Just got done with the steelhead town hall. 152 disappointed attendees. Looks like we can expect the same fisheries we had last year (Quileute System and Hoh), with maybe a couple small opportunities near hatcheries (maybe).

Lots of calls for terminal opportunity near hatcheries, a couple calls for fishing from boats. Not too much anger expressed....

One slide they showed us showed the distribution and timing of wild and hatchery runs across the Chehalis basin. I noticed the only wild runs timed so they are present in numbers before January were upper basin fish (Newaukum, West Fork, South Fork, upper main stem). I suggested we might be able to open only the lower tribs in December (maybe half of Jan.) and avoid virtually all wild impacts while taking advantage of the hatchery fish. That was sort of well received, but only sort of; I don't think we have a single paper fish to work with within 10% impact.

The last call was the most telling, not to mention what James said on a few other calls. “We assume”. We can’t be managing from we assume? Can we? Or when you bring up another study that is more recent, better funded and has involvement from multiple agencies and universities…it’s all but written off and they just assume they have the the end all be all of studies and research because they are THE STATE.

Yeah…lots could be done about fishing in hatchery/terminal areas. The writing is pretty clearly on the wall I think….no steelhead season anywhere on the chehalis basin. Little easier to stomach when gas was $3.50/gallon…not $5.50…

I hope the frustration came through for most of the callers. I know it did on mine. I held back most of what I really thought about their crappy management…but I got the point across that their leadership is horrible and that the majority of anglers do not trust them.

One caller was pro WDFW. The crony from conservation angler. He really stroked their…ego…yeah that’s it.

When asked about peer reviewed studies about fishing from a boat, James said “we assume” again. They don’t know. Until they are sure…the decision shouldn’t be made to just cripple a lot of anglers like that. I don’t even own a boat and rarely fish out of one in the winter; but it baffles me that it’s even on the table.

I’m going to keep calling in and I’m not going to let them just thinking that sportsman don’t care. This is the first call I’ve been on that the majority of the callers were angry, to at least very upset with the decision making. I bet next time the WFC and their gang circle the wagons and call in to suc…err…stand with WDFW and their horrible decisions to take anglers off the water with no actual examples of success anywhere.

I was on the call as well. Was expecting a bleaker outlook than last year, but I actually feel better than expected. Still not great overall, but I was honestly half expecting a full closure. The comments on December/Early January seasons on the lower Chehalis tribs seemed somewhat well received to me as well, just judging Mr. Losee’s reaction to that comment.

I’d personally be very happy to fish those Chehalis tribs with similar rules to when it was last open (No fishing from a boat, no bait, pinched barbs), if it meant an opportunity to fish closer to home.

Numbers on the hump looked pretty bleak so I can’t imagine an opportunity there.

Fingers crossed for the next meeting to start providing some idea of what our opportunities will be this winter.

After in and out listening. Thanks for those that participated. Understandably depressing where we are at. Correct me if I am wrong? For some reason. Seems to me, all the sudden... the last few years, I find it surprising the emphasis on early wild component returning winter runs, Dec & Jan time frame region wide? Especially in Boldt case areas where the tribes influence management. Those early wild runs were wiped out by tribal gillnets and written off by WDG/WDFW over the last 30+ yrs when the nets went in targeting the earliest returning fish. Hatcheries pumped up the early Chambers stock and local brood stock at the same time to support those tribal and recreational fisheries. I would argue that those early wild fish and there genetics in certain systems are all but gone except those originating from brood stock. Those populations have been depressed for all these years and now have become the major obstacle to having any kind of river recreational fisheries? WTF? Wondering how much the WFC and WSC lawsuit game is to blame? Do the tribes really want us off the river banks that bad? I take a deep breath and wonder if I will ever get to river fish my 55 yrs. of normal and accustomed waters for winter steelhead again.

If WDFW allows a steelhead season of ,for example Dec-mid Jan, on the Chehalis tribs, there won't be hardly any fish around ,hatchery or wild. February -March have always been for me the best months for hatchery steelhead on the Nooch and Satsop. Also the Skookumchuck. Pretty much a waste of time to even wet a line in those streams in Dec-Jan for steelhead. The only opportunity would be for late coho if it is open for them.

Shoot, I’d still love the opportunity to be on the water in December numbers be damned. Enough fish for me to feel good about my chances, not to mention those late hook noses. All in all, I’m feeling like the staff is more open to suggestions this year than last. Green is correct that nearly all speakers were at a minimum supportive of increased opportunities, and I’d say that most were even slightly critical of the department, albeit respectful and professional in tone.

There are few Dec / Jan Steelhead as they do not plant them anymore and the early wild stock was never a large part of the run unless you go back 50 years or so. The weakest part of the wild Coho run in Chehalis is the Late Coho in particular the Jan portion. Also unlike Coho that has the tidewater tribs struggling with escapement it is in the upper basin the Steelhead are struggling .

Interesting you mention late coho, which I think are the real reason we don't get to fish early steelhead anymore. The QIN's "winter steelhead fishery" on the Chehalis encounters late coho (perhaps not entirely incidentally). We know our late coho runs have been in the tank of late, so there haven't been any fisheries on them in recent years. We all know the whole "we can't fish, you can't fish" paradigm, and if the nets can't fish, we can't fish either... for anything. Rivers closed. That's my jaded, conspiratorial take....

Now for the down to Earth, conservationist take, which is that, frustrated with WDFW though we may be, most wild steelhead runs on the coast are in bad shape and showing little promise for recovery. That's particularly true of the early-timed fish in the upper Chehalis basin, which are the ones we'd be most likely to encounter in a normal, early steelhead fishery. That's why I suggested the possibility of opening the lower tribs (where upper basin fish don't go) while leaving the mainstem closed; it's the only way I could think of to get anyone on the water in December and January. After saying it out loud last night, I realized there are two user groups who would not be likely to agree with that proposal: the recs who would like to fish the mainstem for late coho (if there's room for a fishery this year), and the QIN gillnetters. With those two opponents, my little pipe dream is probably dead on arrival, so don't worry, Lifter; you won't have to endure any slow fishing on the lower tribs this Dec.-Jan., for steelhead or anything else. Considering that the late-timed fish are all Wynoochee and Satsop fish (that missed escapement again last year, with nobody fishing), you likely need not worry about ever fishing those rivers again during prime time.

Another thought I had post-meeting last night is that it's "odd" how WDFW seems to have assumed, based strictly on the fact there was no fishing, that all the fish we didn't catch lived to spawn. In other words, ZERO natural mortality. Unless they actually counted spawners and they miraculously matched forecasts, these data points were extrapolated, and they could have a significant margin of error.

Meanwhile, they had more precise numbers from the rivers that were open, and in every case except the Bogey, escapement exceeded preseason forecasts, despite what must have been heavy fishing pressure. I pointed out last night how that seems to indicate release mortality is grossly overestimated at the 10% figure they still use, despite having more recent and better studies that show it's below 5%. Losee took the opportunity to toot WDFW's horn, saying those numbers were probably more reflective of the rule changes (no fishing from boats, etc.) they put in place last year. Either way, it comes down to more proof sport fishing is not among the most significant factors in species decline.

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to suspect that escapement was better than forecast in most systems last year, and until we learn more about the methods WDFW used to calculate escapement (assuming it wasn't a direct copy and paste from the forecast column), I will be suspicious of their escapement data from the closed systems. We know they don't monitor closed fisheries, and that COULD make data collection challenging, if not impossible....

I think, overall, they are trying to do right by the fish. My only concern is that, with most runs missing escapement again, they're defaulting a little too quickly to the full closure button. I'm certain there's room for creativity, if I'm not entirely sure where yet.

Why is the town hall only focused on the coast? Is there not thousands of rivers and streams that have been closed a long time? I would like to know if said unnamed streams have had a resurgence of fish since being closed and if not why?

I wish there were meetings for that very subject.

I imagine most of us know how’s it’s worked out for rivers in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal. Too many other factors still keeping these populations down. Humans are the problem.

They do escapement estimates based on spawner surveys. They walk index areas on a schedule counting fish and redds. They extrapolate that to the anadromous zone based on spawner surveys on known numbers of fish in Snow and Salmon creeks. The methodology has been used for decades and is (was anyway) available in technical reports that WDG did. Because the methodology was used in the Boldt Case area I am sure that it was thoroughly reviewed by the Tribes and maybe some outside folks too.

Thanks! I kind of understood that, but the finer details are interesting to learn.

