FYI

Fish and Wildlife Commission Fish Committee

NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING via Zoom Web Conference

WHEN: November 2, 2021 – 1:00-3:30 P.M.

Committee Members: Carpenter, Baker, Anderson, McIsaac

Agenda Topic:

Willapa Bay Salmon Management – Briefing

Staff will present an initial document with recommended policy language revisions and review a list of issues that are not part of the recommendation. The Fish Committee will discuss and provide guidance on next steps.

Staff Report: Marlene Wagner, South Coast Policy Lead, Ken Warheit, Director of Molecular Genetics and Fish Health, and Chad Herring, Anadromous Resource Policy Analyst

*WHERE: This meeting will take place via Zoom. The link for the public to listen is listed below

(https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81222572765)

To join via phone please choose a number below and then you’ll be prompted to enter the Webinar ID#:
812-2257-2765

1-312-626-6799
1-888-475-4499 (Toll Free)

We all should thank you for posting this BB, that said the agency is going to do whatever it wants even if the Commission feels differently. Then you have the fact that Willapa is toast be it Rec or Commercial. The way they realigned the hatchery production to the South end of the bay benefits nobody be it Rec, Commercial, or the fish.

As many have said, GH tis how WDFW believes salmon and steelhead management should be from catch division (rec and commercial) to escapement levels. GH is how the whole state should be managed.

I think GH and WB exemplifies the concept of "take the money and spend it," without regard to the constituents who fund it.

I feel kinda' bad for the NT gillnetters because the reality is that their day in the sun is long behind them. I suspect that they know it. There are no wild Chinook to net and too few wild coho. If it weren't for hatchery Chinook and coho, there would be no NT gillnetting at all. I can't help but think it's long past time to be keeping this welfare fishing on hatchery salmon still going. It's analogous to raising hatchery buffalo to keep the buffalo hunters of yore employed when there are no longer enough wild buffalo.

The QIN has adopted the policy that hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead be treated the same in harvest management even though they know full well that they are different. So as long as hatchery and wild fish are co-mingled in QIN U&A, wild escapement goals will only occur by coincidence.

Since there is seldom any harvestable wild Chinook in GH any more, I can't help but wonder why WDFW spends our tax dollars raising GH hatchery Chinook to be caught mainly in Canada, with very few accruing to NT recreational fishing in WA. Stop raising hatchery Chinook in GH.

The way to get Humptulips wild coho to make escapement is to stop raising hatchery coho at Stevens Creek hatchery. The Humptulips, like the rest of GH tributaries, is as good of natural coho habitat as still exists anywhere in WA. We should be taking advantage of that and maximizing wild coho production in the basin, and only augmenting natural production with hatchery coho.

Similar in WB. WB never was, and never will be a significant producer of wild Chinook. If it makes sense to raise hatchery Chinook in WB at all, it makes sense to do so at Forks Ck on the Willapa River. Stop raising hatchery Chinook at Nemah and Naselle. WB by nature is a coho and chum factory, so why not manage it for what it's best suited for? Save a lot of taxpayer dollars at the same time. Raise only enough hatchery coho so as to augment natural coho production.

Doing these things would provide some consistent recreational salmon fishing but would not support NT gillnetting. Sorry NT gillnetters, but it's beyond time to take up a 21st century occupation, or hobby job, since gillnetting hasn't amounted to full time employment in many decades.

As for QIN, it would suck to have to manage wild salmon populations to try to produce harvestable surpluses, but that's life. There are no guarantees, and taxpayers don't owe treaty tribes guaranteed harvestable salmon runs.

GH has a solid run of wild Chinook but they are harvested by BC & AK. This year there were nearly as many taken in the marine fisheries as crossed the bar leaving combined NT & QIN terminal Chehalis River impacts at around 1100. Also the Hump, which is part of GH, has substantial harvest of hatchery Chinook with rec taking 2435 h / 138 w and QIN 516 w & 965 h. Hump Coho Rec harvest impacts modeled were 1115 with 72 w with C&R and QIN 1132 with 848 wild. You need to look at the RR in the forecast model a little more often.

Willapa is toast period but that is what happens when the harvest managers are put in charge of aquaculture. It ain't pretty!

Salmo - Your suggestions are predicated on there being enough high quality habitat in GH or WB watersheds to produce sufficient Chinook and coho to support a fishery (recreational, Treaty, or Non-Treaty). Not sure there is.....

Now it's possible there may be enough habitat if there were little or no harvest in the ocean (SE AK, northern BC, westside Vancouver Island) on those stocks. If ocean harvest could be reduced (to help SRKW?), it may be possible to reduce or eliminate hatchery production in some rivers, and still produce enough wild Chinook and coho for in-river fisheries.

