We just need to get the state to quit favoring the 8 or 10 cowboy gill netters and get them completely out of the system. I think we can all agree that the worn out argument of providing fish for the people is getting old. The tribe provides plenty of fish for people who want to buy it.

Riverguy,

Well, I do fish it. Alot. and my first-hand knowledge doesn't quite agree with what you've been fed by your contacts. Are there abuses? Yes. There are in almost every fishery. Are those abuses that you elude to enough to warrant shutting down the upper river? Not even close!

I contend that guys targeting salmon under the guise of steelhead fishing isn't a problem to the magnitude of completely closing the upper river in that time frame. I can make the rebuttal argument, from personal observations on the river, that there are more guys fishing honest for late summer steel....quite a few more, than there are sore-mouthing salmon up there.

I respect your message and actually agree with almost everything you are trying to accomplish......just not this item. I think it's too extreme and overkill. My

Atta boy and go for it! That our proposal has this element that you find objectionable then have at it. Whip the crap out of the argument and do not back down but in the process make sure you fight for a Nooche sport fishery. My

This is my proposal, knew it would get static but the Wynoohee system needs help....has trouble making escapement for Chinook, and Chum. Coho numbers are up and down. Most of the spawning is done from White Bridge up river...let's try the closure for at least 1 full cycle. WDFW doesn't have any answers on how to increase numbers of salmon.

I would think that having from White Bridge to tide water, open for 1 wild coho and still catch summer runs in lower river, is a better idea than just fishing summer run from 7400 line to White Bridge.

To many stories about "fishing for summer run" and then catch and release salmon, that are down in numbers.

Something is better than nothing.....and the Wynoochee needs help. December 1 the whole river is open for steelhead.....let's try the closurer for 4 years, see if the numbers don't increase.....sure beats the heck out of and complete shut down.

Maybe some of you have a good idea on how to increase Wild salmon numbers on the Wynoochee???????

This is my "home river"......I remember the "old days" before dam.........lot's of fish....big nat's and even spring salmon.......but over fishing in the bay, and abuse on the river it self has decreased all the numbers of fish......wild winter steelhead are close to gone......springers are gone....how many others soon to be gone????????

Wasn't sure if airing all of the details on a public board at this time would be in the best interest of the sport camp, but hey, there it is.

I'll limit my comments to those that are consistent with the Tier Plan and hopefully bring some reassurances to the table about just what is and is NOT possible under the Plan.

First off, the Tiers are well defined for each stock in each sub-basin.

Chehalis chinook... Tier 3, allocation heavily weighted in favor of recs. After the Chehalis tribal set-aside of 581 fish, the magic number here is 2935 available wild kings for rec and comm.

Chehalis coho... Tier 4, fully liberalized rec fishery, but with provisions to allocate more heavily toward commercial. There's basically more fish coming than we can catch.

Hump chinook... Tier 4, fully liberalized rec fishery with a robust comm fishery in 2-C

Hump coho... Tier 4, fully liberalized rec fishery with a robust comm fishery in 2-C

Chum.... effectively "Tier 1".... non-treaty impact cap at 5% of total run-size forecast divvied between us, comm, and Chehalis tribe in BOTH river systems. At a run-size of 21603, we're talking about 1080 dead fish, folks.

***

I'll make my comments for the Hump short and sweet. There are easily enough fish available to fuel the exact same season we had last year except that WILD coho will be available for harvest, so expect AT LEAST one wild coho in the bag. Count on it.

****

Let's move on to Chehalis.

A chinook-directed rec fishery WILL commence in the bay no later than Sept 16. This includes area 2-C for those who want to give it a whirl. How long it lasts has yet to be determined. The fishing power of the fleet CANNOT be underestimated. The predicted harvest potential will be the prime determinant of how long king retention lasts in the bay. The other consideration is providing an element of parity with harvest opportunity in-river.

A fully liberalized coho-directed rec fishery will also commence in the bay no later than Sept 16. It will last as long as the fishable weather does... typically over and done with long before the official close of the season in most years.

A chinook-directed rec fishery WILL commence in the Chehalis mainstem on or before Oct 1. When and for how long has yet to be determined. This will be tweaked to provide an element of parity with harvest opportunity in the bay.

A coho-directed rec fishery WILL commence in the mainstem Chehalis on or before Oct 1. Exactly when has yet to be determined, but recall that we started on Sept 16 last year with a smaller run-size forecast. Consider that date a slam dunk for 2012.

THESE ARE GUARANTEED under the Tier Plan.... no ifs ands or buts. So if you are worried they aren't gonna happen, just chill.... they're gonna happen.