As for Wild Winter Steelhead I remember reading some field estimates on the Nisqually, Puyallup and Green the last 5yrs? Time travels fast. I wasn't able to find them again on a quick search, but remember the numbers are still down as are all of Puget Sound systems. Arguments have been made on what numbers give a green light for any fisheries? Keep in mind it's been roughly 20 yrs. since these were closed and they still have outgoing survival/return issues. I do know the Green had a March/April brood stock catch happening and it was productive. Not sure any more. I have a buddy that works at Centralia City Light and knows the Nisqually numbers at their diversion dam. They have showed some promise but then drop off see sawing yearly. I also know a guy that lives on the upper Puyallup. He sneak fishes C&R in spring and does pretty good. Also talked to a tribal bio, and the Puyallup's March fish have been doing better also, est. 1000-2000 a year returning. The newly renovated Clark's Creek Hatchery in Puyallup is going to start raising Winter Steelhead again, so maybe? Currently the Mucks and Puyallup tribes have a brood stock program on the White, around 30K smolt per year. They trap at Mud Mt./Tapps diversion and are getting 300 a year. Not that any of these rivers will be ever open again even for C&R but it does sound that they are showing some promise.I hope to cast again on any of these rivers before I die. Cross your fingers but don't hold your breath. Here are some links w/ some old Puyallup info.
http://puyallup-tribe.com/fisheries/hatchery.html
https://nwifc.org/tribes-saving-puyallup-river-steelhead/

10/22/2022

Missed the virtual meeting, my bad. Sounds like at least 152 "tuned in". How many actual spoke????

Winter Steelheading should be shut down for at least 10 years, probably more. No way the wild/native fish have a chance to ever get back to levels in the 50's - 70's, without something of a written long range plan, and then followed.

You can't keep putting winter run smolts in rivers with Wild fish and expect to have sport fishing, catch release and tribal netting, take all catch to "wherever".

Why not have a plan "B" ?????? Stop putting winter steelhead smolt, that are timed to return about same time as the Native/Wild steelhead......It hasn't been working in Region 6 since before the Bolt Decision.

Plan B..... switch to summer steelhead in rivers that can handle the change over, cut way back on rivers that WDFW thinks can't adapt to a change over.

WDFW current plan, year by year, is terrible.....yea, makes you think there is a chance to get Wild steelhead number to rebound but IMO, no way for a minimum of, I'm guessing, 5-6 full cycles.

Summer steelheading, much better weather, for sure better eating, would keep many boats off the rivers, longer day light hours to try and catch a "put and take fishery" steelhead.

Plan A IS NOT WORKING, time to move on, try Plan B .... Change might be difficult but Plan A is, if you really think about is a real killer of wild steelhead....and that is a BIG grrrrrrrrr

Remember that with steelhead they are just part of the O. mykiss complex. When I was growing up they were considered separate subspecies in that steelhead were a separate genetic group that went to sea.

Recent work shows that to be wrong. A steelhead is a rainbow that goes to sea and a resident is a steelhead that stays home. Apparently, the juveniles respond to cues in freshwater such as flows, temperature, productivity (available food) to decide which switch to flip.

Further, there are indications that on streams with dams, where minimum spawning flows are set for the fall that the increased cool water flows help the salmon spawn and the mykiss decide to be resident.

Further, lots of bad stuff seems to be occurring in PS and the ocean. For decades, rearing and older smolts that left from out of the Narrows had sucky survival. Marine survivals overall seem way dawn.

As every teenaged male knows, the primary purpose in life is to reproduce. Same with fish. If going to the ocean is a poor decision (survival-wise) those that stay will be more successful.

There are a lot of things holding down the number of steelhead; some we can fix (like delivery of MDNs and flow regimes) and some are much harder (AK hatcheries and climate change).

I'm starting to warm up to Plan B. We would essentially be giving up winter fisheries for a long time (maybe for good), but if it buys us better fishing in the summer, I could be convinced to compromise.

Copy and paste. Coast rivers are now same as puget sound rivers. Maybe 1 or two still hanging in there.
Shutting down hatcheries is next cause of WFC or tribes , tree huggers, etc. etc.
Wait until you get to January 1st and they play the “is it 4% or 3% or oh no it’s under escapement again, got keep it closed. Repeat next year.
Or then they could play the stilly scenario with “Encounters “ with magical chinook that don’t exist.
All coming to to a stream near you. Feel so lucky we get to be the testing ground for all the excuses here on NS rivers.

It’s amazing actually. That so few realized and/or admitted this was coming, and just now see how the end game Really looks.

It’s been 20 to 30 years in the making, and the Wa. State’s great sport fishing cakes just about done...

Sad Really

Just got to ask, why is WDFW spending our money to raise hatchery steelhead that we can't fish for?

Maybe stop a lot of hatchery programs that no longer deliver harvestable fish to recreational angling and reduce the cost of fishing licenses to reflect the reduced fishing opportunity. Where else can we have our money invested and get nothing in return?

Right with ya, Drifter. Had some back and forth emails with Region 6 regarding basically what you just said, until the conversation died off with me not having a response. The word I got from a member of Region 6 staff, and I won’t name drop although many of you can correctly guess who this was, was that this was something they were “looking at.” While this may be lip service, I’m inclined to believe this person.

The big holdup was what to do about tribal netting opportunity. Although, if there’s no rec and no tribal fishery for winter run steelhead as there was last year on the Chehalis, we’re both losing out.

Makes me wonder if treaty netters would even attempt a summer run schedule, assuming greater numbers?

Im all in for hatchery summer runs, throw in spring chinook too.

Yep, just stay happy for table scraps.

I wonder when they’ll update their 20+ year old “science” now that updated, better funded and more in-depth studies with multiple universities, state and federal agencies have found that the more hatchery fish you have, the better chance you have of not hooking a wild fish. Or that mortality isn’t anywhere near 10%. That’s not what the special interest groups want, so probably never.

I love summer runs as much as the next guy, but I’m not really a rob Paul to give to Peter kind of guy. There is no reason the state can’t fund robust hatchery plants on most of these river for both summer and winter steelhead. If they switch to summer run priority for hatchery fish (which would fly in the face of the ocean condition argument), will it be 1.6-1.8 million fish on the coast? That’s the steelhead smolt plant numbers. Those fish go back to the same ocean, according to WDFW staff, the same area and depths.

My question is…with a very impressive run of summer steelhead back to the grays harbor hatchery summer fisheries…why not expect the same for the winter returns? They lived in the same ocean and face the same conditions in the river as smolts…they have similar sports pressure (when you consider that the hatchery rivers in question on plant 65,000ish fish and less anglers total fish for them but the angler to fish is pretty close to the same).

I’d venture to say the food source is stronger on the satsop…why no summer runs there? Why the Wynoochee? I’ve never had anyone explain to me why a damned up river with from I’ve seen…far less favorable smolt condition, habitat and food…got priority.

My point is…just getting rid of winter run hatchery fish and replacing them with summer fish will likely face the same uphill battle with special interest groups, ocean conditions and the tribe won’t miss an opportunity for 50/50. 30 years from now they’ll change back to winter run…and around and around we go.

I think they just flung some random darts at the coast and whatever river it hit got summer runs. In grays harbor, they hit the humptulips and Wynoochee. The satsop is probably the best option for summers, no dams, better habitat, great access from the bank and boat. Its flip flopped…the summer fishery would be better on the satsop by far.

Oh well. I’m glad I got to get in on the steelhead fishing for what, in the grand scheme of things was a short time. I’ll be able to show my kids and certainly my grandkids someday of some really cool fish. Then I’ll take them out and catch triploids and bass.

The idea of discontinuing winter run plants in favor of planting more summer runs was discussed on here a while back. I talked to Larry Phillips (before he left WDFW) about planting just summers and he said they weren't ready to do that yet because ocean conditions might improve and the wild steelies would return in larger numbers before too many years. Good luck. I also suggested to him about starting a hatchery run of summer steelies on the Satsop and he didn't seem to be too interested in that. It sounded at the time (from Phillips ) that they were just going to keep planting winter steelhead in the rivers even though we can't harvest them. The last two years WDFW was planting excess winter steelies from Lake Aberdeen and Skookumchuck in some of the lakes in Grays Harbor to harvest them. That was a bust as they were not good biters and ended up dying in the lakes. So I am thinking that will be discontinued. But Phillips is now gone so who knows what will happen now.

The whole planting surplus winter runs in lakes thing is the poorest excuse for an "opportunity" ever. Those fish suspend in one spot, looking absolutely miserable, and they certainly aren't interested in biting. Not sure whose idea that was, but I don't think it came from anyone who ever tried to catch a winter steelhead in a lake.

If we're not going to be able to fish for them, we should stop producing hatchery winter runs altogether. There are much cheaper ways to make pet food.

I think tribal netting plays a large, if counterintuitive part in the decision thus far to keep planting winters. Without hatchery winter steelhead, the QIN can't very well have a "winter steelhead fishery" in December and January, when the same nets can also catch the far more valuable late coho. Not trying to bash anyone; I just think it might be the reality of the situation....

Having on more than one occasion tried to work my way through the morass of the WDFW organizational chart as well as the WDFW decision making chart (meaning they are not necessarily one and the same) I wonder exactly how much involvement any Regional Director has on decisions being made in his or her region.

