It is interesting, or perhaps depressing, that in the early years of Boldt, at least through the 80s, numbers were all publicly available. Run sizes (including in season), all catches, current allocations, harvests remaining were all in one or two places. The weekly escapement and current egg-take) to hatcheries (state) was available at least by phone. It was all there, out in the open if you wanted to know. Why the secrecy now?

The numbers were always posted on WDFW website NT and QIN commercial. Then they disappeared so I asked and I posted what I was told. From my place in the cheap seats stupid way to do things. That said WDFW and the QIN have been going at it since Boldt and I really do not look for any change. Having been around both for years if you get to the bottom of it usually it is simply the QIN responding to WDFW poking them in the eye. Oh did I mention that both staffs really don't care for the other that much.

Back before computers, I used to call WDG guys that worked at hatcheries for run info. All very helpful and knowledgeable. One guy named Bob Leland, I think was the steelhead program manager at the time, I would call to obtain paper copies of state wide steelhead smolt plants. He would pkg up and send them snail mail. All it took was phone call. I still have them today. They date back to 1983. Tom Cropp was our local bio and full of information and assisited in our local wild brood stock program. Wonder if those guys are still around? Those WDG guys were part of the steelhead community and would bend over backwards to help. My how things have changed!

That's how it used to work. I think it was called "public service". Bob retired about a decade ago, rather pushed out. He's still here in Olympia. I think Tom left before and don't know his status.

Back when I was in salmon, each of the folks in the unit had their "own" commercials who would call up every Friday for info on the coming week's schedule, the run sizes, the why's and wherefores.

And here is the WDFW response to me on posting QIN catch numbers.


Hope you are well. Thanks for the inquiry, but no we will not be posting tribal catch data on our website. As you are aware, the Quinault Indian Nation regulates their own fisheries, which includes monitoring and enforcement. Collectively, the Co-managers, WDFW and QIN, meet pre-season, in-season, and post season to share our respective data sets and technical expertise on attaining our shared management goals. I realize in the past that information had been available when it was made available to staff but that was problematic as it set up a public expectation around timeliness of that information that our staff had no control over. Lastly, we do not have agreement to share preliminary in-season data as final catch estimates, those data must undergo QA/QC and typically isn’t finalized until post season.

Thanks,
Chad

Back in the day, when management was done in real-time, the preliminary numbers were used and corrected as data were reviewed. The commercial catch data for salmon was something like 99% complete 3 days after the date of landing. Target was 95 but the staff routinely beat it. For ALL commercial catch.

Co-management is a euphemism. What we have is treaty tribal management doing what it wants and WDFW running along parallel doing whatever treaty tribes tell them to do.

The tail wags the dog.

Well, yeah. That seems to be how it works.

Not here SG in the Chehalis. They are still poking each other in the eye and WDFW appears to poke first but the QIN are great counter punchers.

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi?v=20200803v1

Here is the updated NOAA weather for those who know how to fish the rise when the stampede starts. Look to the flow tab and use the Satsop. NOAA updates several times a day so you can darn near get it down to the minute.

Was doing and update on the salmon returns and the site went down again and lost the work. So the short version, Bingham / Springs is down about a 1000 plus Coho compared to last year. NT commercials modeled at Chum 10,324 and actual 7110 and Coho modeled 1299 actual 639. Without tribes catch numbers one can only guess but the early coho could have affected the numbers a lot and I think it did. That said Bingham numbers say Coho run was off prediction by around 9%. Now Chum acatch is off about 32% which is not good but Chum are managed for Grays Harbor as a whole and the forecat was just shy of 147,000 with and escapement goal of 21.000 so being down a third is okay as it keeps above the escapement goal assuming things track the same with the QIN.

So it looks like we did okay but if anyone has the QIN numbers let us know.

QIN catches for Coho and Chum and formatting is off but you all will figure it out. So numbers say Coho up early Chum down from forcast but nothing drastic. One observation by a friend is Coho size last week was down in size. My thanks and others to the QIN for providing catch numbers. Damn nice of them because they don't have to do it!


