Had to dig up the 2011 NOF sheets to refresh myself but Doc's Chum numbers are the same as they show but the 5% thing is not on them as this was preharvest. The 700 number, that was around someplace in a thread but I think it was a rounded off bit and I think whoever posted left a zero out and it got repeated. Don't know but the rounded 2011 700 number for Chum has been in conversation and other things quite a bit. The thread might be the one where Doc was speaking to WDF&W reducing the hooking mortality in the Bay C&R and a bunch of stuff that increased commercial time.

That's the part where we have to play percentages. If "extra" fish spawn there is at least a chance that more will return. If not enough fish spawn there is no chance (given identical conditions) that more fish will return.
One would also have to believe the "biologist" has the "maximum # of fish" right. So the escapement # hasn't changed and we continue to not get the returns of wild fish needed to produce more fish.
I believe the escapement #'s need to be increased. But that doesn't happen.
How would escapement #'s change? (and I don't mean down). Has it been a point of discussion?
So something just ain't right.

IMO, harvest management has the likes of predicting weather: the predictions are always right but they fail to come to fruition.

Most stocks are "managed," but, as we all know, most harvested stocks are in decline.

What many managers cannot add into their models are environmental variations, both in the river and/or in the salt.

Additionally, there is no such thing as a known escapement despite what some people may think. It's an estimation that is generally generated from complete bullschit numbers. In reality it's not a constant number. One year the rearing capacity for juveniles could be 3 times high than the year before.

Once asked RWS how accurate the preseason forecast was his staff prepared and his reply was " plus or minus 100% ".

Tried to look up that thread on the main board and even any discussion in old PM's.... no dice.

Here is what I recall from memory and some old notes. The extra "chum" days were made possible by freeing up add'l chinook impacts. These were made available by lowballing the C&R chinook mortality resulting from the in-river rec fishery for coho.

In 2010, the FW rec fishery cost about 350 chinook impacts.

In 2011, the same fishery (less two weeks above Porter to lay off spawning spring chinook) cost us only 180 chinook impacts.

(In contrast, the model charged the bay fishery 74 C&R impacts in 2010 and 120 impacts in 2011. an increase, not a decrease)

The net effect was a REDUCTION in rec chinook impact of roughly 125 chinook. These were allocated to the 2A/2D fishery to buy them an extra day for coho and two days for chum.

This is where we as a group have to hold WDFW responsible to accurately account for every dead wild Chehalis-origin chinook. We've got 2935 of them to spend.... and rest assured they WILL be spent at NOF. Every paper fish left on the table after funding purposeful retention by recs and purposeful retention by the 2C gillnets....

WILL BE SPENT AS IMPACT TO FUEL THE 2A/2D GILLNETTING FOR COHO

Sorry for my error about last year's chum. Thanks for the correction eyeFISH. Clearly I'm too old to always be relying on memory any more.

You make an especially good point that the primary causes of meeting GH basin spawning escapement goals is when run sizes turn out to exceed the pre-season forecasts. It shouldn't have to be that way. Conservation by coincidence.

Sg

It's an evolutionary process of sorts. People who go to these meetings are getting more educated, just like the sportfishing fleet is getting more efficient at catching fish. I really hope that there isn't some kind of number manipulating mumbo jumbo that results in the gillnetters getting more days like there was last year.

EXACTLY>>>>

I distinctly remember asking R6 this question in the final 2011 NOF meeting in Oly.

"With a nearly identical Tier 1 chinook run-size forecast with roughly the same number of available chinook impacts...
and a nearly identical rec coho season....
and a nearly identical 2C gillnet season....

how is it even remotely possible that the same number of impacts were only able to buy 2 days of gillnetting in 2A/2D last year, but this year it buys FIVE DAYS?"

The response was simply.... that's what the model predicts. No explanation of where the difference actually came from.

Took me about 5 minutes to compare the impact analysis from the year before to figure out for myself that the projected rec impact had been reduced (as I already explained above).

So then I commented....