10/24/2022



Fish committee, some Commission members and some WDFW higher ups have LOTS of authority. Hard to find list of members, probably don't want to have to answer all the emails.

Been my experience that Region Directors don't have much say so in any policy decisions.

Agreed. Seems the regional directors are just there to manage the offices, deliver bad news, and take abuse at public meetings on behalf of the real deciders. Kind of a crappy job, really... but hey, they put their hats in the ring, so....

Hey, do you have a copy/link to the Idaho study you were referencing?

Thanks,

Idaho steelhead study

10/25/2022



Might be valid for Idaho BUT, the Bolt decision we have gill netting and Wild and hatchery steelhead being sold for "dollars". IMO, until the tribes buy into the importance of Wild/native steelhead, fully protected there is NO HOPE for a return to the numbers before the Bolt rulings.

Anyone see actual numbers of "tribal caught Native/Wild and hatchery steelhead caught???? Yea, total numbers but not a breakdown, that I've ever seen......grrrrrrrr

Thanks for the link, I did see that IDFG page but no link to a report or publication. Maybe it's still in prep for publication or grey lit? Just trying to find the source info, if anyone has seen it?

Thanks,

You do know about US v OR, correct? https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coas...states-v-oregon

There is treaty tribal fishing in the Columbia that would impact the fish in this study as well, at least on their migration up to the Snake.

I would say the biggest difference between the fish in the study and the coastal fish is that Snake River steelhead are all summer-run fish and they have been in freshwater for a variable but certainly longer period that any of the coastal winters when they encounter fishing gear - freshwater hardened in other words. May make a difference in mortality?

I should say that that should not have any impact on the reduced encounter rate of wild fish, when fisheries targeting hatchery fish are present.

I seriously doubt that the tribes will fully embrace a wild steelhead recovery program. As is seen in GH with Chinook the tribal view is a fish is a fish is a fish. Attitude has been expressed elsewhere.

Even if they did not sell fish their worldview is that fish are there as a food source. Not a plaything. Unless and until that worldview changes steelhead don't have a chance. And I suspect, as development advances the tribes will push for more hatcheries as their measure of success is dead fish in the boat.

I submitted comments yesterday to the draft coastal steelhead management plan. They might not have much impact, but it was cathartic at least. My comments are here if anyone is interested or can answer questions:

I’d like to start by thanking you for taking a science-based approach to planning for coastal steelhead seasons and working to ensure escapement goals are met, as well as taking steps to improve the transparency and communication with the public during planning. Please continue working with our co-managers to prioritize the health of our steelhead and temporarily halt harvest of wild steelhead when escapement goals are not on track to be met. This is far preferred to the refusal of the BC/Canadian government to protect steelhead runs for political reasons. Their approach has resulted in once-massive runs being on the brink of extinction, and of course complete sport-fishing closures which may never be lifted. It’s much better to make unpopular decisions now so we can have good steelhead runs in the future.

I do have several questions and concerns to raise with your draft of the plan, primarily on section 12.2 which lays out your process for escapement-based pre-season planning.

First, step two of the process says, “The portion of total allowable mortality for wild steelhead allotted to the recreational fishery is then determined by subtracting indirect impacts (i.e., poaching, and other fisheries, including fall coho and spring Chinook) from the total allowable mortality”. Are you including tribal in-river netting target steelhead in the “indirect impacts” number? Or should the first sentence say “The portion of total allowable mortality for wild steelhead allotted to the recreational and tribal fisheries is…” If you’re including tribal steelhead fisheries in the indirect portion, indirect is a misleading term, since there’s nothing which more directly impacts wild steelhead adult spawning numbers. I’d recommend you label it as “other impacts” instead. Regardless of how you label it, how are the allowable impacts being split between tribal and recreational users? I recommend it be split 50/50, per the Boldt decision. But I assume tribal fisheries will use foregone opportunity and harvest greater than 50% on systems with strong run predictions, rather than allowing returns to exceed minimum escapement.

Next, in step 7, what is included in “emergency fisheries regulations”? Are bait bans and single barbless hooks part of that, or are those considered normal, baseline regulations? I assume the no fishing out of boats and early closures (prior to the normal 31 March or 15 April dates) are considered an “emergency fisheries regulations”. The way this plan is written says that emergency regulations like these will only be implemented if the projected impacts from recreational fishing are enough to result in an under-escapement. I don’t think this was the case last year or will be this year on the Quillayute system, so I’m confused why the boat ban was still implemented last year and is being discussed this year.

Even though I usually hike in ONP for steelhead and am personally benefitted by guides and other anglers catching fewer steelhead downstream, I’m firmly against any ban of fishing from boats on any system the co-managers are harvesting steelhead. It doesn’t pass the common sense test that tribal fishers can legally kill hundreds or thousands of steelhead in gillnets, but sport fishers aren’t allowed to catch and release any steelhead out of a boat using a single barbless hook. Recent studies have shown steelhead catch and release mortality is significantly less than 10%, and the boat ban is not necessary and unfairly benefits certain user groups like fly fishers while punishing conventional fishers and those with disabilities or too old to wade and fish. Please use other alternatives to limit impact when necessary, and don’t give fishermen another reason for in-fighting with each other and being upset with WDFW by unfairly catering to special interest groups.

Step nine says “If multiple emergency actions enable fisheries impacts to remain within allowable limits, those options are presented to the public at Coastal Steelhead Townhall Meetings to gauge public preference.” This is a good start to collecting inputs, but it is insufficient and could be biased for a number of reasons. You might run out of time for everyone to state their opinion at the town hall, some people might not be comfortable speaking in that forum or might not be available, a vocal minority may show up in force and give you a skewed representation of what the general fishing population wants, and non-fishers could also attend and provide inputs on fisheries decisions. I suggest you do a poll or voting system and only allow license holders to take it, or at least have somewhere to submit written comments.

On a final note, will there ever be any studies or other action done to validate and adjust escapement goals for each system? You are being relatively agile with adjusting your pre-season and in-season plans based on the latest data, but it seems like escapement goals are fixed for all time. The current escapement goals for steelhead, as well as salmon, on coastal rivers are far lower than historic run sizes, even though rivers like the Queets and Hoh are largely protected and have excellent habitat. The assumptions made for river smolt carrying capacity when the escapements were set have not been adequately validated. The policy of maximum sustainable yield is a failure and continues to result in declining runs. It guarantees continued scarcity of runs by allowing co-managers to over-harvest. Managing to such low numbers is risky from a conservation standpoint, because there’s really no buffer or margin remaining in the event of over-harvest due to over-prediction of return sizes. In addition, SARs have declined since escapement numbers were set, so escapement should at a bare minimum be increased to offset for that. Failure to do that will result in continued downward trends in run size, unless SARs somehow improve back to where they were. Also, without working to increase the overall productivity of river systems by allowing many more salmon and steelhead to return, spawn and die in rivers, you will continually be one down cycle in the ocean away from being in dire conservation status. MSY doesn’t work. Even if court decisions currently force you to manage using MSY, we have far more science now than was available at the time of the decision, and as fisheries managers you should make a recommendation to re-visit that and try some better options to manage our irreplaceable anadromous runs. At least try it on one system and see what happens. If you can run a pathfinder program and it results in a healthier river and larger return numbers, and eventually more opportunities for tribal and sport harvest, other tribes will get on board.

There is an additional issue with how O. mykiss are managed in freshwater. When the escapement goals were developed there was the assumption that the very vast majority of juvenile mykiss in the anadromous zone were steelhead. Since then, we know that resident and anadromous are the same fish and that the decision to smolt has a huge ecosystem (temperature, flow, productivity) components. So, as FW conditions change in favor of residents we can have streams full of mykiss juveniles and not have very many anadromous adults.

There is lots of research and monitoring (do we even have revert juvenile standing stock data?) necessary to properly manage mykiss.

Makes me wonder if their decision to become anadromous is based more on avoiding bad river conditions (extremely hot and dry summers, lack of food,) or more on genuinely taking the “high risk, high reward” opportunity that the ocean provides.

While I don't have the ability read fish minds, I do think that the decision to migrate is a response to low flows, high temperatures, low productivity. In at least some situations, when flows are increased, streams cooled, and productivity bumped up mykiss stays home.

That is why the observation in western WA that setting decent fall flows for spawning benefits salmon but not steelhead because the water used to increase the flows is generally cooler and we still starve streams for nutrients.

These fish with a brain the size of a pea aren't really making a decision to be resident or anadromous. Their body decides for them. According to some recent research, the age, size, and body lipid values they achieve affects their behavior to remain in the river or to migrate. It is the behavioral "choice" that is acted upon by the environment. Environmental conditions influence subsequent reproductive success. What we were used to seeing were environmental conditions that favored anadromy, meaning that the mykiss that adopted a migratory life history ended up experiencing higher reproductive success than their resident counterparts.

