salmon can be better than what they are presently providing, and they can stop closing river fishing at tribal insistence by choosing to get their own NMFS' Section 10 ESA coverage, independent of riding the tribal/BIA Section 7 shirttail.

Salmo,

I hope you're right, but doubt it.

I totally agree that the troutfishing in particular as been victimized by WDFWs refusal to stand up for recreational fishing. The department of salmon moniker that the hunters use really does fit.

Consider that WDFW has eliminated major trout fisheries and even closed lake washingotn spiny ray fishing (!) for the sake of tribal concerns about salmon impacts over the past few years.

The trout fishing issue has been really counter productive considering that the put an take trout fishing in this state pays more license fees than any other activity.

Impunity for bad behavior, it seems, just breeds more bad behavior.

I just happened to go to the Willapa advisory group meeting the other night in Montesano. Funny i heard a couple of sports advisories admit that they were picking the crow out of their teeth.You see it was foolish to put all the production in the south bay. And try and kill the commercial fleet. There's little access to the south bay for sports. And the weather and wind can get you in trouble quickly on that little bay if your home port is Tokeland. I just can't believe people sometimes thinking they pay all the bills at WDFW. When in reality you only pay 28% of WDFW operating budget.And the tax paying non fishing public pays the rest for your sports hobby. I also think it funny how people are going to teach WDFW a lesson and not buy fishing or hunting licenses.Good that means less people on the water and in the woods. And to you Mr. NOAA fisheriers aren't you the one that killed the Cowlitz. With the elimination of the early chambers creek Steelhead that served as a world class fishery for some 60 years.And why would the department even want to work with people that just complain about every move they make.I'll bet you a dollar to a dime that none of the could do a better job. So stop complain and start working together sports, commercial and tribal. For the record i fish with a rod and reel.

*fixed it for you...

My initial inclination was to ignore your post, but since you singled me out for part of it I decided to reply in part, clearly against my better judgement.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that sportfishermen think they pay all the bills that keeps WDFW running, when it's pretty clear that they pay only a fraction, but it's a larger fraction than any other population segment pays. License fees account for 27% of the operating budget (2017-2019). Those are clearly paid by people who purchase hunting and fishing licenses, tags, etc. But license buyers are also taxpayers who contribute to state General Fund monies, so at least 10% of that 21% comes from people who hunt and or fish, with 85 to 90% coming from what I describe as "unengaged" taxpayers, people who pay taxes but don't hunt or fish. Then there's federal money which comes from both users (people who hunt and or fish) and non-users. That is a large chunk of money, some of it is Mitchell Act money that funds state hatcheries on the Columbia River system as mitigation for federal dams. So anglers are part of that taxpaying group. Then there is the Dingell-Johnson federal money, and that all comes from anglers who buy fishing tackle. The upshot is that anglers provides substantially more than 27% of WDFW's operating budget.

What your post doesn't address is why the 85% or more of WA citizens who neither hunt nor fish should have to pay taxes to support hatcheries to raise salmon to be caught in Canada or commercial fishermen in WA as a direct welfare subsidy. How does that make sense? OK, enough about budget and funding.

Do you really think I single handedly "killed" the Cowlitz? For the record, I made sure that TP's license included terms requiring safe, effective, and timely fish passage around its dams, both upstream and downstream. I also made sure that the mitigation requirements included sufficient hatchery production to fill the gap in natural production, measured in 5-year rolling averages based on historical runsizes, and measured in actual adult recruits, not just by smolt production. And those terms were included in the license FERC issued in 2002. So are you holding me responsible for decisions made by other people post license issuance? If so, why?

BTW, the FERC license didn't "kill" the Cowlitz. Survival of both hatchery and wild fish have declined in every river system, both those near the Cowlitz and those quite far away. If you think I have such super-humanly power to influence freshwater and ocean survival factors, that's really something. Thanks, I guess.

Telling people to stop complaining is an attempt to stifle change and ensure the status quo. That's where we get more of the same. Telling sport fishermen to work together with those who stab sportfishing in the back hardly seems like constructive advice.

Bay wolf. You fixed it just like you fix things with Ron Garner.You shoot you mouth off and Ron caught you in your BS.So you pretty much lost all credibility with Ron and PSA.

Salmo g.Please tell us who stab whom in the back.

Chinook 1, if you want to accuse me of something, make it specific and cite some specific evidence to go along with it.

Sg

Too add to Salmo's attempt to educate, the federal DJ and PR funds are collected from a tax levied on hunting and fishing gear. Obviously bought by hunters and fishers. Then, it is disbursed back to the state based on license sales. The DJ/PR funds are used on a 3:1 basis, so reduce license sales and you lose $3 for each $1 from the state.

Great point! DJ/PR are assessed at the wholesale/import level (10%?) and at the 3:1 disbursement ratio provide the State with tremendous leverage.

Salmo g. The Cowlitz at one time produce over 3 million Steelhead of all species early and late winters and summers. Contributing million of dollars to the health of small communities of SW Washington. Today TP obligation is only 1.4 million that's both late winters and summers. In the late 5 years TP hasn't even come close to meeting there obligations on all species. I was sent the minutes of passed FTC committee meeting that you set on back in 2002.I'm not going to dig through them because it's would be frivolous at this point in time. Yes maybe i was a little harsh on you about being the sole killer of the Cowlitz. There was a lot of moving pieces in the settlement agreement back in 2002 and i think Lewis County could have took a harder line in it negotiation of the agreement. Sorry if i got off topic there readers,but i think we all got frustrated about are fisheries and how we can fix them. Chinook 1

Off topic to be sure Chinook 1, but again, for the record, you're incorrect. Steelhead are one species of fish, and the historical number of steelhead upstream of Mayfield Dam was 12,000. 3 million sounds like something made up. TP has no summer steelhead mitigation obligation because historically there was no summer steelhead run of any measurable significance, only winter steelhead. TP's mitigation obligation was clearly spelled out in the 2000 settlement agreement and 2002 license order. The parties to the proceeding later made changes to the agreement that I wouldn't have supported.

Salmo g. You were not there in the 80's when 3 million Steelhead were release from the Blue creek. hatchery. One thing i do not do is make up thing.

I started this thread for the Willapa not to debate Cowlitz history. SG your being trolled so let it go.

I like the Cowlitz debate. Maybe continue it in another topic. I to remember the huge numbers panted and huge returns, only to witness the reduction and loss of both after the agreement under the disguise of wild fish recovery.

Riverguy. No one is trolling Salmo g.He wasn't working on the Cowlitz in the 80's and he's trying to promote starving the department out.Which is what the leadership of CCA is trying to do to are department now. Which is a bad ideas if you truly love hunting and fishing in Washington.You have to remember the department is going through some big changes in leadership.And the old wild fish wackos of the passed commission are ancient history. It's easy to sit behind a key broad and criticize good people,but it's harder to get involved.And when i talk about being involved. I'm talking about going to meeting. Meeting the people that work for the department like i have done over the years. I've even had a one on one with the new director. I'm very impressed with the hard line he's taking with the wolf debacle. Between working on my house and my family. I go to a least 2 sometimes 3 meetings a mouth sometimes more. From commission meetings to advisory group meetings to north of falcon meetings even went to the PFMC meetings this year. I'm pretty involved if you ask my wife.So to you Salmo g if you have a problem with the department suit up and show up.I'm sure the commissioners and the director would like the see you at there next commission meeting.

Chinook 1

Salmo, et al,

Tacoma Light should have an obligation for summer steelhead, because there were, indeed, in significant numbers of summer runs in the Cowlitz prior to Mayfield. I researched this in the early 2000's by talking with old timers from the Mossyrock area. Bob Shaner, now deceased, confirmed the summer run's existence because he caught them way back then. Prior to the dam being put in, the Cowlitz, especially in the summer, was a milky, glacial stream, so surveys, such as they were back then, would have been nearly impossible for accuracy if they even happened at all. (And I'm referring to Shaner's fishing in the 1950-60 era.) Of course Tacoma doesn't want to mitigate for any fish losses. They don't care about fish, just money, and they will weasel out of any obligations that they can. What has happened to the cutthroat program?

Keep up the good work, Salmo, I respect your postings.

For those who follow the Willapa issues please read the rack reports below. Whatever ones views are on the Willapa policy some things are very clear for the future. With Willapa prime WDFW reduced by 90% Chinook production at Forks Cr. hatchery effectively ending the best Chinook hatchery program on the coast and totally destroyed recreational fisheries in the Willapa estuary.

