#1048133 - 02/22/21 03:11 PM
WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4413
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Well I thought I would help folks that are a little confused or a better way to say, in the dark. Since the Commission adopted the Willapa Policy it has become the poster child for WDFD refusing to comply. The Advocacy has been after them from day one and still is. As to WDFW dropping the Willapa and Grays Harbor Advisers I am not aware of any notice of our termination other than not being on the NOF Agenda and comments at Commission meetings made by Mr. Warren. Which I believe along the lines that we have gotten old and cranky. Old yup that is true. Cranky, nah we were always cranky we just got smarter!
First up:
February 22, 2021 To: The Honorable Members of the WDFW Commission Re: Notice of Breach of Willapa Bay Settlement Agreement
On July 27, 2018, the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy entered into a settlement to Thurston County Superior Court Cause No. 17-2-05550-34 which dealt with season setting in Willapa Bay. The settlement agreement states:
7. Dispute Resolution. Prior to initiating any action relating to this Agreement, a contesting party shall provide written notice of a dispute, outlining the substance of the dispute, and requesting a conference to see if the dispute can be resolved short of litigation. Thereafter, the parties shall engage in at least one substantive meeting and use good faith efforts to seek resolution. Attached for your review is notice from the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy of its assertion that the Department of Fish & Wildlife, in conjunction with actions of members of the Commission, have breached said agreement. Accordingly, the Advocacy requests a conference to see if the dispute can be resolved short of litigation in accordance with section 7. stated above.
The attached notice contains the history of litigation surrounding the Department's actions in Willapa Bay that documents its reluctance to adhere to state statutes and follow the path of transparency and utilize the standards of professionalism and good faith dealings when engaging the public and the Commission on matters related to salmon management in Willapa Bay. Additionally, the attached notice contains a detailed list of the breaches of the Agreement that have occurred and if not redressed, will likely reoccur in the near future. Respectfully,
Tim Hamilton, President Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048134 - 02/22/21 03:16 PM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4413
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
And here is the attachment mentioned. Now the formatting is a bit rough and missing a couple paragraph headers but things like this I C&P only so no tidy up bit.
February 22, 2021
The Honorable Members of the Commission Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501
RE: Notice of Breach of Settlement Agreement The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy ) is a WA based non-profit corporation with 501 (C) (3) status issued by the IRS. The organization was formed to: Provide education, science, and other efforts that encourage the public, regulatory agencies and private businesses to manage or utilize fish, wildlife and other natural resources in a fashion that insures the sustainable of those resources on into the future for the benefit of future generations. The Department’s historical reluctance to follow transparency standards and conduct its interactions with the public in an appropriate fashion on the Coast The members of the Advocacy, along with family and neighbors, invested thousands of hours and dollars over 3 decades trying to recover salmon runs in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. Those activities included operation of volunteer hatchery programs, habitat restoration, and assisting WDFW at its state operated hatcheries. The effort proved futile as salmon runs continued to decline and fishing opportunities diminished. In 2011, local citizens tried to figure out the problem to develop solutions. Instead of helping the citizens, WDFW sought to block information from the public view. As a result, the first suit was filed against WDFW for breach of the Public Records Act. A settlement was reached where the public thought this issue was resolved. As you’ll read shortly, it wasn’t. Review of the documents recovered found that WDFW was setting salmon seasons on the Coast using Advisory Groups that met in secrecy with the understanding all participants could not speak publicly about what went on behind closed doors. Seasons set in Willapa Bay placed a harvest rate on natural spawning Chinook in excess of 50%. Run sizes continued to decline and escapement goals for Chinook, Coho, and Chum were seldom reached in Willapa Bay wherein the overwhelming share of the harvest was provided to the commercial license holders. The average percentage of the harvest in Willapa from 1990-2009 for the commercial sector was 82% for Chinook, 92% for Coho, and 98% for Chum. The recreational sector came in respectively at 18%, 8%, and 2%.1 1 Catch comparison commercial v sport 1990-2010 18 Oct 2011 kmh.xlsx We could give them (commercials) every