***

So now lets look at that much dreaded 2A/2D gillnet fishery. First off, realize the tribe WILL assert far more days than they did last year. Don't even bother pissin' about it.... ain't nothin' we can do. So just leave those comments at the door.

Non-treaty intends to pursue the maximum days they can get. What's been proposed in the schedule above is intended to harvest 40K coho, but trust me, it was conceived in fantasy-land. It just ain't gonna happen. How many days they actually get is entirely dependent on WDFW's harvest model and what it spits out for predicted chinook and chum impact. Mark my words. Dead Chehalis-origin chinook and dead chum will be the sole determinants of how many coho-directed days the netters will ultimately be allocated in 2A/2D.

The gillnetters do NOT want to take any wild Chehalis kings outright. They'll expend whatever is available to them as release mortality "impact" to achieve the maximum coho-directed days in the first half of their season. So what's really available to them? Well here's the math, folks.

Non-treaty wild chinook harvestable = 3516
Set aside for chinook produced above the Chehalis rez = 581
That leaves 2935 wild kings to feed marine rec, in-river rec, Chehalis-origin fish harvested in the 2-C gillnets, and finally release impacts from the 2A/2D gillnets.

From recent experience, when chinook retention is allowed, we know that the bay fishery is easily capable of taking about 1500 kings between Sept 16-30 (2004 season). It is also capable of taking about 1100 kings between Oct 1-15 (2006 season). The Plan mandates that fishing begins on Sept 16, so let's just use the 1500 number as a rough example. The Plan guides us to provide equal freshwater opportunity, so let's craft an in-river fishery to take at least another 1500 kings. The 2-C net fishery took over 1800 kings last year. It's estimated that perhaps 30-40% of that catch is Chehalis origin....let's call it an even one-third at 600 dead Chehalis kings.

1500 + 1500 + 600 = 3600 dead kings. What's left for 2A/2D impact? A deficit of 600+ chinook! There are no paper fish left to fuel the early season netting in 2A/2D! Now I put this out there to give folks a rough idea of how the numbers shake out. Are these written in stone? Nope.... but they're a lot closer to reality than the gillnet proposal above.

Now let's look at chum.

Chum will die as gillnet release mortalities in 2C as well as 2A/2D. They will die as release mortalities from in-river rec fisheries directed at chinook and coho in the Hump and Chehalis/tribs. They will also die as in-river harvest by the Chehalis tribe. The tribal piece is essentially a fixed set-aside. Add to that the rec piece which will also be a fixed number (based on a fully liberalized in-river season for coho) . Now add in the chum that will die as release mortalities in 2-C. Subtract that total from 1080 and you have the chum impacts available to allocate days in the second half of the coho gillnet season. Can't wait to see what the model spits out.

We've managed to stick to the plan for three years in a row now. I don't see any reason to not make it four.

Yes, we have faithfully stuck to the plan for the past three years.

The biggest beef I have is the recurring theme of underestimating the fishing power of the sport fleet.... whether it's outright harvest or release impact.... chinook exploitation at the hands of anglers has been repeatedly and horribly understated in the harvest model. Some recent examples.

2006... model predicted 215 kings would be taken in the bay in 2 weeks... actual harvest was 1065.

2007... model predicted 501 fish would be taken in the bay in a one-month season. We blew through them in less than 2 weeks.

In the past three years, we have seen some VERY generous rec seasons to target some mighty big runs of coho. The sport fleet has progressively gained time and area to target coho, yet our predicted impact on chinook keeps going down in the model.

Here's the rub folks....

Every time that model understates the harvest potential or catch/release impact of the rec fishery, it frees up more dead chinook to spend on gillnetting for coho.

Take home lesson... the better we can hold WDFW accountable to accurately estimating the true harvest/exploitation efficiency of the rec fleet, the fewer the number of days that can be allocated to gillnetting in 2A/2D.

The other area that we MUST insist on more accurate accounting is the number of dead Chehalis-origin chinook intentionally harvested in 2-C. We've only had this chinook fishery around for a handful of seasons (since 2005), but it's only been in the last 2-3 years that the chinook catch has really taken off. Obviously the gillnetters are figuring it out a little better each year with more seasons on the water. As that chinook catch grows, so does the number of Chehalis-bound chinook.

The mixing of Chehalis-origin chinook in 2-C has been under-appreciated, and previous estimates of Chehalis kings in the 2-C catch is biased low by a significant margin. The 2011 pre-season estimate of wild Chehalis kings harvested in 2-C was only 63 fish out of a harvest of 1158 kings (5.4%). Post season chinook harvest was actually much higher at 1858, a factor of 160%!