But that would likely be just recreational and Tribal harvest. Not sure there would be enough for NT commercial fisheries.

An interesting point. The purpose of the fish is to provide fisheries. And, it has to be large enough to support all those users. We don't operate deer or elk hatcheries to support use; we take what nature produces and maintain the habitat.

It seems to me that the cart is ahead of the horse. We maintain and restore habitat where we can/want to and then utilize the surplus from that.

I guess the question is "Why is what nature supplies not enough?" Live within our means.

Rivrguy,

Yes, GH has a solid run of wild Chinook. But there is not enough surplus to provide fishing for WA recreational anglers who comprise taxpayers and license buyers. That being the case, why should we spend money raising hatchery Chinook for AK and BC? It only makes sense to spend that money on hatchery salmon when sufficient numbers return to the WA recreational creel. I'm not opposed to spending money on raising hatchery salmon. I'm only opposed to doing so when the cost is not justified by the return to the recreational creel. So is the cost of raising Hump hatchery coho justified with a return of 1115 to the recreational creel? This gets directly at the question of how many dollars should taxpayers be willing to spend to return one salmon to any fishery, be it AK, BC, WA NT commercial, WA NT recreational, or WA treaty?

Cohoangler,

My suggestions are predicated on not spending tax dollars on hatcheries to support commercial fishing that cannot exist in the absence of hatcheries. Such hatchery production is nothing less than a welfare subsidy. Why spend the money? Why ARE we spending that money? NT commercial and treaty fishermen make up less than 2% of WA state's population. Hatchery production to support these activities is NOT a good investment. (Of course I understand treaty Indian fishing rights, but let's keep that separate for the moment.)

Spending money on hatcheries that return fish to the recreational creel MAY make sense if the number of fish creeled is large enough to justify the cost of hatchery production. Treaty Indian fisheries are entitled to half the surplus hatchery production, so that factor needs to be considered when deciding whether it's worth the cost to raise hatchery salmon for recreational fishing. Raising hatchery fish simply for treaty fishing (less than 2% of WA taxpayers, remember) is not in the interest of the 98% of WA taxpayers.

WB cannot and won't ever produce enough wild Chinook to support any fishery. If Chinook fishing in WB is desirable, then hatchery production is a necessity. And I'm postulating that it is only worthwhile to raise those hatchery Chinook if, and only if, a sufficient number of those Chinook return to the recreational creel, in that the recreational creel represents more taxpayers and license buyers.

WB can produce a lot of wild coho, but possibly not enough to support recreational fishing every year. In that case, it may make economic sense to raise hatchery coho at a level of abundance that doesn't jeopardize wild coho populations, since recreational fishing can be mark selective.

GH produces both wild Chinook and coho, but not enough wild Chinook to support treaty, NT commercial, and recreational fishing. Since commercial fishing is NOT mark selective, why do we allow any NT commercial Chinook fishing in GH? Any conservationist will tell you that doesn't make any sense if you truly wish to conserve wild Chinook. QIN makes the policy choice to see no difference between hatchery and wild salmon, so where does that leave the prospect of conserving GH wild Chinook? If there were no hatchery Chinook, then QIN would have to manage for the conservation of wild Chinook or otherwise harvest them to functional extinction. It looks like the recreation sector is sh!t out of luck regardless, when it comes to Chinook fishing in GH unless and until ocean survival rates swing dramatically upward. Meanwhile, taxpayers and license buyers continue to subsidize commercial fishing, treaty and NT, while remaining shut out of fishing for Chinook. This status quo does not make sense to me as a taxpayer and license buyer.

C'man,

Precisely. Just as we never raised hatchery buffalo to keep relic buffalo hunters employed, we don't raise hatchery deer and elk to satisfy recreational hunting demand. We allocate the natural surplus production to recreational and treaty Indian hunting. No one is demanding that the natural populations be augmented with hatchery produced animals just because we might like to kill more than one deer or elk per season. So why do we raise hatchery salmon to placate a commercial fishing demand that can't even possibly exist in the absence of hatchery salmon because there are simply too few wild salmon around these days, just as there are too few wild buffalo roaming the Great Plains any longer. The status quo is just plain silly in the 21st century and continues only because of WDFW institutional inertia.

And Salmo g hits another one outta the park!

Institutional inertia SUXBALZ.

Salmo - Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with much of what you’re saying. But for the sake of discussion, I will try to address some of your points, as I see it.