We have seen in some rivers, most particularly the Cedar (Lk WA), where the anadromous life history has resulted in very poor SAR and therefore, very low reproductive success. During the same time period, resident, and particularly adfluvial, rainbow trout have experienced higher reproductive success. So for the past 20 years resident rainbow trout have been the dominant mykiss type present in the Cedar River.

This also has significant implications for hatchery management. If steelhead juveniles are fed too much in the hatchery, they become resident rainbow trout upon release. They lose the instinct to migrate to the ocean, so they never leave the watershed (i.e., fat, dumb, and happy).

And, if we’re also raising and releasing fall Chinook (sub-yearings) in the same watershed (which is not unusual), those hatchery resident rainbow trout will consume large numbers of those Chinook subs. So hatchery managers need to raise and release their steelhead production to ensure they become steelhead, not resident rainbow trout. It’s an issue of size-at-release, and release timing.

For one year of adult returns on the Hoh there were age-2 and age-3 hatchery smolts that returned as adults. It looks like they were released as age-1 and hung around for a year or two before smolting. I know that a long time ago WDG was concerned about steelhead smolts residualizing but I think they only looked at if they stayed post-release and not if they finally smolted.

Double post but just making sure word is out.

This is the next netting schedule on the QIN site posted November 22 2022.

WK 48 Sunday Nov 20 pull Wednesday Nov. 23
WK 49 Sunday Nov 27 pull Wednesday Nov. 30
WK 50 Sunday Dec. 4 pull Wednesday Dec 7
WK 51 Sunday Dec. 11 pull Wednesday Dec 14


http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf

Shall we assume that's primarily targeting late coho? Either way, if the QIN is fishing, we generally get to fish, too, so it looks like we will have at least a couple weeks in December... right?

Does any one believe that the state does not have the data yet to know whether or not they are going to shut it down? The only reason to wait to announce would be to keep the public outcry to after the fact. They can not answer any questions, refuse to explain why they made the decision, and then, even if they have no reason or it is done unfairly, the act has already take place. Oh, yeah, well sure the tribes kept fishing. Sure there were fish there. Maybe we should have left it open. Sorry. Nothing we can do now,

this is so correct its not even funny.

I would not be surprised if there were not agreements in place pre-season to cover this. As it is now going down.

11/26/2022



The person in Region 6, is not smart enough to have a agreement in place before "pre-season". He really needs to "leave decisions" on salmon and steelhead, go back to "cutthroat" which he claims to have some expertise????? Cutthroat, are also in a decline since the late 70's, in Region 6.

On CT I would tend to disagree. I was involved in CT research and management beginning in the 70s and at least through the 00s the anadromous component was increasing. Primarily, though, I was involved in PS so GH may have been different.

The agreements would have been made in NOF and R6 would simply be told what they were doing, Maybe.

I’m sure many of you were tuned in to the virtual town hall last night. Feels like most of us were correct in our expectations regarding opportunity this winter.

I do like that we’re getting a partial December opportunity on the Satsop.

Was interesting to see there won’t be an opportunity on the Skookumchuck for the pile of hatchery fish that end up there, and it was refreshing to hear several callers professionally but sternly express their disappointment in that, especially given the data that an open season would provide.

Was also interesting to see the state and tribes differ on Queets/Clearwater and Quinault. If the margin of error on those rivers is as small as they’re expecting, I’m glad we aren’t allowing a season, especially given the number of days the nets will be in those rivers. Would be nice to see the nets pulled as well though.

One of the interesting aspects of steelhead management is that it is 50:50 sharing in each river. In salmon, the NI side takes loads of fish (the desoreable Chinook and coho) in the ocean so getting less in the river makes legal sense. But for steelhead that fioesn't hold. So, if there are fish for one side, there must be fish for both. Unless WDFW agrees to not catch them so the Tribes can (non-selectively).

Right, that’s what seems to be happening unless I’m misunderstanding things. Is this a case of the department and tribes both taking differing approaches to conservation based on their own biologists and modelers? (Basically the state modelers not feeling good about any impacts and the tribal modelers feeling okay about a certain number of impacts.)

Or is this the state “giving up” their incidental mortality impacts so that the tribe can continue to operate a fishery?

(Or is this the state “giving up” their incidental mortality impacts so that the tribe can continue to operate a fishery?)


pretty much id say!! in region 6 the Quins run the show.. they speak and WDFW does what they are told to do!!

I'm sure we are getting the 16 days cause the Quins want to fish on the late coho. and wanted to make sure we are fishing same time so they didn't look bad.. otherwise we would not be fishing!!

If the tribes have season why wouldn't the recs have one if the system is able? Does'nt sound very scientific but does sound discriminatory to me? Lawsiuts? How do you use conservation as an argument? I didn't make the town hall, but correct me if I'm wrong. Queets tribal netting but no season? Even on the Salmon? Even if Dec and Jan only to target hatchery fish? There, the tribe has and will be guiding on all the spaces recs used to fish, including the park. That does'nt make much sense, unless it's a goal to get non tribal recs out to reduce space competition. I think the pecident was set last year when the Salmon was closed but tribal guides still fished. I think we recs are done there for good. Skookumchuck closed? Are you kidding me? That's almost 100% hatchery. I'm affraid other systems where tribal rights exist, are next on an agenda to get the recs off, and our WDFW is doing little to say no.

I didn't make the town hall either. 16 days in December on the Satsop? Really? Your chances of catching a steelhead during that time is none. They won't be in there in numbers until late January thru March. Will coho still be open during those 16 days. Thanks WDFW for the "opportunity". Skook closed ? Any season on the Wynooche? What a joke.

Plenty of injustices for this upcoming season on the coast. I’m surprised there will be no season for hatchery fish on the Skookumchuck. As far as I’m concerned, the hatchery is providing only minimal/no opportunities for anglers, so maybe it should be shut down? It appears to only exist for the purpose of supplementing tribal harvest.

If the forecasted run size on the Queets suggest there should be no season for anglers, then there must not be enough of a margin to justify any fisheries of any sort. Why are there treaty fisheries for 36 days? This is irresponsible fishery resource management.


Streamer

The program on the Skook is mitigation; paid for the by dam operator. So, the state doesn't have "their" money involved. I suspect that the state does not oppose tribal non-selective fishing to strongly to stay out of court.

Too my mind, if the State were to "win" in that the Treaty Right is to only 50% then the Tribes would seriously challenge all selective fisheries and the State has used some questionable analyses in the past.

There will be a lot of surplus hatchery steelies on the Nooch and Skook again winter. WDFW planted a lot of the excess steelies in the local lakes the last couple of years. That turned out to be a failure. The Satsop gets a lot smaller plant of winters than those two streams. The Hump winter plant are earlier returning fish than the the Nooch Skook and Satsop.

If the steelhead runs are on their last legs ecologically, then go ahead with regular fishing seasons subject to single barbless hook, artificial lures, wild steelhead release. By the concept of diminishing returns, anglers will decide when it's no longer worth the bother to spend a day fishing. Since the tribes are planning to fish, clearly there is no actual conservation concern.

tomorrow is the 1st i haven't seen anything from WDFW on rules for the big 16 days

anybody seen them?

Back when I was interviewing for jobs with WDF in salmon management one of the questions I was asked was what would I do if I (WDF) knew there was a conservation concern with a run/stock/species but the primary manager (in the case of the question it was Canada in relation to coho and chum) chose to overfish what would you recommend? The answer, at that time, was that if a run needs conservation you don't fish just because somebody else does.

Having said that, I don't think WDFW really believes there is a conservation concern. That is used as a cover argument to let the tribes fish as they wish.

i looked at the WDFW emergency rule page but it isnt up yet... is it bait restriction? no scent?

just saw a post on facebook.. says selective gear rules.. means no bait and scent!!

WDFW announces 2022-2023 coastal fishing season
News release Nov 30, 2022

Contact: Region 6 - Montesano, 360-249-4628
Media contact: Mark Yuasa, 360-902-2262

River fly fishing
OLYMPIA – Fishery managers with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) announced today their final approach for the 2022-2023 coastal steelhead season, following another year of low coastal steelhead returns to Washington’s coast.

The upcoming season is structured similarly to last year’s fishery, particularly in the Hoh River and the Willapa Bay tributaries. Some increased opportunity, relative to last season, includes an extension of late season coho fishing in select waters in the Chehalis River through Friday, Dec. 16, and increased opportunity to fish from a boat in the Sol Duc River. The season also includes added protections in the Bogachiel River.

“With similar forecasts to recent past years, we remain committed to designing fisheries that strike a balance between conservation and the angling opportunity that we’re hearing that people want, particularly around late-season coho and fishing from a boat,” said Kelly Cunningham, WDFW fish program director.