fish that crosses the bar and it wouldn’t be enough......They are simply trying to perserve their way of life WDFW Director Phil Anderson, 2013 settlement discussions Page 2, Advocacy Notice of Breach of Settlement The WDFW management philosophy that prioritized harvest over conservation and the ever-declining runs reached the point where the coastal economy faced the economic threat of an endangered species designation by the EPA for coastal fall Chinook. While WDFW managed Grays Harbor for natural spawning, over in Willapa the Department “managed for hatchery fish”. Hatchery operations in Willapa Bay and other functions of WDFW ignored the Hatchery Reform Policy, Wild Fish Initiative, best available science, habitat functions and hydrology to the point the question was asked “Is Willapa Bay in the state of Washington?” Since coastal fall Chinook found along the Coast are considered jointly, WDFW management in Willapa Bay was threatening to negatively impact the entire region in a fashion not seen since the “Spotted Owl Decision”. In 2013, three local citizens challenged salmon seasons set in Willapa Bay and in Grays Harbor arguing the secret process utilized by WDFW violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Again, a settlement was reached wherein the three plaintiffs would create a non-profit corporation (Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy). The Department would seek an independent scientific review of mortality rates of selective fishing with commercial gillnets and finally accept repeated requests of members of the Commission to develop a salmon management policy for Willapa Bay. Another outcome of this litigated step was development of a process wherein the public would be notified of meetings of the Advisors and said meeting would be open to the public. An opportunity for the general public to record their comments would be provided at the end of the meeting. At that point the public believed the Department was adopting open meeting and transparency principals when managing and setting seasons. Such was the case during the development and adoption of the Willapa Policy and the two years that followed. By year three, Department staff and Commission members turned over. WDFW subsequently began its return to the days of the past. Willapa Bay Gillnetter’s Association challenges the Willapa Policy The Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association (WBGA) quickly filed numerous litigations challenging the Willapa Policy and the Advocacy intervened to stand up for the conservation standards set in the policy. In essence, WBGA objected to the Commission’s passage of a policy containing specified harvest rates, etc. that were followed by WDFW setting seasons that were influenced by the conservation standards contained in the new policy. It further argued that the economic wellbeing of the commercial fleet was on an equal par with conservation. The court soundly rejected the arguments and dismissed the case on June 17, 2013.2 At that point, the Advocacy thought the conservation standards were safely enshrined by the Court. We were mistaken. The ruling stated the commercials were not entitled to any certain level of economic well being that would come at the expense of conservation. It didn’t say the Department couldn’t by its own actions set seasons that granted the commercials priority over conservation and the rest of the citizenry. Which is exactly what happened. The Department’s use (or misuse) of the Fish & Wildlife Commission when setting annual deviations to the Willapa Policy 2 Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association -v Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (Thurston County No. 15-2- 02078-34 The Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy was adopted by the Commission in 2015. The Adaptive Management section of the policy states “The Commission will also track implementation and results of the fishery management actions and artificial production programs in the transition period, with annual reviews beginning in 2016 and a comprehensive review at the end of the transition period (e.g., 2019). Fisheries pursuant to this Policy will be adaptive and adjustments may be made. Department staff may implement actions necessary to manage adaptively to achieve the objectives of this policy and shall coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions. “ Here’s the unforeseen problem that developed. The Department continued to harvest at a rate that exceeded the harvest rates set forth in the Policy. Achievement of escapement goals was a failure. Completing a comprehensive review of hatcheries didn’t occur. The list goes on and on. Did the Department coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions to its problems and failures to restore natural spawners? The answer is not to our knowledge. However, the Department did approach the Commission in 2018, 2019, 2020, and now again in 2021 to acquire additional “guidance” under the concept of adaptive management. The presentations to the Commission were obviously designed to convince the members of the Commission that harvest rates and the recreational sharing component were creating a major hardship on the commercial sector. The selective use of