In the southern Willapa hatcheries production was expanded twice with Naselle eggtake goal now at 5 million. Thing is it is doubtful that the Naselle eggtake goal will ever be consistently met as the hatchery cannot get the adults back due to environmental conditions. So condensed version, both the Commercial and Recreational South Willapa Bay fisheries are now headed into the dust bin also.

This is a complex issue but simply put the Willapa hatcheries need to do a reboot. Forks Cr. needs to be the hatchery producing the 5 million Chinook smolt. The Nemah needs to maintain a solid production of Chinook with all that can be transferred to Forks Cr. to help jump start Forks Cr then return to its current production level in 4 years. Naselle Chinook production should be reduced to meet the environmental conditions ( around 800,000 ) and any eggtake above those needs transferred to Forks Cr, again to jump start the Chinook program. Why WDFW chose to add 2,500,000 smolt for Orca's to the Naselle Chinook production when they had little or no chance of actually producing them is a mystery. Hopefully they are not using the bookkeeping switch to use Orca monies to pay for existing production.

The final piece of the puzzle is that the WDFW Director and Commission need come to terms and fix this mess. This harvest fight between Rec & Commercial that drove the decision making processes that created the total destruction of the Willapa fisheries needs to be solved once and for all.





Hatchery Rack Returns:
See attached file: 2019 WB Hatchery Chinook Broodstock Summary 10.16.19.xlsx

Naselle Hatchery:
There is a new Chinook program release goal for the Naselle Hatchery starting this year of 5,000,000. Last year’s program release goal was 2,500,000 Chinook. This additional production is directed at increasing prey availability for Southern Resident Killer Whales. To-date, we have spawned 557 female Chinook. To make the new program goal, we still need an additional 1,110 female Chinook. Currently, we have an estimated 200 adult Chinook on-hand in the pond. These fish are a mix of males and females.

Nemah Hatchery:
The Chinook program release goal for the Nemah Hatchery is 3,300,000. To-date, we have spawned 357 female Chinook. To make program goal we still need an additional 743 female Chinook. Currently, we have an estimated 130 adult Chinook on-hand in the pond. These fish are a mix of males and females.

Forks Creek Hatchery:
There is a new Chinook program release goal for Forks Creek Hatchery starting this year of 400,000. Last year’s program release goal was 350,000 Chinook. This additional production is directed at increasing prey availability for Southern Resident Killer Whales. To-date, we have spawned 502 female Chinook. That is enough females to make the program release goal. Currently, we have an estimated 114 adult Chinook on-hand in the facility. These fish are a mix of males and females.

I attended the Commission meetings yesterday and today, but not the Fish sub-committee meeting on Thursday. The Commission are aware they have a Willapa Bay problem, so that's a good start. I don't know what, if any, technical recommendations Department staff are making, or going to make, but I hope they will change course and make Forks Ck Chinook production central for WB again. The Willapa will never be a significant natural Chinook producer due to environmental conditions, and designating it as such was a mistake in the first place.

Rivrguy-
Thanks for the update on the WB chinook brood stock goals!

With a goal of 8.7 million fry release I would think the hatcheries would have to take at least 9.5 millions to assure meeting that goal. According to the mid-October WDFW hatchery report the combined egg take for the WB hatcheries was sitting at 4.2 million eggs (from a spawn of 2,857 fish) with enough brood fish on hand to maybe raise the total take to 5 million. At this time of year rack returns should be largely competed (maybe 90% to the hatchery). In short it is looking likely that egg take needs will not be met.

Wonder what WDFW will do if they don't have the eggs for that orca production increase? Return the ear marked funds to the general fund?

Speaking of a Willapa Bay problem according that that hatchery escapement report there has been more than adequate numbers of
Chinook returning to the hatcheries to meet these increase production goals. However of those returning fish the report says that there has been a hatchery mortality of approximately 1,800 fish and another 2,769 fish have been surplused.

Curt

It will depend on just how the actual appropriation reads. If funding for the "whale food" is an actual line item in the budget, then that is all it can be spent on without re-authorization. If it is just folded into the budget it can be moved around.

I recall one year when the Leg had a line item for each hatchery because the agency was believed to get money for A and spend it on B. So, so one year, the budget to the hatcheries was rather fixed.

Need to dig a bit deeper on the number surplussed. If they were surplussing fish, then they either had "enough" to meet goals; that they didn't suggests they were going for the 8.7(9.5)M. Or, they surplussed males as they carry few eggs, which means fecundity was way below planning numbers (smaller fish?).

Egg take goals will NOT be met for WB... even with redistribution of surplus eggs from Forks Creek.

This is the disconnect so many of the meat market terminal wipeout proponents fail to understand about hatch the hell out of 'em / catch the hell out of 'em mantra.

Eggs don't just rain down from heaven like free wealth. Moreover, conditions for returning adults in what are essentially little creeks trickling with bathwater are NOT conducive to high density escapements without significant pre-spawn mortality.

Then there's the pre-spawn mortality from the unscrupulous hen-hunters raping the unborn for bait.

What a mess!

The Willapa Policy (WP) was and is victim to things gone bad. From the beginning it was dependent on commercial fisheries being selective and particularly alternate low mortality harvest methods. Never happened for many reasons all which should have been anticipated. Then additional funding was provided by the legislature to bring the Naselle Chinook production to the 2.5 million release goal to add additional opportunities for both Rec & Commercial interest. With the loss of the north bay fisheries with the Folks Cr. 90% reduction both Rec & Commercial were both going to be primarily in the South Bay. The South Bay lacks infrastructure to support large numbers of Rec fishers and the fishing areas are not user friendly. Same goes for the Commercial fishers. Grass, crabs, sharks, just about everything that makes it difficult for any harvester. The WP also mandated escapement goals for the natural spawners in the Naselle further limiting Commercial harvest as did Rec priority on Chinook.

Simply put you ended up with large numbers of hatchery production adults returning into the unfavorable conditions Doc identified. This results in substantial mortalities of not just the hatchery adults but the wild adults that are mixed in with them. There is no upside to the expanded production of 2.5 million Chinook smolt at Naselle Hatchery. Then WDFW added to another 2.5 million for a total of 5 million Chinook smolt at Naselle for the Orcas. The Nemah does not have natural production concerns but will suffer similar problems keeping returning adults alive for eggtake.

For the sake of discussion let us ask this question. If they make the 5 million eggtake at Naselle what happens when the adults return? The stream and facility cannot handle the much smaller release number returning adults so how can one reasonably expect that they will succeed with nearly double or more?

The Commercials will argue for a expanded wipe out fishery to harvest the adults to insure the stream is not over loaded. The Rec fishers will have a limited impact due to the difficulties outlined. Conservation minded folks will argue stay the course and follow the policy ( which WDFW has not done ) but the problem remains.

Simply put wrong fish, wrong hatchery, wrong place. The Southern bay hatcheries will never escape the circumstances that are causing the current difficulties. The only hatchery in the Willapa Bay that can rear & release large numbers of Chinook smolt and capture returning adults with a high survival rate is Forks Ck. on the Willapa River.

Any objective evaluation will recognize the utter management failure that the new WB policy has been. We took the top small boat chinook recreational chinook fishery and one of the top commercial non-treaty chinook fisheries in the state and have essentially eliminated them both, while spending more money on hatcheries, and realizing no conservation benefit. It is the definition of perfect mismanagement-- they have simultaneously minimized benefit for all competing sectors with their decisions. Who would have thought that was even possible a decade ago?

I am afraid there will be no change in WB until there is a major shakeup in senior management at WDFW. It is clear the senior managers have decided the course is irrevocably set, that facts are irrelevant, and WB fisheries are expendable. That was apparent about 6 years ago and nothing has changed since.

The commission apparently lacks the courage for any substantive change in management approach, so we're stuck with this mess.

The only meaningful recourse would appear to be political or legal. Logic, reason, and data carry no weight at WDFW when it comes to WB.

The whole thing is so very very disappointing.

I've said it before, but management in WB is what WDFW wants to do. It represents the best management, best concepts, the best of everything. They don't have to ask the Tribes' permission, they don't have NOAA, they don't have to deal with Canadian net fisheries as PS does.

Maybe when we badmouth the Tribes and Feds we should ask ourselves if WB is what we want.

Carcassman, seems like another way of saying it that WB equals the very best of WDFW, given that the Department is beholden to no other entity. Now that's just plain scary.

It is Salmo. WB is the best they choose to do. Almost more sad than scary.

