Thanks for your help. Like I said a few weeks ago when the data on teh Chehalis River fishery came out, the next meeting at the Monte City Hall will certainly be quite interesting.

Good job guys. That is heartening to hear.

Thanks guy's for going the extra mile.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

Nice work guys! I'll bet it feels go to be listened to this time!

Francis,Todd .. Thanks guys..You Rock!

Those numbers are sick. Incredible that these people still have jobs that put them in the direct way of conservation efforts.

Thanks again!

The staff doesn't back the commercial guys without the blessing of the Director.

Thanks to all of those who have gone the extra mile for the rest of us. I am certain that it required many more hours of gathering and preparation than many of us can fathom.

It is greatly appreciated!

Thrasher

Absolutely awesome work you guys... I'll be buying you both a round at the SRC wrap dinner or whenever...

I had an old rule (perhaps proved by your experience) that it takes takes THREE presentations of the same information for people to properly grok it and take action... Kudos to you guys for continuing to fight the good fight.

(Not meaning to be redundant as I already posted this on SuperFly's thread, but I thought this post would be an appropriate followup to this original GH thread)


I must admit I'm a bit shocked to see that it only took 3 months to bring it back to the front burner.



The title on the agenda is a bit deceiving (perhaps a staff diversion/distraction) because it's not primarily hatchery management that concerned us but rather mismanagement and mis-allocation of WILD stocks, particularly whenever runsize forecasts are marginal or below escapement. If you click on this next link you will see what the commission actually requested from WDFW Region 6 in their "blue sheet".

click here

If you click the next link, you will see an outline of what Region 6 will be presenting in its "green sheet".

click here

What hits me like a ton of bricks is what's MISSING in that briefing.

1) A summary of preseason harvest projections overlaid against run-size predictions.
2) A summary of preseason harvest projections vs ACTUAL postseason harvest.

The main beef's we have with the season setting process are

1) Seasons are crafted (for both sport and commercial) that willfully fish into escapement.
2) The harvest projections on "paper" fish significantly underestimate the fleet's ability to harvest REAL free-swimming fish.

The unavoidable result is chronic underescapement. When I first joined the GH advisory committee 4 years ago, the chinook escapement had exceeded goal in only 2 of the previous 11 years. Not much has changed in the most recent 10 yr window. Look back at the chinook escapements in the blue link and you will see that WDFW completely missed the goal 70% of the time, barely hit it once (134 fish margin), and had fish to spare only twice. That's right, goal has only been exceeded twice in the past 10 yrs.... not surprisingly, they were the same two seasons in the 11 yr interval I first mentioned.

Anybody else gonna be able to make it to the meeting this Friday? They will be discussing GH in the mid-afternoon.

I will be there for the afternoon portion.

Where and what time? It's a possibility.

It's the fourth item on the agenda for the afternoon session which starts at 1:00 PM.

Doesn't hurt to be early because if they whip thru the AM session ahead of schedule, they will often tackle some of the PM agenda items before lunch.

They will meet in the Natural Resources Bldg, usual room on the first floor.

click here

Subject: Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission Announcement
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:26:22 -0800


WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov
commission@dfw.wa.gov

Revised Meeting Agenda

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/02/agenda_feb0709.html

Doc call me, I am suppossed to be on the water with a bunch of fools but if this really important I will be there. Please call !!!

Peace
Fly

Now that we have a Commission that leans our way, I hope all of you will join in to protect them, the Commission, from Senator Jacobsen's SBs 5127 and 5588. Write to your Senators and register your Dissatisfaction with these proposals.

I think anyone who enjoys the myriad fisheries available in the greater Grays Harbor basin owes it to himself/herself to listen in on this briefing and get better aquainted with the key conservation issues looming over them.

There will be no public comment period to testify on this agenda item as it's meant to be a briefing to better educate the commission about the basin. But it's also YOUR chance to become educated as well. The current commission is the brightest, most engaged body we have seen in some time. When it comes to wild fish conservation, they "get it", especially the new chair.