Fishing will open on the Hoh River and Willapa Bay tributaries Dec. 1 through March 31 with selective gear rules, including single point barbless hook. Fishing from a floating device will be prohibited. There is a hatchery steelhead bag limit of two and anglers must release wild rainbow trout.

The Quillayute River System will follow similar rules as last year’s emergency regulations, aside from expanded boat fishing in the Sol Duc River. Fishing from a floating device will be allowed in the mainstem Quillayute and below Maxfield boat ramp on the Sol Duc River, below the Highway 101 bridge on the Calawah River, and downstream of the mouth of Mill Creek on the Bogachiel River which is about 3/4 mile above the Bogachiel Hatchery.

Sport fishing will close in sections of the Quinault and Queets rivers managed by WDFW, Dec. 1 through April 30 due to chronic low wild steelhead abundance and failure to reach agreement on an acceptable level of wild steelhead harvest. WDFW is still pursuing agreement with tribal co-managers through signed fishery management plans in these systems. WDFW will announce any progress toward signed management plans this fall and winter. For more information on coastal steelhead fisheries, visit the Olympic National Park news release webpage.

Portions of the Humptulips and Chehalis rivers will open Dec. 1 to Dec. 16 to provide opportunity for coho salmon fishing while supporting steelhead conservation objectives.

For more information, reference the WDFW emergency fishing rule change webpage.

Final fishing regulations followed an extensive public engagement process, which included a three-part virtual town hall series in fall 2022 and several WDFW staff updates to the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

This December, the Department is also wrapping up its Coastal Steelhead Proviso Implementation Plan. As required in the 2021-2023 legislative budget, the Legislature directed the Department to develop a plan to provide sustainable angling opportunity while protecting steelhead for each river system of Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and coastal Olympic Peninsula. The draft was informed with feedback from WDFW’s Ad-Hoc Coastal Steelhead Advisory Group, which met publicly throughout 2022, an online public comment portal, as well as public comments the Department received during a public comment period this November.

WDFW staff will provide a briefing on the Coastal Steelhead Proviso Implementation Plan to the Fish and Wildlife Commission during its Dec. 8-10 hybrid meeting in Clarkston. More information will be available on the Commission web page. Following the Commission briefing, the Department will submit the plan to the Legislature in December.

Pending funding from the Legislature, WDFW anticipates plan implementation will begin with the 2023-2024 coastal steelhead season.

WDFW continues to operate under its Statewide Steelhead Management Plan, which requires the Department to prioritize the sustainability of wild coastal steelhead runs by focusing on healthy levels of abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution.

For more information about coastal steelhead management, the pre-season planning process, and recordings of prior public meetings, please visit WDFW’s website.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.

Individuals who need to receive this information in an alternative format, language, or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact the Title VI/ADA Compliance Coordinator by phone at 360-902-2349, TTY (711), or email (Title6@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see https://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/requests-accommodation.

Top tasks
Log in to the WILD licensing website
Get razor clam information
Event Calendar
Report a violation
Submit a photo
Report a website error
About WDFW
Contact us
Regional offices
Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Commission
Public Records Requests
Jobs at WDFW
Rule making
Stay connected

I just hope wherever the tribes commercially net or hook n line guide where recs have historically fished normal and accustomed waters, we will still get an opportunity to participate. Am I asking to much?

What I understand is that the Tribes have a right to fish while the non-Indians have a priveledge granted from the State. My suspicion is that the Tribes are more important to the State than are the recs.

I'm curious if the Quinault's will be fishing/guiding water that we usually fish. The Queets in the Park and the piece of water the state owns just below the tribal water. I know the Salmon has gotten a lot more popular over the last few years. Sure, would be fun to fish with very little competition.

I think the key to "quality fishing" or "quality experience" will require somehow limiting effort. In some instances effort is naturally limited by the distance one has to walk to fish.

My cloudy crystal ball suggests that we will be moving in two directions with fish (and game). One direction will be supported by artificial production such as hatcheries, game farms, high fences where higher densities of users will occur. Like the Cowlitz, Opening Day Lowland Lakes, and such.

The other option will be based solely on natural production. In this case, folks will need to be drawn for the high-interest/access opportunities. There may be rather open-access for such highly productive fish as sunfish but I suspect demand will outpace supply.

On the Quinault web site.

The Queets River and its tributaries (this regulation also applies to Salmon River) within the
Quinault Reservation will be open to sport fishing using hook and line methods.
This Regulation begins the winter sport regulation from December 01, to March 19, 2023
according to the following provisions.
Participation: Non-Tribal Members and Quinault Tribal Members who agree to be held to all Provisions
outlined in this Regulation and of Title 51 may participate in this fishery.
Commercial Guiding: Commercial guiding may proceed under these and other applicable Quinault
Reservation regulations.
The fishery is open to taking of the following species:
Steelhead
Cutthroat
Native Char
Perch
Steelhead
The daily bag limit is as follows:
Cutthroat 2
Native Char 4
Perch No Limit
Steelhead (by period)
December 1 to January 31 2
February 1 to March 19 1

Released Fish Handling Restriction: The fish species and/or stocks where retention is prohibited, or other
caught fish which are intended to be released shall not be totally removed from the water of the river or
stream when caught, while in the process of releasing them. The fisher shall use fish friendly procedures,
with minimal contact while keeping the fingers away from eyes or the gills of the fish. If the hook has
been swallowed the leader shall be cut.
(Page 2: Queets and Salmon River Sport Fishery Regulation - 01
2022-2023 Winter Season-Nov. 11, 2022)
Gear is restricted to the use of standard fishing poles with hook and line

They also have a net fishery 3 days a week through the whole season.
Notice there is no native fish release requirements for sports, and of course not for the nets.

What once was is likely to never be again.

Environmental circumstances and WDFW's own addiction to "doing it this way cuz that's how we've always done it" have rendered WDFW irrelevant in anadromous fish management. The treaty tribes don't need WDFW. Anglers no longer really need WDFW since it is the tribes and not WDFW that delivers us non-treaty salmon and steelhead fishing seasons. The rest of the state's citizens and the Legislature will soon figure out that it's a waste of tax dollars to fund the WDFW anadromous fish program.

It should be emphasized, that if the state believes that there is an emergency and that all fishing in the Queets must be stopped, then by that admission it should be taking the necessary means to fight the Tribal season. Remember, they are enacting an emergency season over the approved season. That means they should have data to support it. If they have the data, then they have an obligation to protect the resource by going to court. By allowing the tribe to fish, they either are acknowledging there is no emergency or that their data is suspect. Either way, they are definitely not acting in the best interest of the state.

No, but they are acting in the best interest of maintaining their tense relationship with the Quinault Tribe. Which I'm not sure why we should care about since co-management is no more than an illusion. The Tribe calls the shots; WDFW obliges. If that is not the case, then WDFW is doing nothing to dispel that conclusion.

Again, the fundamental difference between a right and a privilege.

This most likely has to do with the fact that the Quinault refuse to acknowledge a difference between wild and hatchery fish. Since there is no difference, they see no conservation issue. The state claims a difference, so the sports fisherman don't fish. If this thinking becomes the Tribes' position, and they continue to push it, then I guess we can forget about fishing anywhere there are ESA fish and a hatchery.

It is not just the QIN but Feds also. This is a short summary on how the Chehalis and Humptulips Chinook escapement goal ( the new / current one ) was created. Agree or disagree is ones choice what cannot be choice is for the comanagers counting fish two different ways. My question is just how many streams and stocks/species is this taking place ?

The reevaluation of the Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal occurred in 2014. Three spawner-recruit functions were considered (Shepherd, Beverton-Holt, Ricker), and the Ricker model was identified as being the most appropriate form for both the Chehalis and Humptulips datasets. Brood years 1986 to 2005 were used in the analyses. In all analyses, parent generation escapement (i.e., spawners) includes both natural- and hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally. Spawner recruitment, biological based natural spawning escapement goals were developed for Chehalis and Humptulips rivers. Based on the Ricker analysis model, a Chehalis River fall Chinook natural spawning escapement goal of 9,880 was proposed and 3,620 for the Humptulips River. A harbor-wide natural spawning escapement goal of 13,500 was proposed.

As we talk about steelhead and their future Bob Hooton has a new book (on Amazon) about the destruction of the Thompson River steelhead. Skeena's up next for the same fate.

12/04/2022

repost of Chehalis

2/04/2022

Dumb WDFW, allow fishers to fish Chehalis, for Coho, 12/01/ - 12/16/2022. So I thought like many others, a chance to fish, usual and accustom places, with use of my boat.

