OK, I understand that the letter Robert Turner wrote related to Puget Sound.

My question is:

How does this relate to Grays Harbor???? NOF is always a time consuming battle. The yearly battle is drawing near....any ideas or suggestions??????

This is not an attempt to, high jack thread.....

Does the Chinook plan lay out a specific annual increase in escapement? In order to achieve that does it lay out specific fisheries? In my experience there will be annual tradeoffs with some stocks not moving up very fast. Even with the plan in place I recall that Puyallup and Nisqually were both being fished over the (modeled) MSY.

I was suggesting we be shown what actually doing recovery annually, with annual improvements over brood for all stocks, requires.

I don't think any of the salmonid ESA recovery plans (bi-ops) include ANY actual recovery benchmarks, at least not to that level of annual specificity.

FYI - ESA recovery plans are not bi-ops. ESA recovery plans are just that they are recovery plans, but they do not have regulatory authority of any kind. BiOps (biological opinions) on the other hand are regulatory documents. Here are the recovery plans: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/...implementation/

They do include recovery benchmarks btw. BiOps are simply NOAA Fisheries' opinions on how Federal agency actions affect
ESA-listed species and critical habitat. They look to a recovery plan to determine if a single action that the BiOp is analyzing is not blocking recovery. That's the linkage between the two, but a BiOp doesn't have to force recovery to occur, as they are analyses on singular actions. Don't know if this helps, but its important not to confuse the two as the same when they are actually two different documents.

RoJo is exactly correct. The difference between a bi-op and a recovery plan is important, and is often mistaken.

But to answer Carcassman's question, yes the recovery plans must have biological criteria that, when met, would signal that the stocks have reached recovery. However, they likely don't include detailed information on how to get there, such as levels of incidental harvest (Indeed, alot of the harvest of Puget Sound Chinook is incidental harvest directed at other, more abundant stocks, including hatchery fish.) The criteria are endpoints, but there are many pathways to arrive at those endpoints, any of which may be successful.

For example, we might be able to reach recovery thru a single action, such as eliminating all harvest (from Puget Sound to Alaska and back again). But that's not realistic. We might be able to reach recovery by completely restoring all available habitat. But that's not realistic either, given current and expected population growth. It's more realistic that recovery will be achieved by a combination of all factors that affect the stocks. But who goes first? Ideally, everyone. But that doesn't happen often.

It seems to me that we could start with where we are today with habitat. Assume AK and BC do nothing more. What WA harvest scenarios allow a defined annual growth in escapement towards recovery?

I believe people need to know what they are getting for their sacrifices. There is some pushback right now in GH and Willapa that millions are spent on habitat recovery and the escapements don't increase. In response to a direct question, WDFW once responded that your habitat improvement will go to catch. Too much warm and fuzzies.

I want to know straight up from some of the WDFW folks that post to this site, will you be working with the tribes to make sure that there will be a puget sound salmon fishery this year?

I will not be buying a new boat to just let it rot next to my house... somebody answer the fvcking question...

I plan to retire a millionaire.

Yet I go further and further in debt each year.

But my original plan is valid??

The first thing that came to mind when reading the BiOp part of the NOAA letter was the decades long litigation involving the Columbia Basin/ Snake River BiOp.

Of course, the needed BiOp that NOAA eluded to if WDFW and the tribes could not come to agreement at the NOF might not take decades but many years of litigation could easily reel by before the dust settles.

I would suggest anybody with the similar questions Call Ron Warren,
(360) 902-2799. He doesn't want to talk to me, maybe he will talk to you.

If they want to get more fish to the spawning gravel or hatchery in this state then stop the commercial over harvest that is happening from AK down to the Sound. Spend billions to try to build the stocks up yet kill um all before they have a chance to return....brilliant

Salmon fisheries need to be run just like migratory waterfowl. And the first step is the ending of market hunting/fishing.

The only real difference is that the average person could see ducks disappearing but can't see salmon disappearing. There's salmon on the menu so things must be fine.

Tribes = Ace Sporties = joker

Aces wild, trump all others.

Politicians are too spineless and worried about re-election to even touch a re-dress of the Boldt.

Why are the NT commercial's so quite?

I don't think the politicians are spineless. The Tribes give them lots of money for campaigns. Their second worry is that the Tribes might assert rights to actually having fish available (habitat vs. development).

The State argued in Federal Court that they have the right to destroy fish runs. Their view is that there is no Treaty Right to actual fish; the Tribes should have known that the area would develop and the fish would go away.

This is a lose-lose situation. If the state prevails, fish are screwed. If the Tribes prevail, NI harvest will be further constrained. And the politicians don't want to choke off development.

I think the ESA trumps both the state and tribes though? Interesting that the feds sent a 'warning' letter. Too bad it's so vague (at least to me).

There are some risks in finding out. If ESA trumps the Treaties then the Tribes will really hammer on habitat, which will greatly affect the state economy. If the Treaties trump ESA then the Tribes get the fish.

time to start taxing casino's or legalize them and even the playing field

And why would the politicians kill their golden goose?

as bad as it sounds, we need some non-tribal casino lobbyist to come into the state and work their magic. Not only would it be a boost to the tax revenue, but tribal casinos couldn't compete with a real casino. I've been in both at one point or another and the tribal casinos nickel and dime you on everything. While a true casino wants that money in the machines.

as long as the tribes hold the monopoly on the gaming money, they'll be able to buy politicians to push their agenda with an almost limitless source of cash. meaning there won't be any meaningful push for reform on the split or fishing methods from a state or federal level.

That's my opinion though. Honestly I'm not sure if i'll even get my tags this year, I'm thinking I may do my fishing in Idaho or Oregon. I'm tired of spending more & more each year to prop up the tribal and out of state commercials, while getting less opportunities each year in my home waters.

Jokes on us...

I spend less for my out of state Idaho fishing license than I do for my Washington license and I don't need a suitcase to carry it...