Coho Chum

Week 40 707 6
Week 41 4809 101
Week 42 876 370
Week 43 1369 5589
Week 44 914 5136
Week 45 913 4413

Actual 9588 15,165
Modeled 19,317 43,443

The loss in size at age has been seen in AK since the 00s. Apparently a disruption in the foodchain. And now the blob is back.

Oh no, not the blob again ?


Meteorological Rumor sez the blob is a was.

Lot of high water not nice! Then this is different!


Heads up if you're trying to go down Blue Slough... There is LOT of water over the road and also there is a sea lion sitting in the middle of the road and emergency vehicles have that partially blocked.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10230591741922817&set=p.10230591741922817&type=3

I hope someone ran it over.

Then backed up and did it again!

This showed up in my e-mail in response to questions on the Wynoochee. I have to admit Chad has mastered agency speak. What he did not mention was the shortage of Chinook is not due to anything local users harvest but the 30% to 50% of our Chinook are taken by Alaska and BC. To make it clear WDFW has not objected but act more like lap dogs than managers. The Nooch mitigation is a very long story but keeping it short this response is wayyyyyy past glossing over the true facts.


Good to hear from you and hope that you are well. Thanks for the question regarding coho fisheries in the Wynoochee River above White Bridge. The answer to that question does not center on any constraint due to coho availability. Rather the constraint for fisheries in this area is twofold; impacts to natural origin fall Chinook and lack of the ability to expand current fisheries without additional information that returns are greater than forecasted coupled with the resources for monitoring those expanded fisheries. While fall Chinook in the Wynoochee River spawn throughout the system stock assessment data suggest a high proportion of fish spawn above White Bridge, quite simply this area is our most productive for Chinook spawning in the Wynoochee River. As you are well aware, lack of available fall Chinook has long been a constraint relative to fisheries in the entirety of the Chehalis Basin. Fisheries in the watershed are timed and placed so as to minimize impacts to fall Chinook and target available coho for harvest.

In consideration of in-season action for this year to expand opportunity, the Department would need information to suggest that actual returns were exceeding preseason forecasted terminal run size estimates for Chinook and Coho in the watershed in order to take such an action. Fisheries were planned preseason and agreed to with our Co-Managers so as to ensure attainment of management objectives outlined in the Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy relative to natural Chinook and Coho stocks in the watershed and in the signed fall fishery harvest management agreement with the Quinault Indian Nation. Outside of the constraint due to lack of our ability to update the run size in season, the Agency currently lacks the resources necessary to monitor any expansion of salmon fisheries outside of the recent year footprint. With that said, I think this certainly could be a topic of discussion during our upcoming NOF planning process for consideration in future years.

Lastly, I certainly understand your frustration with the fulfillment of the Wynoochee Mitigation Plan and recognize the length of time this issue has been at the forefront of fishery management conversation in the watershed. I know it won’t be much consolation after the length of time, but we continue to work with QIN on finalizing an agreement to utilize the funds available. I hope to have more information relative to that topic soon. Please feel free to reach out if you require more information or have questions on other topics.

Thanks,

Chad Herring
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Cell #:(360)470-3410
Chad.Herring@dfw.wa.gov

Again, "Back in the day", WDF did in-season updates in PS, GH, and Willapa. Post-season analysis showed that the ISU's were more accurate (closer to the real number) than the PSF's in almost every case.

The problem;em with ISU's, well known to the tribes, is that the last in line is one who bears the conservation burden. The ocean fisheries, which are primarily NI in the sharing, are done and landed. So, the NI gets their fish and the Tribes sit. This led to Hoh V. Baldridge and the idea to equalize catch and let escapement occur.

Through agreements, such as not reporting catch immediately, prevents ISUs. It does allow for "fixed" fisheries. As one former Harvest manager put it "We had preseason agreements and everybody fished according to them. Management was successful". Of course, the coho run in question didn't make goal.

Such a fishing pattern does keep the state and tribes out of court and appearing to work well together.

I believe that the runs can be managed better but it require an investment in more staff to collect and analyze the data. It will also require shifting fisheries to terminal so that big ocean mixed stock fisheries don't hammer them. The beneficiaries would be the fish, the tribes, and the in-river sporties.