"Well that either means you guys think we (rec) magically became a lot softer on encountering/handling those kings in a years time.... OR... the gillnetters got cheated the previous year."

Their response.... yep, the gillnetters probably got cheated the previous year.

That's how it went down.... Scout's Honor.

More Ricker.................

The Ricker Curve is used to define MSY/H; the escapement that produces the maximum harvest. This is significantly different from the maximum (largest) population. According to Ricker Theory, increasing escapements do lead to larger returns, but smaller harvests as more of the fish go into escapement.

And, in management, the goal is first, foremost, and always maximizing dead fish.

Consider Fish Management as a business; "What is the minimum investment needed to maximize profit-to me".

Not a lot of Ricker's science is in play in the Chehalis. The Chehalis chinook spawning goal (when it is met) only returns around 4 fish per mile of river. There is some interesting long-term data collected from many coastal OR rivers (where chinook returns are actually increasing through time) suggesting that 50 spawners per mile is a good number.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ONFSR/docs/final/02-fall-chinook/fc-methods-coast.pdf

The Chehalis is clearly a hatchery show from a management perspective. The wild fish are just in the way.

Milt,

Don't overlook the essential part of Ricker science applied to Gray's Harbor: MSH - S.

If WDFW actually applies the Tier model and escapement goals, and doesn't lowball respective Chehalis and Humptulips harvest rates by sub-area of either the recreational or commercial fleets, then the basin could successfully be managed for its impressive natural production potential unless the QIN elects not to, of course.

I know it wouldn't be popular considering the cutbacks at Stevens Ck hatchery, but I think a logical case could be made to eliminate hatchery salmon production in the GH basin, retire the NT gillnet fleet, and live with the natural ebb and flow of natural chinook, coho, and chum salmon production. It's a very large basin with a lot of natural production potential that isn't being used. The main reason it isn't being used appears to be systematic over-harvest of wild salmon.

Sg

And, by utilizing the watershed for salmon production maybe the upper reaches would see the value of no dams. There would be fish in that water.

No dams in the upper watershed only matters to the citizens who live there and don't want to be chased from their homes. The movers and shakers in Chehalis are all about the Manifest Destiny of development in a location where significant development interest has no interest in locating for nearly another century. But talking to those true believers is like talking to a wall; and just look at the money they've made already by filling in flood plain!

Sg

Sg and cm ...

You are right on. That watershed could produce a ton of fish all by itself. But if they wont let the Elwha have a chance, I dont see it happening in the Chehalis unless a listing occurs. Hmmmmmm.

The Chehalis Basin has approved escapement goals that the QIN & WDF&W signed off on. It is making the goals more or less but nothing much in the toilet on paper. Yell, scream, beat your chest, and carry on but it ain't going to be changed. The escapement goals are set, it is the management of the non tribal share that can & will be discussed.

Pay close atention to what Rivrguy said. The important/critical thing about escapement goals anywhere in the Boldt Case Area is that they are "agreed-to". It is immaterial as to what the basis is, if they are "too low", or even if they are met. As long as the Co-managers agree to them, they are perfect and close to immutable.

Well, we as sport fishermen can either sit on our hands and say nothing then, or point out at every opportunity that the management of this important fishery continues to be implemented in a manner contrary to credible science and the stated Policies of the State and Tribal co-managers.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00962

And just because they can doesn't mean they should.

I bet if you ask the cowboys and indians really nice they'll stop netting and you can have an all natural production river where only fly fishermen can go.

McMahon,

It's unclear what you're trying to share in this thread, unless it's your ignorance about the basin. No one is trying to stop gillnetting in the harbor, and fly fishing has little relevance to the conversation. It's the amount of gillnetting that is limiting escapement and natural production, and gillnetting that undermines the in-river sport fishery.

Sg

Speaking of cowboys, indians, "walls of death", and ascot-wearing flyflingers just what kind of fisheries do occur where there are abundant wild populations of all the native species of salmonids?

I doubt that there is a large commercial presence..................