I briefly reviewed some of the assumptions going into that 2-C Chehalis chinook impact estimate with Region 6 bio's the other night. Turns out the Chehalis component could be more like 30-40% of the kings encountered in 2-C!

So instead of the predicted 63 fish, it could easily have been over 600 Chehalis-origin kings that ended up in fish totes bound for commercial buyers.

Bottom line... a more accurate accounting of Chehalis chinook impacts in the 2-C gillnet fishery will drastically reduce the number of impacts available to fuel coho-directed gillnet days in 2A/2D.

Thanks for putting your thoughts up, Doc. I think it is important that the sporties go forward knowing the good and bad.

So my concern over the past couple years. The pandering to the bay fishery at the expense of the local in river, blood pressure up yet?. Well hang on don't expire, WDF&W has used it as a tool to keep a more affluent portion of the sport fishing community happy. It comes with a price though as these sports fishers are the most involved in the NOF process and when you mute them it allows WDF&W to mow the hell out of everything with nets as it does not effect the bay and this element of sports fishers as they are in front of the carnage. Last year was a classic as in the sense that yep time on water but very little fish left to catch in river. The bay is a sport fishery to be sure and comes before the bloody commercials but must not be utilized by WDF&W pacify one sector of the sport fishing community that then enables WDF&W to implement policies that are detrimental to the traditional in river sport fishery.

A couple of things, WDF&W on the record said the commercial Hump fishery takes plus / minus a bit 20% Chehalis bound Chinook in that fishery. On the record Doc, just recently. So when we hit the meetings you run those numbers will you as yours are much higher impacts and if your confident your correct then lets go to the wall on it. No more shell games allowed! WDF&W monitors these sites so they will be ready for the question. Oh yes, in addition WDF&W said they DID NOT change anything after the public NOF last year, again on the record. This differs quite a bit from what was presented to me by others, so this time be aware.

Several times I have been told of not enough fish in the Tier plan for a targeted fishery. But the commercials harvest them I responded on the record, to which the response was " they take them indirectly harvesting another species " WDF&W uses the Tier plan bit and terminology to reduce sport take but then allows the commercials to use them and more in incidental takes targeting primarily Coho. Lets do plain English. A dead fish is a dead fish, and limiting sports access to Chinook and Chum ( yes people fish Chum ) then utilizing those fish and escapement to power the non treaty Coho harvest is BS period.

One last bit. The commercials fish by values ( WDF&W terminology ), days to us, but not quotas period. On the record no exceptions. In river sports ( including the bay ) fish a set season with weeks based on historical data during a set time frame. Sounds good but not so fast as it is based on preseason forecast so despite being called something else it is a modified quota. Asked about why no in season update for sports when returning adults exceeded the preseason forecast WDF&W has responded it was not necessary as the Tier system was better. For whom? That is how you get numbers like last year with sports conserving and tribe and non treaty nets taking thousands above the projected harvest.

That is the rub, the Tier plan, not by design but by implementation, places the burden of conservation burden upon the sports and enables commercial harvest at the expense of the average citizen. Now if anyone thinks Doc and I are opposed to each other your wrong. Two different perspectives, two different veiws but same goal. Get the best possible sports fishing season possible for ALL that want to catch and harvest a salmon this fall. That simple, that difficult.

This is just my opinion and I am not taking sides, except against the non tribal gill netters. When I refer to nets, I am referring to what happens within our 50%.

I have spent a lot of time fishing in the Chehalis, and when there are no nets in the water the fishing has been good when there were willing biters swimming by. Okay, lets not use the word good in place of the word consistent. It has been consistent, meaning at certain stages of the tide when fish are more likely to bite, or just when willing biters encountered my offering, willing biters would bite. The key here was no nets. The bay fishery is happening and I noticed no difference.

Now fast forward to net days. The same exact area is basically a dead zone. Extremely few, if any, willing biters due to numerous factors. One is that they are being strip mined out in the nets, reducing the percentage of biters in the remaining fish that get by. Two, the boats are plowing back upstream to make another run, creating an enormous wake that muddies up the water 30 feet out from the bank and disturbing the travel path of the fish that were lucky enough to not get caught in the indiscriminate wall of death on the way down.

Lets be fair, the upstream fishery is maximally affected by gill netting and minimally affected by the bay fishery. On the days that I was out there in a boat, if there were fish being caught in the bay, there were usually fish being caught upriver, I have a reliable source as one of my immediate relatives is a fish checker with a cell phone.

I would really like to address a true downstream problem that is the wanton waste generated by the charter fleet, but that can be for another time.