Here is the latest from R-6 on the Willapa Hatcheries. One thing everyone should remember is that this year is the last one with adults off the 3.5 million release. Next year it is only the 350k release.

To the question on 2018 egg transfers from Forks Cr, the escapement shows 6 million eggtake and change but no transfers are shown. No idea how that was done but I imagine they went South to Nemah or Naselle but it is odd that the reports do not show it as I always thought fed/tribe/state required approval/reporting.


Naselle Hatchery:
There is a new Chinook program release goal for the Naselle Hatchery starting this year of 5,000,000. This additional production is directed at increasing prey availability for Southern Resident Killer Whales. To-date, we have spawned 687 female Chinook. Currently, we have an estimated 2,061,000 Chinook eggs on hand in the facility.

Nemah Hatchery:
The Chinook program release goal for the Nemah Hatchery is 3,300,000. To-date, we have spawned 383 female Chinook. Currently, we have an estimated 1,149,000 Chinook eggs on hand in the facility.

Forks Creek Hatchery:
There is a new Chinook program release goal for Forks Creek Hatchery starting this year of 400,000. This additional production is directed at increasing prey availability for Southern Resident Killer Whales. To-date, we have spawned 708 female Chinook. This is enough females to make the program release goal. Currently, we have an estimated 2,124,000 Chinook eggs on hand in the facility.

If, off a 3.5M release they are not able to hit goal, how are they going to do it coming off of 350K.

Logic says they would have to close down a whole lot of fisheries to be successful. And, since those Chinook have already been hammered in the Marine Mixed Stock juvenile fisheries it looks like the whales be even hungrier.

Technically Dave is right. There are a few returning 5 year olds from the 3.5 M release from forks creek 5 years ago, but 5 year olds comprise less than 1% of the run on WB streams, so not significant contributor.

Next year will be like this year minus the 30# fish (although its been a decade since I've seen one of those on WB).

They'll rarely make egg take on the naselle with the new goal, Forks creek is nearly making the goal with 10x less adults.

Note that the Forks creek hatchery appears to be way more efficient than Naselle.

Not a very good plan from a hatchery operations standpoint either.

Almost got me with the 1%, I had to look at the run forecast model to be sure. The numbers have changed recently as % 3 yr old went up at the expense of the 5 yr old. So just grabbing two years at random this. 2012 the breakout was 3 yr old 17.5% / 4 yr old 34% / 5 yr old 47.2%. 2017 the breakout was 3 yr old 35% / 4 yr old 49.6 / 5 yr old 20.7 %. The 10 yr average is 3 yr 24.5% / 4 yr 53 % / 5 yr 20.9 %. The 6 yr age group is still present but at a fraction of % and 7 yr gone.

The other thing is that the Southern hatcheries get about 30% less returning adults per million zero age smolt release or 70 cents on the dollar invested. In other words the 3.5 million Forks release will produce nearly as much as a 5 million at Naselle.

That's Real Math that you're using there, Big Guy. In WDFW Math, it is obvious that Naselle is much more cost effective and productive of something much more important than either fish to the catch/escapement or money. Don't know what that is, but it must be more important. Right????

This reminds me a bit of an internal discussion way back in the 80s when WDF was trying to culture and restore Dungeness Springs. The collected fish were reared to yearlings and released because everywhere else that WDF did Springs (mostly Columbia) the best returns came from Yearlings. Scale sample from adult Dungeness Springs showed zero, zip, nada, none, no adults that had been age-1 smolts. WDF's response was that we would continue to do age-1 as it worked everywhere else. There are more than a few times when actual, real data gets overlooked because it must be wrong.

To quote my friend eyeFISH, GDITMMM!

So WDFW adopts a WB policy deciding to increase hatchery Chinook production - along with natural Chinook production (never mind if that doesn't make sense) - at the less efficient and effective Naselle hatchery while decreasing hatchery Chinook production by 90% at the more efficient and cost effective Forks Creek hatchery. And all the while Director Susewind claims the Department is in a budget crisis! Sheesh! As I have suspected for a while now, WDFW has a priorities crisis, not so much a budget crisis. We need to make sure our Legislators are aware of this crap as the Department presents its $26 million supplemental budget request to the 2020 Legislative session. (It already went to the Governor's office last month.)

WDFW wants more of our money so it can continue the status quo of pissing it away on misfeasance or is it malfeasance status quo spending on programs that deliver less to WA sportfishers and taxpayers who fund the whole shebang. (Sorry for the slight thread drift, but) I've been pissed at Susewind since late May when he wrote that he will have to terminate the recently re-opened Skagit steelhead season because of a lack of funding for monitoring that is required by NMFS. The Department stopped stocking hatchery steelhead six years ago; where is all that money? Then a week later Susewind announced he was creating two new top tier management positions in the Department that would more than cover the cost of Skagit monitoring. And here the Department has enough money to operate hatchery programs that deliver fewer salmon overall, and fewer salmon to sport fishers who fund the GD Departement, but he can't monitor a Skagit steelhead season? And to think I heard that management skill is the asset Susewind brings to the agency as Director. Forgive me for not seeing that.

Maybe WDFW should change their hats and logos to Red MAGA. Or, in their case MWDFWGA.

Here is the latest in the saga for Willapa. I must admit that this Willapa Policy Review is just about as strange process as I have seen. One thing about it one could put more than a few miles on the car chasing this one around.

The thing I do not understand is how they plan to harvest the returning adults in the South Bay. Nemah is not much of a concern as it is not governed by the wild returns but Naselle is a restraining stream managed for wild Chinook. As of Oct 31 the Naselle Hatchery had collected 194 wild adults and passed upstream 91 with the rest going into the eggtake at the hatchery. Looking to the last 4 years a high of over 4k and 2017 being 1100 and change I sure hope that a bunch got past the wier. No matter I cannot see how harvesters access the hatchery returns without wiping out the wild componate.

WDFW NEWS RELEASE

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

November 1, 2019
Contact: Chad Herring, 360-249-4628, ext. 299

Public meeting scheduled to discuss 2020 Willapa Bay Chinook release strategy

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking public input on potential release strategies from Willapa Bay hatchery facilities next year, as egg collection at those facilities falls below expectations.

The meeting is scheduled to take place from 6 to 8 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 13, at the Raymond Elks Lodge, located at 326 3rd St., Raymond, 98577.

WDFW staff will brief the public on Chinook salmon egg take so far this year at Willapa Bay-area hatchery facilities; these include the Forks Creek, Nemah, and Naselle facilities. Earlier this year WDFW increased the goal for the total release of Chinook smolts from 6.15 million to nearly 8.7 million across these facilities. At this point in the season indications are that this new goal will not be met.
"We want to work with the public to determine the best possible release strategy for the Willapa Bay area moving forward," said Chad Herring, WDFW fish policy lead for the south coast.

This meeting will take place separately from additional public meetings addressing the Willapa Bay salmon management policy, which is currently undergoing a comprehensive review. The next meeting to discuss that policy is scheduled from 6 to 8 p.m. on Nov. 21 at the Raymond Elks Lodge.

WDFW is the state agency tasked with preserving, protecting and perpetuating fish, wildlife and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing, hunting and other outdoor recreation opportunities.

After wiping out the wild component, there is no need to consider it.

Except that WDFW created the wild component. After more than a half century of managing Willapa Bay as a hatchery "wipe out" style fishery without regard to natural origin stocks, any lingering bit of the admittedly small natural Chinook population was long ago extirpated. I thought WDFW decided to manage for a wild Chinook population segment to ward off any potential review and listing of Willapa Chinook under the ESA. WB is a classic case study of FUBAR.

The policy was to comply with HSRG requirements and what SG said as far as I know. Utilizing HSRG as the requirement WDFW decided not to limit things to native stocks, or composite stocks but rather any fish spawning naturally. In the case of Willapa streams the wild ( unclipped ) spawning naturally fish were totally stays from the hatcheries that created and supported the gravel. Nothing natural about them and one can make the case that they are trying to make a true wild fish were one does not exist. They did the same thing on the Humptulips Coho and I am sure other places.

Ah yes, HRSG, how could I forget that? Thanks.

Sounds eerily similar to the conundrum with ESA-listed LCR tules

Without the constant infusion of hatchery-origin spawners on the gravel, the wild production would simply fizzle out. Hatchery origin-spawners are the parental source for the overwhelming majority of wild tules. Since the gravel is incapable of producing adult recruitment to even replacement levels, the continued existence of wild tules is almost entirely dependent on the presence of hatchery strays.