WDFW can raise and release all the hatchery salmon they want but they cannot dictate who catches them. As you know, salmon cross State and international boundaries. As such, if we want them to return as fully grown adults, I’m not sure how we can prevent these fish from being targeted by other folks, including the Canadians and Alaskans. There is some control thru NMFS via the Pacific Salmon Treaty and commercial harvest management in Alaska, but I don’t see NMFS advocating for U.S. hatchery production for the exclusive use of recreational anglers. Plus, there are lots of recreational anglers who fish in SE AK for Chinook that originate in Washington State (I’ve been one of those anglers…….).

It appears you’re suggesting that successful hatchery production should be measured by the return to the recreational anglers since these folks pay the bills. Excellent point. I’m going to sound like a bureaucrat but the mission statement of WDFW says:

“The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's stated mission is to preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.”

I realize this neglects the fact that recreational hunters/anglers pay the bills for WDFW. Presumably the State Legislature knows this too, but they aren’t inclined to edit out “commercial opportunities”. As such, WDFW must manage for both recreational and commercial uses. And, since there are no more commercial hunting opportunities in Washington State, only commercial fishing opportunities remain. I don’t like it either, but I know why WDFW does what it does.

At one point in time, the fish habitat in Washington State was able to produce enough salmon for all three types of fisheries (NT, T, and Rec). But those days are long gone. The loss of habitat over the past several decades have reduced the capacity significantly. The Tribes have been saying that for the past 50+ years. All three fisheries now depend on hatchery production to be successful. And sometimes even that is not sufficient.

Take, for instance, the argument the Tribes used in their successful court case on the culverts in Puget Sound: At the time of the Boldt Decision (mid 1970’s), the Tribes were getting 2% of the harvestable salmon in Washington State. Judge Boldt said they have a right to 50% of the harvestable salmon. So that’s what they got.

Now, fast-forward to today. Although the Tribes are getting 50% of the harvest, the number of salmon they’re actually harvesting is LESS than the 2% they were getting before the Boldt decision. That is how far the productivity of the salmon habitat has fallen. How did that happen? Just look around. More roads, bridges, culverts, shopping malls, housing developments, ranchettes, single family houses along rivers and streams, and a million other impacts on the ecosystem on which the salmon depend. I can see how and why we ended up where we are.

I’ll stop there. I’m not trying to argue, just trying to provide some perspective (albeit unpopular).

Thanks.

Coho angler,
The problem I see with the Tribes argument is while they are taking less salmon than in the 70's, they have expanded their take of Crab, clams, sea urchins, whiting, halibut, sea cucumbers, Geoducks, and other species. Many of these probably were not even available to them, or available in limited quantities. It seems they want to say the treaty guaranteed them 50% of historical takes when it comes to Salmon, but 50% of all harvest when it comes to other species. My guess is that the income from other species that were not historically available or taken in large numbers more than make up for the loss of income from Salmon. I would argue that the tribes need to make up their mind. Do they want a strict interpretation or a loose interpretation?

The Tribes were, in Boldt, awarded 50% of the fish and shellfish. The Treaties were for FISHING in usual and accustomed areas. While one could argue that they never harvested sub-tidal shellfish, neither did the non-Indians.

What nobody seems to pick up on is that we are bringing in more people and they demand more, more, more.

There is a push in Canada to make First Nations subsistence the highest priority. This appears to be being applied in salmon fisheries , even when the run is like under 50% of the escapement goal. But, there is that big shift being pushed up there. Will be interesting to follow. The FN's don't have the commercial opportunity (supposedly) but providing for year-around subsistence takes a lot of fish. Note, too, that ADFG closed the Yukon to any salmon fishing and there are lots of folks up there that truly subsist on salmon.

Cohoangler,

I'm aware of WDFW's legislative mandate. I think we both know that the mandate for commercial fishing does not separately identify both treaty and NT commercial fishing. The tribes adequately fulfill the need, under treaty obligation, for commercial fishing. So why are we subsidizing NT commercial fishing?

With respect to hatchery salmon, what I'm saying is, if the people who pay for them - taxpayers and license buyers - don't have access to or creel enough of them, why bother paying for them? If AK and BC don't want to allow enough of them to return to the people who paid for them, well, let's stop paying for them. Maybe they care if we release hatchery salmon to migrate into their waters, or maybe they don't. I think we, as WA taxpayers and license buyers, should reserve the right to fund the programs based on our self interest, measured by how many salmon return to our creel. If they don't want to allow us a reasonable return on our investment, then screw 'em, and turn off the hatchery faucet.

I believe that WDFW's mandate is to a "commercial" fishery. As Salmo notes, the Indians fish commercially. Also, in a crab case, a WA court held that the NI recreational crab fishery met the definition of commercial because it supported businesses. I guess if the crab fishery (rec) was only by hand then it might be different.