Portions of 11/30/2022 WDFW announces 2022-2023 coastal fishing season

"The upcoming season is structured similarly to last year's fishery, particularly in the Hoh River and the Willapa Bay tributaries. Some increased opportunity, relative to last season, includes an extension of late season coho fishing in select waters in the Chehalis River through Friday, Dec. 16, and increased opportunity to fish from a boat in the Sol Duc River. The season also includes added protections in the Bogachiel River. "

"Portions of the Humptulips and Chehalis rivers will open Dec. 1 to Dec. 16 to provide opportunity for coho salmon fishing while supporting steelhead conservation objectives".

I think upper WDFW personnel should be made to "bank fish" the Chehalis river for Coho December 1 - December 16 of ANY year and then give a written report on how many WILD steelhead they released and how many Coho they caught and where they even found fishable bank areas, to fish.

Bet, that whole WDFW 11/30/2022 letter, made for some chuckles around the coffee break sessions.

Additional comment.....Hoh River to rivers around Forks must be doing "things right"??????? Liberal rules, allowed boat fishing, in many areas.

WDFW needs to start doing from the Hoh River to the Chehalis water shed, the very same things to get "wild steelhead" back that quickly, 2 years, wow wow wow.
_________________________
"

Obvious. Nothing stopping them. Sucks balls if you ask me we can't and they can. Even in our National Park. I would anticipate never getting on the Salmon ever again w/out a tribal guide.

This management on the Q rivers is unacceptable.

We will fish again, it just looks like it may take some advocacy effort (ie. being a pain in their asses for a prolonged time) on our part. If we (rec's) don't do it, nobody will,

fb

It seems like the state is actually trying to pressure the quinault tribe to not fish on the Queets and Quinault this year, since they've said they don't have an agreement yet. But if the tribe tells them to pound sand and they're going to net, WDFW doesn't have any political backing to challenge them or do anything about it.

Why don't the local anglers organize a fish-in and get media coverage on the Salmon or Quinault this season? Fish lures without hooks like they did on the Skagit years back. If we keep quietly complying with the bogus rules that Indians can gillnet and sell commercially, while whitey can't even C&R with single barbless hooks, nothing will change.

The tribe is likely already netting and commercial fishing. It is interesting that the State did not issue regulations until almost the 1st, and the Tribe regulation is dated for the 22nd of November ( I believe it was posted later than that). Go ahead and try doing something legally. By the time anything could be done the point will be moot. Someone should file a Freedom of Information request and ask for any correspondence between the State and Tribe. Probably would need to get a court action to see anything, but it likely would be very informative, and likely profitable for who ever files.

If the tribe tells them to pound sand, doesn't take legal action to open up at least the Salmon for the recs and keep the Queets closed for conservation. Majority of the Salmon fish are hatchery stock anyway. I would participate in a fish-in to protest.

FOIA requests have to be made with a federal agency. https://www.foia.gov/

Maybe there is an equivalent Washington state act.

There is. Public Disclosure Requests. I think Rivrguy can enlighten us on how well and quickly WDFW complies with requests.

With the virus they finished one PDR and it was over two and the half years and a paper ( electronic really ) blizzard. They have become very good at that.

so the Quinault website says on the Quinault that you have to be accompanied by a tribal guide, and be next to them while fishing...

on the Quinault site it says about the Queets as posted, "non tribal members" can participate under all provisions and of Title 51...

first, what does Title 51 state, i read through a bit of it but didnt really get anything out of it,

does this mean that non tribal members can fish the Queets without a tribal guide or am i not reading something correctly...

The tribe controls the last 6-7 miles of water from the park to the mouth. The Clearwater and the lower salmon has been open to recs until this year. Which is unfortunate because the recreational anglers never get a logical explanation to why they close our fisheries. I cannot remember the last year the queets/quinault had a bad winter run. They get some of the heaviest plants on the peninsula and they return in large numbers, year in and out. We all know what happened, the tribe told f&w to tell the recs to pound sand, or else.

Its kind of like the situation earlier this year with our salmon season shakedown. F&ws newsletter says it was to limit the chances of overharvesting. God forbid that license holders harvest a couple fish a year that were paid for by us. Then in their emergency reg. It was to protect the spawning Chinook in the low water. (not the first year in history we had a low water start to the season) they think were to dumb to notice their wishy washy conservation methods. Aren't you bankies happy to see almost 50k surplus fish in satsop, that you paid for and couldn't touch. With no logical explanation.

thats the thing, it specifically says "on reservation" and "non tribal members can participate"...

on the Quinault river PDF< it clearly states you must have a tribal guide with you, and guides can take no more than 3 people...

The Queets River and its tributaries (this regulation also applies to Salmon River) within the
Quinault Reservation will be open to sport fishing using hook and line methods.
This Regulation begins the winter sport regulation from December 01, to March 19, 2023
according to the following provisions.
Participation: Non-Tribal Members and Quinault Tribal Members who agree to be held to all Provisions
outlined in this Regulation and of Title 51 may participate in this fishery.
Commercial Guiding: Commercial guiding may proceed under these and other applicable Quinault
Reservation regulations.
The fishery is open to taking of the following species:
Steelhead
Cutthroat
Native Char
Perch
Steelhead
The daily bag limit is as follows:
Cutthroat 2
Native Char 4
Perch No Limit
Steelhead (by period)
December 1 to January 31 2
February 1 to March 19 1

Released Fish Handling Restriction: The fish species and/or stocks where retention is prohibited, or other
caught fish which are intended to be released shall not be totally removed from the water of the river or
stream when caught, while in the process of releasing them. The fisher shall use fish friendly procedures,
with minimal contact while keeping the fingers away from eyes or the gills of the fish. If the hook has
been swallowed the leader shall be cut.
(Page 2: Queets and Salmon River Sport Fishery Regulation - 01
2022-2023 Winter Season-Nov. 11, 2022)
Gear is restricted to the use of standard fishing poles with hook and line


Quinault River:

SUBJECT: Sport Fishing on the Quinault River – December 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023
The Quinault River and its tributaries (excluding Cook Creek) upstream of the Ranch, within the
Quinault Reservation boundaries are open to hook and line fishing.
Commercial Guiding: Commercial guiding may proceed under these and other applicable Quinault
Reservation regulations
The fishery will be open to the taking of the following bag limits:
Cutthroat 12
Jack coho (less than 20 inches) unlimited
Adult coho 2
Native Char 4
Steelhead (by period)
December 1 to February 28 2
March 1 to March 31 1
Fishing Gear:
a. Fishing gear is limited to hook-and-line gear.
b. No more than one pole or line is allowed per person.
c. Only boats and accessory equipment owned and operated by Quinault tribal members are
allowed in these areas for this fishery.
d. Scattering of feed or other materials (chumming), or the use of light, to attract fish is
prohibited
SNAGGING IS PROHIBITED.
Walking on redds is prohibited.
Released Fish Handling Restriction: The fish species and/or stocks where retention is prohibited,
or other caught fish which are intended to be released shall not be totally removed from the water
of the river or stream when caught, while in the process of releasing them. The fisher shall use
fish friendly procedures, with minimal contact while keeping the fingers away from eyes or the
gills of the fish. If the hook has been swallowed the leader shall be cut.
2 | Page, Quinault River Sport Regulation 11/ 1 1 / 2 2
All non-enrolled Quinault fishers must be accompanied by an enrolled Quinault tribal member
while fishing. Also, all non-enrolled Quinault fishers must be within 100 feet of their enrolled
Quinault tribal member while fishing.
There will be a limit of three (3) non-enrolled Quinault fishers per enrolled Quinault tribal
member on the banks of the Quinault River and its tributaries. All boats used for sport fishing
must be owned and operated by an enrolled Quinault tribal member.
Fish Catch Reports: Guides are required to report their catch and clients catch on a Guided Sport
Fishing Harvest Report (log book) to the QDNR permits office ext. 7372 in Taholah.
All catches are to be reported by email to: mycatch@quinault.org.
Catches are required to be reported within 72 hours. Please report the date of the catch and
number of each species.
A fillable catch reporting document is available at:
https://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/blank%20fish%20card.pdf
Fish caught in this fishery CANNOT be sold for any purpose.


im no reading expert, but that to me sounds like you dont need a guide to fish the Queets on tribal land, as long as you adhere to Title 51, and i couldnt find anything in there from the small amount i read stating anything about what i was looking for...

This is a Quinault regulation that applies to Quinault and their reservation. IF the Queets is on some other Tribes's reservation (Queets????) then their regulations for their reservation would apply.

Queets are part of the Quinault tribe and nation...

I guess I'll try to find a number to call when I'm done at the range..

On a tribal boundary map it will show a little sliver that covers the lower several miles of the queets. Which you need a quinault tribal member to fish. From the park boundary up, is open for anyone as long as there is a season in place to wet a line legally. Contact Olympic national parks for those regulations.

Isn't it interesting that all the rivers that the QIN net (Chehalis system,Queets) are basically closed to steelhead fishing but nearby rivers (Willapa Bay rivers) which are not netted, are open thru February. Interesting. Isn't it amazing how the Willapa wild steelhead survive better than the fish in the Chehalis system even when the fish from both systems share the same ocean. Do you think the QIN had something to do with these closures? HMMMM.