That's true eyeFISH. Both the LCR and WB are efforts to create or restore or recover (choose a term) naturally self sustaining fall Chinook in habitats that are no longer capable of producing them. I can understand the LCR because of the ESA impetus that doesn't include a provision for acknowledging that reality short of the God Squad. In WB I'm reminded that it's due to the intention of implementing the HSRG guidelines. However, I have to ask that if the HSRG understood that WB wasn't historically Chinook habitat in any meaningful measure, would they still recommend trying to create a naturally self-sustaining wild Chinook population in habitat that wasn't suitable in any great quantity historically, and is severely degraded from that capacity and productivity today and for the foreseeable future. For as long as the WR watershed is used for agriculture and tree farm forestry, a primary Chinook population that sustains itself just ain't gonna' happen.

You'll never have the answer to that question, but you can ask the manager (no co-managers in WB) what goals it provided to the HSRG when it did the reviews. Those were the goals used by the HSRG to develop its recommendations. We could look up the old reports, but I'll bet that WDFW did not put forward the same view of the present and future for the biological significance, population viability and habitat quantity and quality as you put forward here.

My take on it was that the HSRG agency driver was that Willapa had to have a prime Chinook stream for Willapa, not that Willapa had a prime Chinook stream.

The premise that WDFW always brought forward was that it needed to manage its hatcheries in WB to prevent the populations there from being listed. Their logic in regard to HSRG recos was that if taking the HSRG approach would be accepted for listed ESU's, then it would also prevent ESU's from becoming listed. What Salmo g. is suggesting is that someone (WDFW as manager, I believe) needed to say is "the habitat wasn't good for Chinook in the first place, the already poor habitat has been terribly degraded, it's not going to get better, the populations are already trashed, they're not going to get better. Screw it....let's produce a bunch of hatchery fish, go fishing and be happy."

If that had been the approach that WDFW had taken prior to the HSRG reviews of WB, I can write the reviews for all the former fall Chinook programs in one line: "The programs are being operated in a manner consistent with the manager's short and long-term goals for the populations." That would have been very simple, but would also have required someone from the department to make the case that Salmo g. is making. No one did. No one has since then. I'm pretty sure the old Fish and Wildlife Commission would have had the head of anyone espousing that position. The new one....not so much. One man's opinion above.

During the initial WB policy development period, I made the argument that there was not any stream on WB worthy of prime designation based on habitat considerations.

I was told that was an unacceptable position by WDFW staff. That we had to have a prime designation for WB.

I then asked for their current habitat evaluation and they trotted out some stuff from the 1970s and said that was the best they had and we would have to make the decision in the absence of current data.

The upshot is Willapa R was chosen as prime because we had to have a prime, but its basis was not in the ecology of the habitat, but simply that it was viewed as most likely to avoid gear conflicts.

Of course the rest of the story is that Willapa as prime exquisitely does avoid gear conflicts by eliminating the rec fishery altogether.

Go WDFW!

I think you captured what happened perfectly. None of what happened was about the fish in the end but rather politics.

OncyT,

You've taken the jist of my opinion a tad too far. Yes, the WB environment was not well suited, mainly due to stream size, to significant Chinook production historically. That habitat has been degraded and will remain so for all the foreseeable future because of the dominant land use functions of agriculture and tree farm forestry.

If politics demands that there be a WB stream designated as primary for Chinook, then as best I can tell based on watershed condition and stream channel morphology, then the Naselle is the better candidate stream. Unless I'm mistaken, the Naselle has a slightly higher stream gradient in the Chinook spawning area than does the Willapa. Even though bother watersheds are heavily logged, the gradient factor should equate to higher egg to fry survival in the Naselle. If that is true, then the Naselle has the better chance of hosting a naturally self-sustaining Chinook population than the Willapa River.

I would not disagree with Geoduck than none of the WB rivers is worthy of primary designation for Chinook. Only that the Naselle has a better shot at success over the Willapa.

If I could be fish czar, I would end Chinook production at both the Naselle and Nemah hatcheries because they are poor investments of tax dollars. (That could be said about most salmon hatcheries, but I'll save that discussion for another day.) I would restore maximum Chinook production to Forks Ck hatchery because it is the better producer for the WB region, and contributes to WA fisheries. I would prioritize recreational angling and use commercial fishing for mop up duty only.

WB as an ecosystem is best suited to natural coho and chum salmon production, along with modest steelhead and cutthroat populations. Rather than trying to fight or control nature, I'd manage the WB regions for what it's naturally best suited to. Commercial fishing would phase out because it isn't economical without the subsidy provided by taxpayer funded hatcheries. Over the long run reasonable Chinook and coho salmon fishing would be sustained by a combination of hatchery and natural fish production.

Lemme add to what Salmo g has outlined.

The habitat in the Naselle Rv may not be great, but for whatever reason, it produces tremendous numbers of wild coho and chum salmon. In the recent past, I could keep three wild coho per day from the Naselle. There aren’t many rivers in Washington State where recreational anglers can keep a daily bag limit of three wild coho. This year, it was only two, before WDFW closed it entirely.

This is significant, particularly for coho. If the Naselle can produce coho, it should be able to produce ocean-type Chinook, since they don’t spend much time in the river. Chinook eggs get deposited in October, and the juveniles are gone by mid to late spring. They don't spend the summer in the river. But juvenile coho will spend 18 months in the same river! So if juvenile coho can survive the Naselle, juvenile Chinook should too.

So I agree with his optimism for Chinook production in the Naselle, but at the same time I’m a little confused as to why the river doesn’t already produce lots of wild Chinook. The influence of the hatchery and the high harvest rate might be contributing factors. My sense is that if WDFW eliminated Chinook production at the hatchery, and stopped commercial fishing, the numbers of wild Chinook on the Naselle would be something close to the production of wild coho.

We might even be able to keep three wild Chinook on the Naselle!

Wouldn’t that be nice…….

Cohoangler,

I think the main reason that the Naselle and all other WB rivers don't produce many native wild Chinook is because, until the last few years, WB has been managed as a hatchery wipe-out fishery, where the spawning escapement of wild salmon was not a management concern. So whatever historic wild Chinook existed were systemactically wiped out by high hatchery harvest rates. Wild escapement has for many decades consisted of hatchery strays that unlikely produced many adult salmon recruits. I think your hunch about the hatchery and high harvest rates are THE factor, not just contributing factors.

Sg

I just realized something that is not exactly correct. When the policy was developed it was very clear that with Willapa prime the Forks Cr. Chinook production would be reduced to 350,000 which is a 90% reduction in smolt releases. For many of the Recs it was all about no nets in T or U and not the production level. A gentleman from Seattle (BK) argued forcefully that this would destroy those fisheries, in particular the mom & pop small boat and it did. I even accepted it, recognizing what would happen, as WDFW staff and Commissioners made up their collective minds. The decision was pushed through and no one was going to get them change it back then.

All that said for the past five years myself, BK, and others have addressed the issue even to the Commission in writing. Simple fact is 5 years after the implementation of the policy the North Willapa Bay Chinook fisheries were going to be a thing of the past. This is not brain surgery folks. When you reduce production by 90% the remaining 10% will provide very limited bay opportunity and almost none in years of low ocean survival. The blame game is more of a shared thing to be honest for the agency, Commissioners, and harvesters.

Now the unwillingness to recognize that something went really wrong here and to take actions to alter the outcome is WDFW's baby. They own that.

Update on meeting or rather not happening:

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

November 13, 2019
Contact: Chad Herring, 360-249-1299

Planned Willapa Bay Salmon Advisory Group meeting cancelled

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is cancelling a Nov. 21 public meeting of the Willapa Bay Salmon Advisory Group, with the intention to reschedule the meeting for a later date.

The meeting, originally scheduled to take place from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Nov. 21 at the Raymond Elks Lodge, will be rescheduled soon and WDFW will provide notice of the new date and time, said Chad Herring, WDFW fish policy lead for the south coast.

The meeting was cancelled to allow fishery managers more time to develop additional meaningful new information to present to the advisory group and the public, as well as accommodate staff scheduling conflicts.

A separate meeting to discuss the 2020 Willapa Bay Chinook salmon release strategy will proceed as planned. That meeting takes place tonight, Nov. 13, from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Raymond Elks Lodge. Additional information can be found in the previous news release at https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/public-meeting-scheduled-discuss-2020-willapa-bay-chinook-release-strategy.

More information on the Willapa Bay Salmon Advisory Group – including information on upcoming meetings, as well as handouts and audio from previous meetings -- can be found on the agency website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wbsag.

