DrifterWA I think what I said was that the numbers for Spring Chinook in 2008 were discussed with WDFW not that all of the Chehalis Tribes fisheries numbers were reported. Hopefully tonight we can get to the heart of the problem which is the Set Schedule Gillnet fishery in Grays Harbor and Fishing all these runs to the last fish without more buffers for escapement. I know I'll be there letting them know what I think.

How about 1 and yer done for Chinooks on the Hump?

Once you bonk one that's it for the day.

Or how about a limit for the season?

Allowed 2 fish per day until you get .... whatever number total.

That might help extend the season.

Good luck tonight at the meeting. I do not get to go, like I had planned. I am going to end up working until 6 at least.

Thanks everyone for your efforts there on behalf of the fish in the Chehalis basin.

I realize the following is a re-post from an older thread, but I thought I'd share it here again since it was my parting shot to Region 6 this evening.

As I come closer and closer to the realization that WDFW is hamstrung in its ability to get a handle on the run in-season, it seems the paper fish are all we have left as we fish thru the season.

Don't get me wrong here... I'm not condoning management based purely on a paper forecast of fish that may or may not come. I firmly believe that in-season management holding wild escapement as its primary objective (and sole barometer of success/failure) is THE WAY to go. But given the logistical and fiscal constraints WDFW currently faces, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

When I start thinking about a commitment to in-season management, I think of Alaska... where intense monitoring of the run-size occurs every season. If the run unfolds as expected, the baseline fishing regs are allowed to play out unchanged. If the run is tracking significantly bigger than expected, emergency orders are issued to liberalize the regs in-season. If the run-size fails to materialize as expected, the baseline regs are restricted in step-down fashion to reduce exploitation.

WDFW says we can't have that. So be it. Who are we to expect anything so elegant in its execution? But should we be content to limp along with a system that obviously does NOT work? I think we deserve better... and so do the fish.

I propose a compromise position that at its very heart is still not truly in-season management, but at least gets us a step closer.

WDFW worships at the alter of paper fish. A preseason forecast of paper fish, a preseason harvest model to predict the number of paper fish that will die in each of the fishery components, and finally crafting a season that predicts the total number of dead paper fish the fleets will harvest or kill as incidentals basin-wide.

But we all know the number of real-live free-swimming fish that actually die often has ZERO correlation to the dead fish on paper. As it stands now there is ZERO accountability. If there are concerns about catching too many real fish... too bad, we live and die by the run-size and harvest predictions on paper fish, and the season continues full steam ahead. If there are concerns that the real fish aren't showing as expected on paper... DITTO... full steam ahead.

If paper fish are going to be used to determine when a fishery is going to open and operate, that same standard ought to be used to determine when it will close. This is NOT in-season management, folks.... it's simply in-season accountability..... simply a commitment to live and die by the forecast numbers they hold so dear... accountability... teeth. That's all I'm looking for.

No doubt, what I am proposing here is a mighty sword that doth cut both ways.

If the fish materialize in greater numbers than expected, the fishing success will reflect that, and fish boxes will fill to overflowing. The expected paper harvest will be fulfilled more quickly than expected, and yes, the fishing will be shut down by emergency order. It might even mean that we let a "harvestable surplus" swim right on by. Bitter pill to swallow? Too f'n bad. So what.... a few hundred or a few thousand extra fish go up to seed the gravel. Isn't that a problem we'd like to have instead of the reprehensible chronic UNDER-escapement we've seen over the years..... and the utter collapse of wild run after wild run, river by river, statewide?

Think about it. It's not like there's a river anywhere in the basin that's in danger of collapse from chronic over-escapement.

The only way we are going to work our way out of this mess is to get some wild fish back to the gravel. It will take a paradigm shift from crafting seasons that optimize harvest to ones that optimize escapements. If that means cutting a season short to do it, it's a sacrifice we should ALL be willing to make.... on both sides! If it means we exceed the escapement goal and a few more fish hit the gravel every 3rd or 4th run... what's the danger in that?

As it stands now, the record is replete with examples of chronic under-escapement to the entire basin and/or its component tribs.

In the beginning, what I am proposing may well be painful. But over the long haul, healthier wild runs will mean more liberal seasons for all of us.

Doc.....Good job tonight.........not sure WDFW "really listened", kinda get that feeling....ya, ya, ya let's get this meeting out of the way, get the meeting tomorrow night ..out of the way.....then we'll do'll what the "models show" and what we wanted to do in the first place. Not sure they could justify some of the "dividing up the pie", if they didn't have the "models" to stand behind. My greatest fear, is that the information used in building the "models" is incorrect.

Funny how Region 5, (Columbia River area)can make open/closeure decisions, in-season, in a short period of time and Region 6 says "no way", can't have in season adjustments.....shame, shame, shame......got to be a way to make them more accountable......fish deserve it.....taxpayers deserve better.....for sure sportspeople that come to this area to fish, deserve better.

Time tells all.....

