Yep, more of it isn't a problem until it is a major one. There is no plan to keep things running smoothly there is only who screams the loudest when things are the worst and how many votes will I get for doing it. It isn't a pothole until it can swallow a VW.

I vote, can be frustrating because I haven't picked a winner in 2 elections, politicians or other, well maybe 1 or 2 referendums, but I will still vote everytime I have the opportunity to.

That $250K sounds like a drop in the bucket to fix a problem and save a lot more than that down the road. I doubt it is that low still because we all know what the gov. pays to have a ditch dug but should still save more than it's costs in less than 10 years. Even from the expenses I hear just from electric costs to run the pumps.

Carcassman, please be patient with me, I like to so called stir the pot at times. I just hate the why do it until it is needed instead of do it now to save money down the road approach of government.

Vote, debate, allocate, argue, recall, vote, debate, argue, recall until the costs have tripled and the problem will be 10x as big as it should have been.

Call me ignorant or naive, but if WDFW is going to significantly reduce the output of Chinook in the GH watershed, they also have to signficantly reduce the harvest of Chinook in GH. If there are no hatchery Chinook in the GH watershed, the levels of harvest would reflect the level of WILD Chinook adult abundance that exceeds the level necessary to seed the spawning grounds (with wild fish). As I see it, harvest would almost end. Certainly commercial harvest would vanish, and recreational fishing would be very limited. Tribal harvest would likely be small given that the harvestable levels of Chinook would also be fairly small.

If, in the future, the GH wateshed is restored to the point where there is a harvestable surplus of wild fish, then a reasonably modest fishery (sport/Tribal) could be established. Those are good reasons to help restore the watershed, and to reduce the stocking of hatchery fish. But with continued high levels of stocking, there is less incentive to restore habitat, and even more incentive to continue high levels of commercial, sport, and Tribal harvest. All to the detriment of the wild stocks.

Sorry, but I'm not sure that a serious reduction in stocking in some watersheds is both necessary and useful if we are going to continue to have healthy runs of wild Pacific salmon.

I have a different opinion for those watersheds that are seriously damaged by hydropower development, and hatcheries are needed to replace the productivity lost to the dams. But that's another issue.....

It may be needed but crashing a system is not the answer. Removing thousands of fish from any system will have negative effects anyway you slice it, hatchery or native. Recovery may happen but will likely take longer because of the sudden massive changes to the system and available nutrients.

Throwing a wrench in the system is not the answer. Steps have already been taken to monitor and help manage wild fish stocks in the mass marking that is occuring now. Do it right or suffer the possible complete crash of the entire system.

Restore what watershed? This concept that the billions ( with a B ) that is needed is even remotely in the future is a dream. If 20 years from now the habitat is the same as today with the streams that empty into the harbor it will be a major miracle. The tree farms are just coming around on the first 40 year rotation and into 3rd harvest in places. Since the early 70's hobby farms have populated nearly every RMZ in all the watersheds right to the edge of the tree farms. Restoration gezz, nah and besides few restoration efforts are really about restoration ( some really good exceptions ) but about maintaining access to harvest.

The tribal harvest will not be restrained as they get their share right up front, period as it is not open to discussion. All that this means is non tribal harvest will pretty much be a thing of the past as non tribal impacts will be taken other places. Oh their would be some access I am sure but limited and no go on Coho period. The Humptulips would in all likelyhood be similar to what the Wynoochee is now.

Having been away from fish issues and harvest since I retired this thread is a bit off a eye opener ( along with Wynoochee mitigation ) to me as that lack of understanding of how harvest / habitat / tree farms / the history of all interact in effecting basin productivity. The pure science and philosophy some put forward is VERY GOOD ...................... and dead wrong. Not because of the science but because the politics of and desire to harvest fish doom it to failure. Everything is a compromise in anything we do to protect the creature and yet continue to harvest it.

Oh yeah, your not ignorant or naive but rather and idealist! Stay that way as long as you can but solutions require pragmatism and in the end it took 20 years for the system to wear my butt down and frankly I was a hard nut to crack. It will get you to in the end.

Maybe the logging companies will simply say screw it and do it right. Would be nice if it was that easy but they have more regulations that don't make sense than fish do. Didn't you tell me the other day that the logging groups have a plan that could at least help with silt and sediment?

I did my first step and contacted Brain Blake, maybe an inbox full of emails from Grays Harbor resiedents and others may get his attention quick enough.

Landscape management was blocked as unproven science so they adopted the new rules we called the 2015 rules. The rules do get rid of many issues when fully implemented but several of the large land owners are going after extending the finish date past 2015. Also the rules created the need for more roads ( average 6 miles plus per section now ) and the accumulative impacts for surging / low summer flows / stored RMZ silt migration are not part of it.

In addition the hanger on landscape management was not the timber lands but the urban areas with a mix of urban / rural as landscape management would manage each stream as a separate unit not bunching things in huge blocks. Imagine standing at a King County Council meeting and advocating a science driven landscape management plan for salmon ( which would just about end urban expansion ) and make the door!


Hey AM you might look at the thread on budget. Some of your things are up and you just MIGHT need Brian's help! Just sayin!

Well I hope he is a Brain but a slip none the less, spelling was never my strong point, well more like typing and spelling but that is what spell check is for, huh.

Who knows, maybe the fish have adapted after 100 years of dealing with man kind and can deal with silty rivers now. Tiny micro screens on the breathy holes of eggs supplied by excess spawn net used in the rivers by us trying to catch them.

I contacted Mr. Blake and got a reply. I sent him a copy of what was posted here and the proposal that includes all of Western Washington. Hopefully he will get involved before the Nov. 28th special session and possibly get behind at least a slower drop in production instead of a dead hault.

I did NOT link to PP forum. I didn't think it a good idea. If someone does then be my guest. Otherwise I encourage more people to email him and show that I am not the only one out there that thinks the reductions are a bad idea.

Sometimes it does pay to contact your local reps. Hopefully Rep. Brian Blake will have some success fighting this now that he is looking into the cuts. Glad we put this up or he may not have known about them until it was too late to even try. Let's hope he fights as hard as others have for this district in the past.

The other Grays Harbor cuts, I am not sure about their impact, yet. If someone has definate results of the cuts would they please explain so I know what to email Rep. Blake about in the future. I need someone who has some expertise behind them and a reputation to back me up here so it is not just coming across as a whiny fisherman who doesn't have any experience or facts to back him up. I can and will find out everything I can but having a voice that has been heard before is often heard better than a nobody.