WDFW is the state agency tasked with preserving, protecting and perpetuating fish, wildlife and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing, hunting and other outdoor recreation opportunities.

Did the release strategy meeting on Nov 13 actually happen? Did anything happen besides more status quo??

I am curious, but was in Philly last week.

I have not seen anything that would indicate change. Maybe others have more information than I do.

The Willapa policy is up again for those interesed. I imagine the desire of those who want to transfer Folks Cr eggtake to Naselle will out in force.

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

January 13, 2020
Contact: Commission office, 360-902-2267
Media contact: Carrie McCausland, 360-902-2262

Commission to discuss whale entanglements, Willapa Bay and Puget Sound salmon management at January meeting

OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider ways to reduce the risk of whale entanglements at its January meeting, as well as hear updates on forest restoration projects, Willapa Bay salmon policy, and a long-term plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon management.

The Commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), will meet Jan. 16-18 in room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Individual committee meetings will be held Thursday from 1-6:30 p.m. in room 175 A & B.

Commissioners are expected to decide on two proposed land transactions in Yakima County, as well as proposed rule changes meant to reduce the number of whales entangled in crab fishing gear off the Washington coast.

On Friday, commissioners will hear briefings on several topics, including implementation of the hydraulic project bill 1579, which granted WDFW new civil compliance tools to help landowners follow fish protection standards. WDFW staff will also brief the Commission on current and completed work of forest thinning and prescribed burning project efforts and request approval of two new projects. Additionally, commissioners will hear from Puget Sound Partnership Executive Director Laura Blackmore about current activities and collaborations with WDFW.

On Saturday, WDFW staff will brief commissioners on efforts to update the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy, as well as provide a briefing on the Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan, developed by the department and co-managers to help guide fishery management in Puget Sound. Co-managers expect to submit the plan to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by the end of January.

A full agenda is available online at wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings. The meeting will stream online at https://www.tvw.org/. The public is also invited to speak and provide testimony at Commission meetings. For more information on how to participate, visit wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings#publictestimony.



Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.

This message has been sent to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission Announcements mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html

Some more information for the upcoming Commission meeting and the summary is basically bulk information about past actions including reasons for not following the policy. Now the presentation is more of what the agency sees for next / future and their shopping list.

Summary:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/..._2020011618.pdf

Presentation:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/...eview_final.pdf

Bumping this up as the Commission meeting is Feb 6.

For those who did not follow the outcome of the Commission Review of the Willapa Policy.

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

February 12, 2020
Contact: Commission office, 360-902-2267
Media contact: Carrie McCausland, 360-902-2262

Commission approves forest restorations, Willapa Bay policy guidance, and hears updates on hatchery reform and Grays Harbor salmon policy

OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission approved continued implementation of the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy for 2019 brood year fall Chinook hatchery releases and 2020 fishery management objectives and measures at their Feb. 7-8 meeting. The Commission also approved forest restoration thinning projects across 1,200 acres in Oak Creek and Blue Mountain wildlife areas.

The Commission discussed and heard public comment on several topics that will move forward for actions at later dates. These spanned 14 possible future land transactions, Grays Harbor salmon management policy, sturgeon status in the Lower Columbia River, and the latest in hatchery science.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) manages 80 hatchery facilities and 159 hatchery programs across the state. Given the agency’s roles in conservation and fishing access, the Commission will spend time at their March meeting reviewing WDFW’s progress toward implementing the current hatchery reform policy, designed to advance the conservation and recovery of wild salmon and steelhead.

The Commission further discussed next steps in the Columbia River policy review and directed WDFW to plan a review of current hunting contest rules. The Commission also heard about backyard wildlife sanctuary and pollinator programs.

More information is available online at wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings .

The Commission is a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the WDFW.

WDFW is the primary state agency tasked with preserving, protecting, and perpetuating fish and wildlife and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing and hunting opportunities.

WDFW is the primary state agency tasked with preserving, protecting, and perpetuating fish and wildlife and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing and hunting opportunities.[/quote]


The above might be true....but the bottom line is "What can I do to save MY JOB" and really, some need to go.....yep they do !!!!!!!

I thought I would post this up for folks involved in the Willapa Policy Review. I would like to point out these comments are not mine but the authors. I will say this though. The Willapa Policy was a convoluted mess from the start but Steve Thiesfeld was a guy with integrity and he did his best to get it done. When he became ill and left Region 6 the Willapa Policy died with him. In the 40 years I was around agency staff many were just part of the system but not all. Larry, Sara, Paul, Hal, Jim, Sally, Rich, and Dave are impressive people as was Steve. In fact to find someone on the harvest side of things who tried to do it right is exceptional and seldom seen in WDFW. So Steve I still think about you, you did it right, and you are missed my friend.

So this is the input on the Willapa Policy Review.

October 9, 2020

Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855 thfwa@comcast.net


The Honorable Members of the Commission Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501

RE: Willapa Bay Policy Review Draft


The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy ) is a WA based non-profit corporation with 501 (C)
(3) status issued by the IRS. The organization was formed to: Provide education, science, and other efforts that encourage the public, regulatory agencies and private businesses to manage or utilize fish, wildlife and other natural resources in a fashion that insures the sustainable of those resources on into the future for the benefit of future generations.

The members of the Advocacy have attended review meetings called by the Department. Advocacy President Tim Hamilton also serves on the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Advisors Group. We have dedicated significant time, financial resources, and efforts to improve salmon management in Willapa Bay over the last 8 years. The current draft is critically flawed and as a result, the Advocacy can not support approval of the draft without substantial changes. Borrowing terms used in the building industry, the draft is in need of a complete remodel and a “raze and rebuild” might prove to be the appropriate option.

The staff’s presentation and comments to the Commission are tainted by the Department’s historical rejection of it’s duties to the public and members of the Commission. Instead of approaching issues in a “non-partisan” fashion that allows the public to understand complex issues, the Department uses its control over data, information, meeting agendas, etc. to promote its own agenda which typically remains hidden from public view. Then, it moves from the public level to the Commission level where it uses the same strategy. When “the search for the guilty begins”, the standard response from the Department is the “Advisors” asked us to do it. Or, the “Commission” told us to do it. Neither is factually accurate but it does allow the Department to avoid taking responsibility for its management failures by pointing the finger at the public and the members of the Commission.

The Advocacy recommends the review be reformatted to include an index at the front that identifies “sections” and subsections within the sections using terminology that is familiar to the public. Sections should include commonly understood subjects such as hatcheries, harvest, habitat, selective fishing, alternative gear development etc. Documentation, data, etc. utilized in the sections should be footnoted for title and included in an appendix at the end with live links to the identified documentation. The review sections should not exceed 20 pages total. The front cover, index, and appendix combined should not exceed a total of 30 pages.

Additionally, the time frame for the review should be extended to include the 2019 season results. Data is available that would allow the Commission members to understand the situation in Willapa as it now stands. The Advocacy fully appreciates why the Department might prefer not to include the results from 2019. Simply put, it was a disaster for both the nets and the poles. Same goes for escapement goal failure. Modeling difficulties resulted in runsizes came in less the 50% of the preseason forecasts. Limiting the time frame to end in 2018 will deny the Commission an ability to accurately assess where matters now stand in Willapa Bay.

The “mind set” of the Department creates an obstacle to recovery of salmon in Willapa. Understanding the historical mind set and practices utilized by Department is a major first step needed to be taken by those Commission members seeking to analyze what has actually happened in Willapa prior to and after passage of the Policy. The failure to invest in this step prior to considering changes to the current policy language will likely result in future Commission actions that once again create unintended consequences and further diminishes the public’s faith in the Com- mission itself. In simple terms, the Advocacy believes the Department’s current draft is intended lobby the members of the Commission to amend the current policy language and deliver the public a “full plate of pickles”.

Before and after the passage of the Policy, the Department has resisted recognition that the state- wide policies regarding hatcheries, habitat, and harvest developed using best available science are likewise applicable to Willapa Bay. As a result, Willapa was historically managed “for hatchery fish” that were overwhelming allocated to holders of a Columbia/Willapa commercial gillnet li- cense. Natural spawning populations tanked as a result digging a hole so deep that recovery is a difficult challenge. As a result, the Willapa policy was adopted and the purpose was stated as “The objective of this policy is to achieve the conservation and restoration of wild salmon in Willapa Bay and avoid ESA designation of any salmon species.”