Doc and I have been pushing for season limits for many years now, I got up and gave Barb a document of a season for the Hump that the Doc and I created to help spread out fishing pressure and limits to try and thin down some of the mayhem that happens out there eevry time there is a king season. Drifter, I was the guy sitting with Doc. You must be bill. A friend of Mine was a bio for Tacoma power many years ago and he said what the higher ups want is to hold onto the money for as long as they can and wear people out to the point that they get tired of fighting them and then they just give up and they don't have to do anything. That is why he left.

By the way we proposed a 4 king limit for the season on the hump. Lets see if they listen.

Peace
Fly

I wanted to clarify for everyone that the Chehalis Tribes Commercial fisheries harvest have been sold to a licensed fish buyer and all of the fish were reported using the States(WDFW) fish ticketing system that all of the other commercial non-treaty and treaty fisheries use.

I don't know what I was expecting to come out of that meeting.... but I find it interesting that WDFW was willing to take suggestions from all sides. Hopefully some of the conservation points made will actually come to fruition. Like Bill said, it really seemed like a "go through the motions" type of deal but at least some real solutions to the basin's many problems were addressed.

Doc and Joe,

You guys do a great job on the front lines and you covered most of what I hoped would get brought up so thank you.


I for one am sick and tired of poor fishing on my home rivers and I want to really get involved with working on solutions. Please let me know what I can do to get on board with you guys and fight the good fight.

Andy, Biofisher, we did not get a chance to talk, but thanks for your involvement and trying to help. I have no ill will to what you are trying to do with the chehalis tribe and how you are trying to make them accountable for there share which is great. Please feel free to call anytime.

Thanks
Fly

i think biolo is speaking with fork tounge..

Steely,
He is not, I have seen the forms, I have actually seen USFW there working in cooperation. I believe the Chehalis like many other tribes are working on their end. Full cooperation (defined by WDFW speaking of forked tounges) may not be happening but fisheries management is. There are other tribes such as the Quins who continually put a bad taste in all of our mouths. Strangely enough I believe the tribes may be the secret to salmon recovery.

JimB

well in one post biolo says (the netted totals will go to the wdfw when they begin to work on true co-management of the chehalis basin) so thats saying they arent going to turn them in.. then it was they turn in all the numbers.. then on another post they turn in some of the numbers.. yet the last one he states that the fish buyers are the ones turning in the numbers.. Then last night Kirt said they dont have the numbers from the chehalis tribe.. so WHITCH IS IT????????

Maybe all true??? Depending on year, species etc...I honestly don't know and I don't think thats a fight worth fighting here. But I can tell you for sure that the numbers for fall salmon were definitely recorded thats what I know.

JimB

I am cautiously optimistic regarding the Chehalis tribe's intentions. Actions speak louder than words. Applies to a lot of things really, including things I heard at last night's meeting. Good to see those of you I talked to there and also some familiar faces whose names are escaping me at the moment.

Butch, I believe the Chehalis more than the QIN. Who do we see selling the undersize sturgeon?

Steely Slammer the Forked tongue reference was nice, I'll try to make this very clear. Okay read slowly and try to pay attention, the Chehalis Tribe will not report it's harvest data to WDFW until they have reached an agreement with them, the Spring Chinook was forecasted at below escapement in 2008 so the Chehalis Tribe only had Ceremonial fisheries for their Salmon Ceremony and took 18 fish during two three night openings in the first two weeks of May 2008 those fish were discussed via E-mail with WDFW including Phil Anderson, specifically to let them understand what the impacts of those ceremonial fisheries were and to voice their concern with a 5 day a week Sturgeon Fishery done by QIN from April 16 to July 31 in 2008. The Tribes Commercial catches for the last few years have been sold to a licensed Commercial fish buyer and all of those fish were reported using the State system of fish tickets. The Chehalis Tribe has not fished commercially for Spring Chinook during 2008 but did commercially fish for Coho and Steelhead these are the only targeted species for the Chehalis Tribe they do not target Fall Chinook or Chum. If region 6 cannot gather their own information from the Olympia office and the Fish Ticket system for display at NOF meetings that is not the fault of the Chehalis Tribe. I would appreciate any feedback or comments on the Chehalis Tribes fisheries and would be happy to try and answer any questions that anyone might have feel free to send me an e-mail or PM me and I'll respond as soon as I can.

The Commercial Fishery for Winter Steelhead by the Chehalis Tribe is done for the season there will be a 24 hour ceremonial fishery beginning today at noon and ending tomorrow at noon if the requested number of fish are caught for a tribal elders funeral dinner on Saturday. This way if you see a net on the Reservation tonight you will all know why.

Unless I heard wrong in the meeting last night, QIN only reported 2 spring chinook caught in their sturgeon net fishery in 2008, making it clear why you are met with skepticism biolo. Many people do not or cannot differentiate one from the other.

When the point of a September fishery up the Fuller was discussed, was this intended for jacks only or are we talking about silvers as well?

That was unclear to me at the meeting.

While the focus of a September 1 fishery would be to target jacks, retention of hatchery silvers would definitely be part of the package.

Retention of wild silvers at that time would have to be discussed in the context of the entire fall harvest of wild coho. If there were enough fish to do it, one wild coho could be possible.

There would be no retention of adult chinook.

I thought it was Jacks only thats what I remember hearing