The answer lies in the common denominator that is restricting our opportunity, the nets. We don't need to take from each other to make this situation better, we need to get the non tribal nets out. The tribes provide plenty of fish to the public. That argument is getting old and tired, but still gets brought up loud and clear in the NOF meetings when the commercials try to make the dept feel guilty like they're doing the public a disservice. At some point the state needs to quit propping up this obsolete industry and utilize sound fisheries management to manage our 50%. The enemy of the upriver fishing opportunity is the nets and nothing else.

Correct I think. The ONLY impact the bay fishery has on the in river sport is the division of catch for the sports by species. It does not really hurt the day to day catch but it can limit sport access by species. Honesty requires that one address the fact that the same could be said for the tide water fishery as it reduces availability in the tribs. So I think your OK in your thoughts there.

The commercial nets your right on. The utilization of different verbiage on the same fish calling one target and the other incidental is BS. A dead fish is a dead fish and removing sports access for one species so the commercials can catch another is BS.

It is not about taking sides in the sports community. This year the proposal we put forward has the most liberal bay fishery set I have memory of. So one more time this is about the NON TREATY impacts with harvest and how they are utilized. I can think of no one that does not want great bay / main stream / trib fishery this year. For the first time in ages the numbers say we can but it is the desire prop the non treaty nets that will impact both by removing Chinook and Chum as incidental getting Coho in the net fishery which will limit all three of the sports fisheries. SO ONE MORE TIME ALL SPORTS ARE IN THE SAME BOAT. We get a viable bay fishery we can get a viable tide water, get a viable tide water you get a viable trib fishery. Like it or not we are locked together.

Ah yes almost forgot. The QIN tribal fishery is a commercial fishery the same as any other and in GH we have TWO commercial fisheries one tribal one non tribal.

Agree with F4B's post. It's net days that adversely affect in-river fishing. I've always tried to time my Chehalis river fishing to avoid the net and day after net days. That's gotten really hard as the Qs ramped up their net days, but I digress.

Maybe we should advocate a recreational slice of chinook impact to the river fishery in the interest of reducing available impacts to the NT net fishery. I'd go for that if it would fly. I target silvers, whether bay or river, so anything that reduces GN competition works for me.

Sg

Not only will it fly, it is PRECISELY what the Mgt Plan directs us to do.

A low Tier 3 Chehalis chinook run-size is to be managed primarily for recreation.... marine AND in-river. Any remaining fish in the harvestable share can then be expended as impact to fuel a gillnet fishery for a Tier 4 Chehalis coho run, a Tier 4 Hump chinook run, and a Tier 4 Hump coho run.

The harvest model MUST reasonably account for Chehalis chinook that die in the course of gillnetting all three of those Tier 4 stocks. It must also reasonably account for the catch efficiency of the modern fish-savvy rec fleet targeting chinook in the bay and mainstem Chehalis. We fund the rec chinook fishery obligation first, then fund the gillnet fisheries with the remaining crumbs.

BTW, if you have ANY interest in how the GH salmon fishery shakes out this year, you should make yourself available for the public meeting at Montesano City Hall tomorrow night at 6 pm.

If there's two talking points that WDFW needs to hear loud and clear over the next 10 days, here they are....

1) Follow the Tier Plan!
The Plan is very prescriptive in spelling out the season-setting objectives for Grays Harbor. Let's just do what it says. It's worked very well the past three years, why screw it up now. Stick with The Plan!

2) Count ALL the dead kings!
The harvest model must be tweaked to accurately enumerate ALL of the Chehalis chinook killed as intentional harvest and as release mortalities. From there, it's just a matter of letting the allocative chips fall where they may. Understating the fishing power/impact of either the recreational or commercial fleets can only harm the resource. We should not be in the business of spending paper fish/impacts that don't exist.

Integrity. Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

Sounds easy enough. That's how trust is built. Even though the meeting will be emotionally charged, lets hope the powers that be make professional, fact based decisions.

So if the run doesn't match up to their predictions haven't we killed way to many fish?
I would cut the prediction in half and set the regs on that.

3 fish on the Satsop that hasnt had a Chinook season in years is just insane.

i think it's an "aim high and compromise" kind of thing, treefarmer.

the last couple years i've fished the satsop, i've had to weed through the kings to find a silver. lots of them are clipped in there these days.

TF I think your talking about our bit and it was marked or hatchery retention but release all wild on Satsop Chinook, only one unmarked ( wild ) Coho & one Chum. Do not recall anyone going for wild Chinook retention or more than one unclipped ( wild ) Coho on the Satsop and many feel it is a priority and rather important to catch all the hatchery fish possible.

Don't jump off the bridge yet..........The tiering system and our committee usaully brings a sense of responsibility to all of this so please wait and see how it all shakes out before getting all worked up...........That is what I have learned from doing this for about 8 years now.

Peace
Fly