The Department’s historical mind set toward state statutes regarding the public’s right to participation and the role of the Commission in setting policy was similar to the resistance towards manage- ment using best available science. The Department refused to provide public records to interested citizens and met behind closed doors with hand-picked advisers who negotiated allocation of the resource. The participants were led to believe a key to future participation was honoring the theme “what’s said behind these doors stays behind these doors”. Meanwhile, back at the Commission level, the Department resisted numerous requests from Commissioners to open up discussions on a policy for Willapa Bay. It is important to note that it wasn’t 1910, but rather 2010.

Beginning in 2012, several members of the public on the coast chose to “pit their wallets against the state treasury” and a series of legal challenges were launched to seek intervention by the courts. Settlements1 resulted in the Department agreeing to:

• honoring public record requests

• opening its meetings with advisors to the public;

All the settlement agreements are available from the Commission’s legal staff
• engaging the Commission on a policy discussion for Willapa Bay

• seeking an independent scientific review of selective fishing net mortality rates

• recognize the formation of a non-profit organization (Advocacy)

• engaging all the advisors (not just a select few) when considering adoption of emergency rules inseason,

• enlarging the advisor participants to reflect the diverse interest of the public

• engaging the revised group when conducting the upcoming review of the Willapa Policy.

If one recognizes the historical mind set and management practices of the Department related to Willapa, it’s easy to understand why so many on the coast across all political persuasions have come to believe the Department is a poster child for the slogan “drain the swamp”. Unfortunately, that reflection is infecting the public’s attitude toward the Commission members as well.

The Department acts as a proponent with an undisclosed agenda and “handles” the Commission to achieve the outcome it desires
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein). An alternative view is to recognize when an explainer makes matters complicated it can be a strategy designed to prevent the audience from understanding the facts. Regardless of the competence or intent of the author(s) of the review draft, the final Review document needs to provide the public and the Commission members an ability to “understand” what has occurred in Willapa Bay. If it doesn’t, this exercise will fail it’s purpose.

One of the best examples of the Department “handling” the Commission was witnessed in it’s effort to “seek guidance” from the Commission as a means to negate key provisions of the initial policy language. The first attempt was to claim the Department faced a “pickle” in providing the commercial sector with harvest opportunity on Coho and Chum due to the harvest of Chinook by the recreational sector. The staff presentation left the public and the Commission confused as one commissioner asked the staff what it was the Department was seeking from the Commission. Kelly Cunningham responded with “All we need is a nod” (what happened to the wink?). The outcome was a clumsy oral discussion leaving all uncertain as to what had just happened.

The “pickle strategy” became an annual event. Staff again offered a confusing presentation that implied the recreational sector was using up the majority of impacts on Chinook. As a result, com- missioners adopted another non-vetted proviso that transferred impacts on NOR Chinook from the recreational sector to the Commercial sector under a new formula that gave the commercial sector just under 50% of the NOR impacts available for Chinook. The public was again confused by the action of the commission. Apparently, the commissioners were not aware that the commercial sec- tor was already taking well over half the impacts. The formula change adopted, if followed, would actually reduce harvest opportunity for commercials.

The next pickle effectively eliminated the recreational priority for Chinook while retaining the commercial priority for commercials on Coho and Chum by elimination of the allocation provision on Chinook entirely. While this round was again not vetted out to the public, the modification was at least read into the record by motion of a commissioner. Apparently the notion was to provide the Department additional flexibility in setting seasons. That term has now become known as the “F-word” in Willapa Bay.

Then, the following Tuesday night the Department provided the public language on a blue single page that it claimed was an explanation of what the Commission did the previous Saturday. Staff claimed the blue paper had been approved by the Commission. It was quickly pointed out that there had been no meeting or conference call of the Commission and the Department was asked who on the Commission approved of this interpretation and the response was telling. Incredulous- ly, staff claimed they didn’t know who approved the document. To this day, the public has never gotten the Department to identify the source of this document. It is also important to note we were in the NOF season setting mode. The staff followed by announcing to all present that due to a time restraint that the public could only comment on seasons proposed by commercial advisor Andy Mitby which would now comply with the latest revision to the policy by the Commission. When asked if the Commission had repealed the recreational priority on Chinook the response was “No, but it is no longer defined.” A terminology that has no definition is meaningless. The combined action of the Commission and the Department became known as “The Saturday morning ambush followed by the Tuesday night massacre”.

The draft is plagued by mischaracterizations of the public’s involvement
The Department’s draft and press releases implies that the Advisors and public had some authorship in the draft. “Advisors” are claimed to have “Input” and provided the Department with “Guidance”. We’d ask that the Commission members reject this commentary entirely. The draft review is solely an inhouse work product of the Department.

True to the Department’s historical practices, the draft and media comments use terminology to describe something wherein the true definition of the terminology is contrary to facts. Saying the “Advisors” provided “Input” into the review document is a mischaracterization. The Department staff controlled the agenda, the meeting formats, all presentations, and drafted both review drafts on its own. When the Advisors were finally shown the drafts and began to ask questions about methodology and conclusions, the Department’s response was Advisor(s) are not educated enough to question its drafting and listening to an Advisor was a waste of time.

Requests that the advisors be allowed participation in creation of the agendas were ignored. Re- quests that the drafters remember the audience is composed of the public and members of the Commission who don’t have extensive knowledge of Willapa Bay were likewise ignored. The Advisors never saw the draft review until it was transmitted to the Commission and opened for public comments. It would be a mischaracterization for someone who just finished reading “Gone With The Wind” to imply they had input into the drafting.

Regarding the advisors providing guidance to the Department staff, we have referenced earlier how the Department controlled every avenue of the meeting discussions. The Department has a handbook on the role and process to be utilized during an advisor process. When the Advisors actually tried to assert some kind of influence over what was occurring (all in accordance with the Advisors Handbook), the Department countered by installing a new set of “rules” for participation. Failure to comply would carry “Consequences”. When asked what was meant by the term and under what authority this threat was being issued, staff refused to respond. When the questioning advisor went outside to clear his head, a rule was installed that advisors could not leave their seat.

Matters got worse in subsequent meetings. The tables were removed from the meeting room. Folding chairs were placed in a circle like one would see around a campfire. The Advisors had to sit with their notebooks and the latest pile of meeting handouts on their laps. As mentioned previously, the new rules prevented leaving their chair without permission. Applying the term “Guidance” to this process is a mischaracterization and the validity is comparable to a claim that those in a kindergarten class were somehow guiding their teacher.

The Advisors and public were limited to being “attendees” by the Department. As an example, the staffer who was initially brought in as the lead author asked an Advisor for clarification on his comments. Chad Herring jumped up and literally whacked him in the back of the head with his open hand and announced “we aren’t going there”.

The Advocacy believes the review process was doomed to failure as the Department tried to control the process as a means produce a review document that limited the Commission’s ability to understand the impacts of the Department’s management practices in Willapa Bay. The more reluctant the Advisors became to being used in this fashion, the more intense the reaction from the Department. By the end of the process, a long time commercial advisor remarked that the Department had become “sneaky” and suggested that the Advisory group be dissolved permanently.

While the Department has recognized the process was “contentious”, it attempts to lay the blame on the Advisors bickering with each other over allocation disputes. The problem was not between the Advisors themselves but rather Advisors objecting to the way the Department was trying to use them to produce a draft review that would later be used to handle the Commission members in a similar fashion.

The hatchery problems
While the review provides volumes of data and calculations, it requires extensive knowledge of Willapa in order for one to dig through it all and answer the simple question “What is the potential for future hatchery production in Willapa hatchery complex?” Simply put, the Department recent actions and announced future intentions raises the risk of a “perfect storm” wherein the hatchery production could fall dramatically and even reach the zero threshold.

The recent presentation to the Commission implies that legislative or executive decisions some- how instructed the Department to raise the hatchery release goal in the Naselle from the 800,000 set in the Policy upward to 1.5 million and then, up to 5 million. The Advocacy believes this is another example of mischaracterization.

Page 6, Advocacy Opposition WSR 18-01-095

The first jump came through a legislative budget provision. However the provision itself simply provided funding for addition production costs at the Naselle provided that the increase production could be accomplished while staying in compliance with hatchery protocols. In its typical practice, the Department took the money, raised the fish, and in the Advocacy’s view, did not comply with hatchery protocols. The budget provision is available and should be included in the appendix.

The second jump occurred with funding provided through the effort to increase production of Chinook for the Orcas. Since it is unlikely an Orca would prefer to eat a Chinook from the Naselle versus one from Forks Creek, the Advocacy believes the decision to place the increased pro- duction into the Naselle came from within the Department. Once again, the Advisors were left out of loop entirely. The budget allocation pro- vision and documentation of the lo- cation decision should be provided in the appendix. A tracking of how the money was spent should be attached.