They absolutely did. There's only one reason that the Skookumchuck will not be open the last 2 years. Ill let you guys determine that answer for yourself. Then you can thankthe department of failure and waste for the opportunity to catch a boot that gets trucked to the local lakes to not bite anything you throw at it. Lil story. Ive only seen one of those fish caught legit, a kid hooked into a toad that we thought was a triploid, until it came to the net as a monster hen between 16-18 lbs hooked right in the corner of the mouth with a tiny hook and a single power egg. It was a sight to behold watching that kid reeling it in on a 6' ultra light with the reel upside down. I asked him and his father if that was his first steel. He replied that it was. He then told me that he would never forget that fish, then thanked spoon for having a net and sealing the deal with the first stab.

Lifter, consider that any fishing done by nets that intercept steelhead in GH and streams further north fish non-selectively. Those wild fish you don't catch allow the Tribes to get their hatchery fish.

In WB there are no nets targeting steelhead so the selective fisheries can occur.

CM, I know that but where is the 50/50 split in the hatchery fish between the recs and tribes when the recs have no season at all. WDFW is planting steelhead we pay for in the GH streams the the tribe can harvest (along with wild fish)while we shoulder the burden of protecting the wild fish by not fishing at all. WDFW needs to "grow a pair" and give us some semblance of a steelhead season and if the QIN doesn't like it then they (QIN) can take it to court. Otherwise WDFW is just planting fish for the tribe. to harvest.
Spoon, Two years ago I hooked three steelhead in a Grays Harbor lake and landed three two in about five or six trips. Homemade spinners. Last season I went five times and never had a strike. I think that that program of planting them in some of the lakes will be discontinued because it was so disappointing. Like you said, not very good biters.So , I don't know what WDFW will do with all the surplus fish in rivers like the Wynooche and Skook. Probably just sell them to the fish buyer like they do surplus salmon.

The 50:50 split was "negotiated" away. Although the court mandated 50:50 the State and Tribes can agree to something else. The only option left to the recs is a lawsuit in Federal Court. Asking WDFW to do something different (and apparently what the state wants done) won't get anywhere.

WDFW is producing hatchery fish, whether salmon or steelhead, for the Tribes.

That was my point, CM. Producing fish for the tribes and we (tax paying -license buyers) get the shaft. it would be nice when all those hatchery fish come back to the Nooch and the Skook, The license buyers can go to the hatchery and get a few fish apiece to take home. I could use a few in my freezer. Of course, we know that is not going to happen. I don't think it is even lawful. In Alaska, at least in Juneau, When the salmon come back to the hatcheries. the public is invited to come and pick the fish they want out of the totes. Heaven forbid they could or would do something like that in State.

I did hook one in a lake last year. After a thousand carts, i had one slam a spinner. Then when it jumped i saw it was hooked right behind the dorsal. Lol. Only spoon can pull of the ol' spinner-snag. And if the state is selling off all of these surplus fish because of missed opportunity, for a profit, is a whole 'nother can of worms. So the fish are paid for by said license holders, the license holders dont get to fish them, but the state sells them for profit? Looks like the state is winning twice, so to say. Greasy to say the least.

The state gets money, but not much. That money, and Rivrguy (my go-to guy on many details of WDFW) can chime in, goes to specific places like the local enhancement groups to support local activities. It's not a "business" operation.

Egg and Carcass contract is open for anyone to bid on and the vendor must take all surplus. Funds generated go to the RGEG volunteers for work with salmon, habitat or supplementation. WDFW gets little to no benefit.

Weather its a little or alot of money. They're still getting paid twice for these fish, which makes it a business. And with 50k surplus coho on the satsop, i could see the state make quite a bit on those numbers. Until i see something from the state to where that money really goes, i dont think anybody will believe otherwise. Its also one thing to have surplus fish if there was a substancal fishing season. Which we didn't get. I did not know that volunteers got paid for their work. If they get paid, its not volunteering. Volunteers do work out of the kindness of their hearts and dont expect a dime in return. The state is there to conserve and help protect and rebound our failing fisheries. If everybody is so hard at work for so long, volunteers and state, why are we still scratching our heads about where our fisheries went what is the future of there runs? Sorry for the gripe but, when we lose more of our in river fisheries every year without logical explanation and all of this money out there that us recs give to the state. We deserve transparent logical answers. The money should go back to the people who buy licenses, you know the people that help fund the raising of those fish.

It should. But if you continue to buy a license and still get short shrift on fisheries whose fault is it?

Of course the ones buying the license who help fund the crack habit. But who is at fault for not fixing the issues we have. Who is supposed to stand up for the recs/guides that aren't. You know the people that are hired to do so. The people see where the problem lies. Something stinks here and its not all those surplus fish. Time for a restructure and significant change.

At least some of us can admit they are at fault for continuing to buy licenses. There are others that cant muster up the gumption to admit their failures and make a promise to the people to make a change for the better of our fish and fisheries. I have never heard sorry come from the state to the people. We definitely deserve one after the last season we had. Believe me, it would go along way with the people that get that short stick.

Voters perhaps...

Unless things have changed the RFEG program divides the income from E&C between all 14 RFEGs. If an RFEG operates a facility they get the income from any surplusing or other sales which goes back into funding the facility operating cost. Any large volunteer project or operation has part time or full time staff as frankly having did volunteer work depending on day to day operations or fish rearing with only volunteers is not a good idea. You can look up the ALEA and RFEG programs on WDFW's website.

One more time WDFW does not get any income from hatchery surplus. The ALEA funds are different and WDFW has been siphoning funds here for years but ALEA is a bit more of a true volunteer thing than the RFEG program.

SF you raise some good points on harvest but right church wrong pew on who how why benefits. If you boil it down to end results it is the fish that benefit from the carcass sales.

From what ive gathered the state does get some of the profit. Ill look into these programs a little further. Still, if this money is divided between people, thrown to operation costs, its a business. How do the fish benefit? The license buyers funding, raises these fish, keep state workers paid and help keep the lights on. Where's our benefit if we're sitting on the bank? You know who it does benefit? The ones that get to wet their nets/lines in gh this winter for steelhead. Mid coasters as well. If the fish got so much benefit gh wouldn't be closed this year. These are facts.

One GH landowner asked WDFW when the fish that benefitted from habitat protection on his land would come back and spawn there, so that he could at least see the results of his handiwork. He was told no more fish would come back to HIM; they would just be added to the outside catch. The fish may have become more productive, but the stream didn't see the benefit.

The fish "may" be more productive but the stream didn't see much benefit. The key word, may. Then was told the fish wouldnt come back? Sounds like he got the run around.. What part of the system were they more productive if they never made it back? Here is a real question. How many natural origin fish would we need per system to have a successful broodstocking program in gh. You know like the quinaults program. Look at the program on the Wilson or sandy, (cant remember which it was) in orygun. Success is all i see.

The fish were going to be caught in outside fisheries. His work was designed to benefit the marine mixed stock fishery.

WA hatcheries would "look" a lot more successful if the marine fisheries were significantly reduced or eliminated. The fish would not be one whit more productive but it would look that way because the inside folks would see fish.

How do you define "success"? If enough fish come back to meet egg-take needs or the designated escapement then you have successful management of the fish.

Ah you remember John do you CM and he did work his tail off for the fish.

I remember the story. It just reiterated the view I heard from many bios and managers that all the agency work goes to making better marine fisheries. Heck, there was a Director who wanted to grow fish specifically for Canada fisheries; some sort of trade to get them off of listed fish.

i agree with reducing the marine fisheries, that is a start. Meeting egg take goals is not mismanagement. But when you got 50k surplus coho on one system and all the surplus winters that will go to waste, wasted opportunity, and not standing up for your big funders is mismanagement. Anybody that has fished the 2 rivers i mentioned above with very successful programs know what im talkin bout. They're definitely not sitting on their banks. Wa state would look more successful in general with more transparency, and owning up to their failures regarding lost fisheries with no solutions after 30+ years. Cman, if me and all my other fishy brothers could wet a line for a gh winter (at the time the fish are actually there) this year. That is what success would look like.

Meeting eggtakes but not being able to fish for unclear reasoning is not what success looks like.

all of the agencies work going to only make better marine fisheries and raising fish for a neighboring country is not what success looks like.

This is a never ending circle revolving around money. The state knows there is money to be had and numbers are clear when looked at from the commercial side but the state doesn’t see all the money spent by anglers buying boats, tackle, nets, gas, bait, etc. Every year the state sees the numbers from the commercial side and says yeah we could get more money here and there by eliminating anglers here and there. And how are they supposed to hear us? They don’t troll the fishing pages looking at what anglers say because they don’t care. They just keep trying to find more money, and it’s getting harder because the runs can’t compensate for the amount of money already taken out of them so they have to find a way to get that money which is to cut off anglers.