So even if you won't be allowed to speak, come on down and get educated about the issues and the process through which they are addressed. When the time finally comes for an action item at a future meeting, public testimony will be paramount. And when push finally comes to shove, it's an educated public that will be able to deliver the most compelling testimony.

I'll personally be there to guage the commission's reaction to the Region 6 presentation. I hope the data moves them to impose stricter oversight of conservation goals and hold WDFW to full account each time they sign off on plans that willfully fish into escapement and/or intentionally overfish our non-treaty share.

Who else is in?

When you get right down to it, the only thing really being managed by WDFW in this basin is harvest.

They project what the number of surplus fish available for harvest will be for the season, then set about crafting seasons to maximally harvest that surplus, allocating the "appropriate" percentages of fish to each user group.

The big wild card in this whole game is how many fish actually show up in the terminal run-size. If the run-size comes in as predicted, then the pre-planned harvest numbers should pretty well match what actually gets bonked if a sound harvest management plan is in place.

If the run-size comes in much bigger than anticipated, then the pre-planned fishing season would be expected to harvest more fish by a like percentage, reflecting the increased fishing success that goes along with fishing over more fish. Conversely, if the run-size comes in below forecast, the planned fishing season would actually take less fish simply because fewer fish were available in the first place.

You can't fairly give WDFW credit/criticism for how many fish do or don't show up... they have no real control over that. If you distill it down to basic nuts and bolts, their primary management objective is to control harvest..... nothing more, nothing less. They set a harvest objective, then plan a season to maximally harvest that objective. Giving them the benefit of the doubt on the undeniable uncertainties of run-size forecasting, the only thing they should be given credit/criticism for is how well they meet that harvest objective.

When you really think about it, they are not really in the business of managing fish, they're actually in the business of managing people..... specifically the people who exploit the fish. And the bottom line is that when they fail to manage people accordingly, the fish are over-exploited. The pre- and post-season harvest numbers are proof-positive that fisheries managers are unable/unwilling to design enough restraint in their seasons to responsibly meet their stated harvest objectives without going over. It's an alarming pattern.

The most egrigious faux pas' in recent memory occurred in 2005 and 2006.

Basin-wide chinook harvest in 2005 was THREE TIMES what was originally planned. How does anyone justify harvesting 3000 kings on a run-size forecast that was already 3000 fish below escapement? At a time when no fisheries were supposed to be purposefully targeting chinook? In the end, they missed their stated management objective of 1100 "incidental" mortalities by nearly 200%. And even accounting for an unexpected windfall of returning chinook, they still missed their exploitation rate objective by 50%.

The final harvest numbers for 2006 reflect another season of embarrassing over-exploitation of chinook. In MA 2-2 alone, FIVE TIMES as many kings were bonked in the bay than what managers budgeted for the two week recreational kill season ( 1065 versus 215). Overall, the 2006 non-treaty harvest of Chehalis chinook was nearly TRIPLE the management objective set forth by WDFW. To make matters worse the 2006 tribal harvest numbers showed that the QIN overfished their treaty share by a factor of more than 350% (1634 versus 462). Is it any wonder the minimum escapement goal for Chehalis chinook was not met?

Look we all know that WDFW management holds maximum harvest on a holy pedestal..... HARVEST HARVEST HARVEST.... to the absolute maximum that can be supported by the forecasts. And the objective's mantra is "no fish left behind" on the allocation table.

FINE... so be it. It's a legislative mandate, or so we're told.

But fish managers need to be honest with themselves (and the public they serve) regarding the validity of the harvest models being utilized to plan our fishing seasons. They simply do not reflect reality when it comes to the participants' inherent harvest efficiencies and their actual capacity to exploit wild salmon.

The time for change is LONG overdue.

ttt

Great post FnP.

I would like to go tomorrow, but I am booked for tomorrow afternoon.