Further, the Orca Task Force recommended an assessment of the habitat productivity should be conducted prior to increasing production. To the Advocacy’s knowledge, this was never done for the Naselle. How- ever, studies were conducted out of the UW2 at the request of commercial shell fish growers who were concerned over the large decrease in growth rates of oysters in the south end of the bay prior to moving the oysters to “fattening beds in the north. The study found a dispersion gap existed and low tidal exchange south of it would create a shortage of forage for shellfish going forward. The common term one would use to describe the problem was the bay was “overgrazed” south of the dispersion gap. Oysters located below the fattening/ recruitment line would need to be moved to fattening beds up north (Figure 1). The study was provided to the Department by the Willapa Bay Ecosytem Review Team (WBERT).

In effect, the best available science was ignored by WDFW when it unilaterally increased the Chi- nook production goal in the Policy from 800,000 to 5 million for Chinook at the Naselle which enters the bay below the dispersion gap. In short, the Department is ignoring science, overriding sport Chinook priority, and threatening wild Chinook juvenile survival in the bay in order to grow hatchery fish for commercial fishers in a location recognized as already overloaded by commercial shellfish operations. This is a prime example of the need for intervention by the Commission that may require removal of the delegation to the Department.

The Department has announced plans to close the Forks Creek Hatchery and the Nemah Hatchery leaving all the hatchery production over at Naselle which would basically eliminate any likelihood for a substantive recreational season in the future. The review recognizes that the Naselle is in dire need of a total rebuild and a schedule for permitting and funding in Phase One is acknowledged. What is not certain is when or if the Department will receive funding for completion. Further, the Naselle has the warmest water of all three locations and the Department currently relies upon moving Coho juveniles over to the Nemah to avoid excess pond mortality. Since refrigeration of the entire river is not practical, closing the Nemah would likely reduce the Naselle Coho production and the mortality of returning Chinook adults will make achievement of egg take even more difficult in the future as climate change continues to increase Naselle water temperature.

We return to the “perfect storm” problem. Closing the Nemah which could continue to pump out over 3 million Chinook with a modest investment in a new bridge and weir replacement is step one. Closing Forks Creek that has recently received over $5 million in rebuilding is step two. The final step would be equipment failure at the aged Naselle facility that could bring it off line. Any further complications occurring from climate change could decrease or even eliminate the ability of the Naselle hatchery to produce salmon and the Willapa could be left totally void of hatchery production. The Department doesn’t seem to understand “putting all your eggs in one basket” is not an acceptable management practice. Especially when the basket is worn out and full of holes.

The economic analysis problem
During its recent presentation to the Commission, the Department’s spokesperson acknowledged the Department doesn’t have an economist on staff and that the review was limited. While such is understandable, the spin that was included was an obvious indicator that this draft review was designed to lobby changes to the Policy that are desired either by the Department or member(s) of the Commission. Similar to the fashion that it led the Commission down the yellow brick road to move the “pickles”, the Department makes an attempt to grossly overstate the economic impact of the commercial sector and or deflate the economic impact of the recreational sector.

The holders of a Columbia/Willapa commercial license often fish with a recreational license as well. The draft review uses the exvessel value (gross sales of the fleet) and assumes that will be be spent entirely to purchase gear, fuel, etc. Then, that amount is assumed to turn over repeatedly (2.24 x exvessel$=economic impact). It cites the authority as a legislative study from times past that specifically avoided a study effort that would compare commercial economics with the recreational economics.

Then, the Departments uses the same source to determine how many dollars a typical angler spends when on the water for the day. Multiplies that amount times the number of angler days to create a recreational economic value. Does it use the same mysterious 2.24 multiplier? No. Does one have to be an economist to figure out it is inappropriate to use a multiplier if one buys a net but not do so if its a pole? No, this is high school level economics 101.

It is also noteworthy that then Commissioner Wecker and Jim Scott traveled to Willapa to provide a presentation on fisheries economics to the Pacific County Commissioners. Yet, the Department now implies it just doesn’t have all the much info on the subject. The presentation to the Pacific County Commissioners should be provided in the appendix.

Further more, how would a reader of this draft review recognize the economic impact to the tax- payers? How would one figure out the costs of growing fish in Willapa and compare that cost per fish with the amount paid in license fees or fish tax by each sector? What is the amount of public subsidy delivered in the form of relatively fish for free that is being provided the commercial sec- tor? How many fish would the state have to provide to keep the current commercial license holders economically viable? Another omission that should be addressed.

The question over the state’s obligation to maintain the economics of the commercial sector in Willapa Bay has been addressed by the court. Following passage of the Policy, the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association filed several legal actions seeking a ruling requiring the Department to place the economic needs of the commercial sector operating in Willapa on a parity with the needs of conservation.

We could give them (commercials) every fish that crosses the bar and it wouldn’t be enough." They are simply trying to preserve their way of life " WDFW Director Phil Anderson, 2013

Further, it argued that the Commission could not adopt a policy that contained specifics that some- how influenced the seasons set by the Department. Both arguments were rejected by the court.

The assertion that the commercial sector somehow had an entitlement to a certain level of public subsidy was soundly rejected. It’s conservation first and any policy passed by the Commission was non-binding on the Department. The decision by the judge in Thurston County should be provided in the appendix.

The “harvest” problem
The Policy addresses Chinook harvest with a set percentage of impacts on returning natural spawning adults in the Willapa River on the north end and Naselle on the south. The language of the Policy sets the percentage as a maximum with “.....shall not exceed (14 or 20)%. In typical Department fashion, the language in the policy is replaced by a “management objective of (14 or 20%)” and seasons are set to try to anticipate hitting the number on the nose. As a result, the harvest rate set forth in the Policy is regularly exceeded and the runs do not began to recover as intended.

In the latest round of engaging the Commission for modifications, the Department sought to have the harvest rate in the Naselle move up to 20%. The Commission responded with leave it at 14% in both the north and the south. The Department then announced it was going to use an “aggregate” of 14% and proposed seasons for the south that pushed the harvest south upwards toward the 20% it desired which totally contradicted the decision of the Commission.

An important point to remember is the Naselle has an escapement goal of 1546 Chinook NORs.

The harvest rate applied previously of 20% has dropped escapement down to less than a third of the goal making recovery nearly impossible to envision.

So why would the Department do this? Remember that it jumped the Naselle hatchery Chinook production twice. The returning adults from the increase were due to arrive. Using tangle nets, the mortality rate on the NORs would far exceed 14%. So, when the effort to get the Commission to bump up the harvest rate failed the Department used its standard “wordsmithing” practice and claimed the 14% was a bay wide aggregate in order to use NOR increase occurring elsewhere to create an average that allowed the Naselle harvest rate cap to be exceeded. Apparently, it couldn’t get the Commission to fall for that one either. Next move by the Department was to close down recreational fishing in the Naselle under the guise of unruly littering to free up NOR impacts for the nets out front in the bay.

“Lacking development of any additional alternative gears, the use of tangle nets was identified during the pre-season fishery planning process as the only gear type currently available that meets the alternative gear definition in the Policy.” (Page 34 draft review). This is yet another omission that does not allow one to under- stand what happened in the Willapa.

Two separate attempts to find alternative means of com- mercial harvest with a lower mortality rate on Chinook NORs were attempted. In the first instance, a test fishery using a trap in the marine area off the mouth of Nemah was set at the request of a commercial license holder. The permitting process was completed and staff arrived at daylight to observe the test. The commercial fisher had some kind of a change of heart in the middle of the night and failed to show up.

A second attempt was launched under the realm of Annette Hoffman. The Columbia/Willapa license holders were invited to provide a proposal for a trap. When asked if they could propose a trap in fresh water, the Department said no. Further, no DFW financial support would be provided and the proposer had to provide all the investment capital needed to build and equip the trap. Their return would come in the form of selling the trapped fish.

What followed was truly amazing. The Department announced it was moving forward with a single proposal to place a trap (Figure 2) in freshwater well up into the Naselle. The proposer was the same individual involved in the no-show earlier. The commercial advisors immediately pointed out they were told they couldn’t propose a trap in freshwater. The legality of a choosing a single party behind closed doors was raised. The response was that the project had gone through a legal review.