Not sure I understand your argument. The license holders pay lots more to the state in fees than do the commercials. The state directly receives more from the recs from licenses than from landing taxes. Must be that the commercials pay more in campaign donations to directly support officials.

(Must be that the commercials pay more in campaign donations to directly support officials.)


now your talking..Im sure thats what goes on

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Tell him what he's won, Johnny!

He's won.... a lifetime of paying license fees to subsidize commercial fisheries!!!... oh.....

But seriously, lobbying matters. It's not an enormous amount of money, but the fact it is all directed toward exactly the same cause (we sporties can't get united behind a common message to save our butts, largely because we have so many different opinions and ideas) makes it formidable.

Lol, of course we have to mention the allmighty Wilson program, in what year of adult return are they now? Does it even have even data points yet to make a graph with a trend line?

Funny thing is this...

The Chehalis river(2002-2015data) and the Wilson River have *nearly* the same harvest on steelhead.(ours is just split between two parties) both were hovering around 5,000 fish

The program started in 1997. 24 years. How many adult returns is that? How many closures have they had? Restrictions on gear?

Their fish must be different or something, more rugged…considering fish that are caught with barbed and sometimes treble hooks are netted, put in a metal box, then in a tank, live spawned, tagged and released above the hatchery…are observed to only have 2% mortality. Just built different I guess.

I still don’t know why you think the program on the Wilson and Trask are only a couple years old. 2023 will be the 25 year of the program. Washington steelhead must be pansies, or the state refuses to except something that works because it’s driven almost entirely by guides and sportsman. It couldn’t be that. They even admitted to not knowing what rivers have summer steelhead in region 6 outside hatchery plants….

I’ve asked around, talked to people that fish the area and when I’m sitting at home with closed rivers, they aren’t seeing any reduction in catch. Fish keep coming back, they keep catching those fish and those fish go to the same ocean. Again…Washington steelhead are just bitches. Must be.

The fact that 10% mortality is used to shut down fisheries…is laughable. “An abundance of caution”…so more than twice the mortality rate than pretty much any study worth its salt is and abundance of caution? Including the most well funded and peer reviewed research. The Idaho study is pretty definitive. 1-3% 5% if the fish is bashed around. More agencies, universities, sportsman and groups involved in that study than anything done in Washington.

Recreational fisherman face all the blame when they’ve done almost none of the damage. The state is lazy and just controls what it can, us.

The fact that they “renegotiated” 50/50 for hatchery fish goes to show you they do not have our best interest in mind…just afraid of offending the minorities (fly fisherman, anti hatchery lawsuit groups, tribes and preservation groups).

If fisheries are public and owned by the public…then we should be fishing these rivers. Period. Maybe privatization is the way to go? Not saying I’m for paying the tribes or whoever to fish the Wynoochee or humptulips…but I can guarantee you this…I’d have fish to catch. I’ve had bad days with my buddy fishing on the Rez, horrible 4/5 days..for both of us. So I guess it’s not always good…

Hey, I've still never found this "Idaho" study yet, only glowing news reports. Any idea which journal it was peer reviewed and published in?

Thanks,

It appears to be from a U of I dissertation.

https://www.lib.uidaho.edu/digital/etd/items/lubenau_idaho_0089n_12278.html

Just reread the IDFG article and looked up the U of I graduate student's name (Will Lubenau). Here is his this thesis on the subject:

https://digital.lib.uidaho.edu/utils/get...5079.1670609292

Interested in looking at it, hope you all are too!

Crossfire!!!

Thanks Darth

Looks like the rivers closed to sportfishing are the ones being fished by the Quinault Tribe. I wasn't there, so don't know who said what to whom. First I heard that WDFW and QIN didn't come to an agreement. However, a member of the QIN fish management committee said WDFW " . . . never got back to them." So who knows why recreational fishing is closed, but it more likely than not isn't due to conservation concerns.

I don't think we can believe anything anyone says in regards to situations like this. A few years back the Skokomish made a statement along the same lines. I was confused as I had been told by the state that an agreement was just about finished. Turns out that there was an agreement to open it up, but the other tribes nixed it, refusing to sign off on the season if the opening went forth. The state kept their mouths shut, while the Skok's stated the issue was never discussed. It was over a year later that the State told me what really happened, long after they were blamed for not even trying.

Good Morning XXXXX.
Thank you for your inquiry as to where things stand with regards to returning a sport fishing season on the Skokomish river. I can relay to you that this is also a priority for our new Director and our Agency. As you know we are getting ready to enter our yearly process to set salmon seasons called North of Falcon (NOF). Our new director, Kelly Susewind, has already had a face to face meeting with the Skokomish tribal leaders and both sides have agreed to meet on this very topic again in January, prior to heading into the NOF negotiations. Please know that the department is exploring all of our options as we move forward in time to not only re-establish a season on the river, but ensure opportunities for years to come.
As to what happened last year, I can tell you very plainly that tribal leadership from all of the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes agreed that the Skokomish boundary dispute would not be discussed during NOF. They indicated that if the State discussed a fishery in the river or made any attempts to put in a season , then the tribes would walk away from negotiations without an agreement on fishing seasons for everyone. Leadership at the Department felt it was better to keep talking and working on a long term solution rather than risking not having salmon seasons for anyone who fishes in and around Puget Sound.
I am more than happy to try and answer any further questions you may have on this manner. Please feel free to contact me directly at the information below.

Mark E Baltzell
Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife
Puget Sound Fisheries Management
1111 Washington St SE


This is what the Tribe stated at the time....

Skokomish Tribal Chairman Charles "Guy" Miller said Friday there was "brief" discussion of the Skokomish closure during the salmon meetings but the tribes did not offer to reopen recreational fishing on the river. Miller said no further negotiations have been arranged with the state. Skokomish representatives are open to discussing solutions with recreational fishing groups and Fish and Wildlife officials, he added.
"We're certainly willing to meet," Miller said

I’ve never gotten an actual answer without hyperbole…what if the state just says “forget it, we’ll just set our own seasons and you set yours.”

What happens? Sanctions? Does the big bad federal government sue an entire state? It’s not like they can just walk in and absolve a state…the state SHOULD just tell the tribe and feds to kick rocks. These fish are the property of the citizens of Washington state. We won’t be controlled by small interest groups or foreign nations.

They won’t…

I mean…if the “treaty” is broken…who is going to come at the state? What can they really do if a state wants to fish inside their boarders?

Nobody has ever shown what actually happens when a state tells a tribe no, breaks a treaty and tells the fed to stay home.

The closest thing I’ve seen to an answer is the fed shuts down funding for fisheries in Washington, especially hatchery fish. Oh no…what ever will we do without the federal money lol

Uh, the Boldt Decision was the US (that the Feds) v. Washington. The Feds did sue the state. And won.

I know I'm talking about salmon vs steelhead, but this action has been bantered about in the past when it was discovered that WDFW didn't have the proper "permits" from the Feds to actually enact yearly ocean salmon fisheries. WDFW has continued (as far as I know) to piggyback on the required Tribal permits rather than actually apply for the Federal permits to operate WA State salmon seasons in-house.

The current process ensures that the Tribes not only have the "upper hand" in the card game during the NoF process, but THEY control all the rules as well!! Excuses were given by WDFW such as; we may miss a complete salmon season if we seek out our own permit (who cares, the seasons are quite skewed at times), there aren't the resources available to pursue the application process (hogwash), and we have to be good co-managers with the Tribes and work together for the future of the fisheries (I'm sure the Tribes don't mind the way the pendulum is swinging...).

As to dreaming about the day that Susewind would "grow a pair" by telling the Tribes to go "pound sand"...IF that were to happen, that concept would last as long it has taken you to read my post. 'Ol Jaybo would be in Kelly's office (with the Liberal Commission in tow), demanding that he rescind his RACIST order against the good NATIVE people of Washington! There's no way that Insleeze will allow any compromisation to his "political machine", including some key contributors/benefactors (Tribes and politicians alike). Gotta follow the money here, and unfortunately, sportsmen are SO royally [Bleeeeep!]-d in this State it's just laughable!

The thing that bothers me about the process is that Feds can't evaluate the Tribal fishery separately from the NI. If there is no NI fishery (or Tribal) the run sizes are different due to lack of catch so the exploitations rates per day are different.

If they were to evaluate the Tribal fishery separately (as they apparently did a few years ago) it had to be in the absence of any other fishing./ Otherwise, that had to have approved some NI fishing.

I think snit has it rather well parsed out; the tribes are in charge of just about all the fishing in the state (see CT fishing in the Stilly). Pretty sure that oil WDFW opened up an extensive walleye fishery in Lake WA the Tribes would oppose it due to impacts to wild whatever's.