The Department went on to disclose it had issued the trap proponent an HPA for the trap model he was to build and for the location it would be used. Review of the HPA found the trap proposed would not likely be able to function within the conditions set forth in the HPA. In addition, the staff was informed the CR101 filed by the Department did not comply with the state statutes and the response again was that the project had gone through a legal review. Subsequently, the Department withdrew the CR101 and replaced it with one the cited the appropriate state statute.

The Advocacy expressed in interest in assisting in coming up with an alternative gear proposal. The Department responded by changing the eligibility requirement to only those who held a commercial license and personally pulled fish into the boat themselves. That locked out all parties except the commercial license holders and they were all locked out with the exception of one.

Perhaps the most alarming moment came when a projection of the number fish that the proposer and Department developed became public. Apparently intended for an income projection for a lending institute, the number of fish projected to be harvested by the trap would likely dramatically reduce the commercial net season, recreational freshwater season and even threaten hatchery egg take goals.

The exercise was a disaster left most wondering why Department would ever think this project could have the remotest chance of succeeding. The Advocacy directs your attention back to those Chinook hatchery production increases in the Naselle referenced earlier. Those adults were returning and harvesting them with a tangle net would nearly eliminate the remaining NOR population in the Naselle. It desperately needed a trap in the Naselle to pull those hatchery fish out with extremely low mortality on the NORs. We believe staff put a full court press on to get the trap in and the whole mess blew up in their faces. Then, the mess was omitted from the draft review.

To fully cover the problems we see in the Willapa would take nearly as many pages that is contained in the draft review (229). Unless we receive a request for information on a subject of interest from a member of the Commission, this ends our commentary on the draft review. To those who actually take the time to read this document we express our appreciation. We can only hope you will recognize how difficult it was for us to write it.

For whatever its worth,



Tim Hamilton Art Holman Ron Schweitzer
President Vice-President Secretary/Treasurer

My whole-hearted thanks go to Tim Hamilton, Art Holman, and Ron Schweitzer for preparing the comments on the Willapa Policy Review. I wanted to comment myself, but reading the WDFW document left me very confused and thinking that I don't know near enough (most likely true) to contribute useful commentary. Now I have a better idea why that is. Sheesh!

Thank you guys, so very much!

I can't help but note that WDFW is the only fish management entity with jurisdiction in Willapa Bay. Therefore I expect Willapa to be the example of the very best salmon management that WDFW can bring. And what WDFW brings to Willapa is a complete cluster fvck. And the THFWA comments note the details.

I have to second Salmo's thanks. I am going to pick out what I see as one central theme for comment. That is, a failure to meaningfully engage and then honestly represent input from the advisors and public.

From the Advocacy's input as presented:

" Regarding the advisors providing guidance to the Department staff, we have referenced earlier how the Department controlled every avenue of the meeting discussions. The Department has a handbook on the role and process to be utilized during an advisor process. When the Advisors actually tried to assert some kind of influence over what was occurring (all in accordance with the Advisors Handbook), the Department countered by installing a new set of “rules” for participation. Failure to comply would carry “Consequences”. When asked what was meant by the term and under what authority this threat was being issued, staff refused to respond. When the questioning advisor went outside to clear his head, a rule was installed that advisors could not leave their seat."

The WDFW is on its second iteration of the Advisor's Handbook but what is missing is a Commission Policy on the roles and interactions of both Advisors and Staff. One step further is that there is no WDFW Staff handbook clearly setting forth Staff's role and responsibilities relative to Advisory Groups. That failure opens the door to misunderstandings, misrepresentations and ultimately failures.

I think I should add this. When working with native Chinook I was taught by agency staff that planning is everything. By planning I mean you have to be able to close the loop. The loop is brood, incubation, rearing, release, and brood to do it again. Each step has multiple issues that go with it from water quality to disease control. In the Willapa the only facility that can achieve this Forks Creek on the Willapa River. Totally remodeled and up to date it also has holding water for returning Chinook adults and can make a 5 million eggtake goal.

The Naselle on the other hand is in need of a total redo for over 10 million I am told. It suffers from warm summer water requiring Coho fry to be transferred to Nemah in order to make release numbers. Also in dry years ICH and other bugs ravage the returning to adults. Think of three generations or 15 years and say the Naselle has a failure two out of the five years in each five year cycle. After three cycles you end up with production being below anticipated two or three years of any five year cycle.

So in their wisdom WDFW proposes to close Folks Creek ( the only quality up to date facility capable to rear 5 million Chinook ) and Nemah. ( the most cost effective but needs maintenance ) Then use the most inadequate facility in Willapa ( Naselle ) to rear maximum production of Chinook.

Simply put this whole mess is about the rec vs commercial thing and to be honest before they get done WDFW will blow up the commercial fisheries just as they have done to the rec. Their is a simple solution to the rec / commercial thing in the North Bay but that is a different issue.

The Naselle - Willapa R hatchery thing just blows me away. Naselle has always been a substandard facitlity since the day it came on line, as I have been told. Forks Ck on Willapa R might not be the best hatchery in the WDFW inventory, but it is far and away the best in the Willapa region.

The ecology of Willapa tributaries is not optimally suited to natural Chinook production. This is the reason Chinook were the least abundant salmon in the basin historically, back in the pristine habitat days. The Willapa R doesn't have and never will have in the foreseeable future a naturally self-sustaining wild Chinook population of any significance. The Naselle may never do so either, but by nature of its stream channel morphology it is more likely than Willapa R. Meanwhile, Forks Ck is far and away better suited to culturing hatchery Chinook than is Naselle.

How can it not look like to any thinking person that WDFW has designed and proposes to further modify the Willapa policy to fail by every relevant metric?

This makes me want to go all out and UP THE REVOLUTION and DEFUND WDFW.

I'm with you Salmo. Needs to started over from the bottom up.

A couple of folks called and asked me about the rec vs commercial thing in the North end of the bay and asked that I line it out for all, so here goes. The problem revolves around WDFW putting in nets areas T & U all the way up the Willapa River for days . The end results where sweeping the bay and Willapa River clean leaving little for recs and just as the fish numbers built back up in goes the nets to sweep everything clean again which pretty much destroyed the rec season.

The solution is simple you put the commercial boundary in U near the airport. Let commercial fish say Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday then off the water. The Recs would fish the remainder of the week and fish would also get above the new commercial boundary allowing for reasonably successful rec opportunity when the commercials fish their three days. The T fishery for recs and commercials is dependent on the new adults entering the bay so it is even on opportunity.

The thing is if the 5 million release was done at Forks Creek the number of fish available for both rec and commercial would be vastly greater than the ridiculous idea of using Naselle. Is this solution perfect for recs or commercials? Nope, nope, and nope but it would work.

WDFD created this mess between the recs and commercials when they created a upriver boundary that is absurd. It appears that the solution is to be get rid of hatcheries that are successful and spend millions on something that will likely fail both rec and commercial fishers. I am not sure what thought process was utilized for this fiasco but frankly if writing a review of their plans the words " not well thought out " would appear often. Being a farm boy I would use " stupid " but then I would be criticized for being unkind to the word stupid so I will not.

Back when I was involved in the management of Fraser sockeye the managers realized that a net fishery created a hole in the run. They worked very hard to craft fisheries is such a way that nobody fished in fishless hole. It can be done and I know that the WDFW bios/managers have seen it done. Guess it didn't stick.

My comments on the WB policy debacle. I encourage everyone to write the commission. Feel free to use any of the ideas here that you can.


Dear Commissioners and Director,

I am writing to provide feedback on the ongoing Willapa bay salmon policy development process. I have followed the policy development process and management of Willapa bay fisheries for over 20 years and served as a WB recreational advisor in the past. As a recreational angler for salmon, I view the process through the prism of angler opportunity and have advocated for a policy that maximizes economic benefits while achieving the Fish and Wildlife Commission’s stated conservation goals.
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 is predicated on false assumptions about hatchery functionality.
• It was formulated in the absence of a 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 in the policy document 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 had long been the top small boat marine chinook fishing destination in a state with very few remaining attractive chinook fishing destinations. While the policy has been successful in mitigating gear conflict, which is an 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. Unfortunately, the Naselle hatchery cannot produce adequate chinook returns to support any fishery commercial or recreational. Further, as production has been eliminated at Fork’s Creek, marine angler success has plummeted. Some Willapa bay advisors suggest that the recreational fleet can simply move south in the bay to follow the fish, but the fewer fish returning there 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 nothing short of a full re-write 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, which has superior chinook habitat, and hatchery chinook production restored at the Forks Creek hatchery which has superior production capacity for chinook.