data and the omissions of material facts in these presentations are reflective of what would come from a proponent seeking to convince uniformed policy makers to change or adopt rules, etc. The term “snooker” was raised repeatedly by members of the public that were aware of the factual record in Willapa Bay. As a result, the public and even members of the Commission were confused over the action the Commission had actually taken. Regularly, the intention of the deviation passed (increasing commercial harvest) was not reflected in the motions and comments from the Commissioners. As an example, the first deviation which was famously dubbed a “pickle” sought to increase harvest by the commercial sector by cutting back harvest from the recreational sector. Problem was the Commissioners did not receive the actual facts in briefings from WDFW staff regarding the harvest by each sector which is tied to the impacts on natural spawners. Instead of increasing commercial harvest for the commercials, the oral amendment by the first deviation actually reduced the commercial opportunity. Just one example of the Department failing to properly support the Commission. The “Chum Chuck” litigation and the revised use of Willapa Bay Advisors During the season underway in 2017, the WDFW returned to its past practices of setting seasons behind closed doors. Rather than having conference calls with all the advisors when considering emergency rule changes inseason, the Department set an emergency rule change after private conversations with the commercial sector. The rule adopted allowed the commercial fleet to “chuck” non-retainable Chum salmon overboard without placing them in the recovery box required in selective fishing protocols. Once again, the Advocacy had to seek out assistance from the court. Once again a settlement was reach and once again, WDFW failed to respect the intent and expressed terms of the settlement. During settlement discussions, the problems created by the recent deviations to the policy and the question over whether or not members of the Commission would be provided adequate staff brief- Page 3, Advocacy Notice of Breach of Settlement ings in its upcoming 2018 review of the Policy came front and center in the minds of the members of the Advocacy. Then, the problems with WDFW setting flawed emergency rules behind closed doors was fully recognized. These concerns were addressed in the settlement agreement as follows: 2. Revised Use of the Willapa Bay Salmon Advisory Group. WDFW agrees to modify the role of the Willapa Bay Salmon Advisory Group (hereinafter the “Advisory Group”) as follows: a. In addition to providing input on possible commercial and recreational salmon fisheries, the Advisory Group will be tasked with providing recommendations to the WDFW Commission regarding the Willapa Bay Salmon Management policy during the fall of 2018. b. WDFW will seek recommendations from the Advisory Group regarding implementation of the Policy regarding pre-season setting of fishing schedules, and in-season management actions (including the promulgation of emergency regulations). The parties acknowledge that in-season management sometimes needs to occur swiftly, and with short notice. The Department agrees to use best efforts to convene the Advisor group as swiftly as possible after information becomes available suggesting the need for in-season management actions. It will be the responsibility of Advisors to react, as needed. The Department will not be responsible for the failure or inability of Advisors to participate in scheduled meetings, including those called on short notice due to emergent circumstances. c. This revised role for the Advisory Group will be communicated to the Advisors as part of their appointment letter. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit A. The appointment letter to the Advisors (Exhibit A) stated: Lastly, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has directed the Department to conduct a thorough review of the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C-3622), to be presented to the commission in the fall of 2018. During a series of advisory meetings that will take place during the fall of 2018, Willapa Bay advisors will be provided with review materials and be asked to provide input as to format and relevant data to be included in the commission presentation. Once again, WDFW did not honor the settlement agreement. First, it delayed the review scheduled in 2018 on until 2020. Then, the Advocacy transmitted to the Commission a lengthy letter detailing the debacle that WDFW created in meetings with the Advisors3. This communications explained the hostile environment created by WDFW staff as non-commercial advisors were threatened with “consequences” if they left their seat without permission. A college graduate interested in habitat and conservation was told he was uneducated, didn’t know what he talking about and letting him comment was a waste of the public’s time. When advisors tried to discuss habitat, conservation and other subjects outlined in the Policy, staff stated “We aren’t going there” It was clear the Department felt the role of the Advisors was limited to harvest issues and the Department 3 “Advocacy Comments.pdf” transmitted via email 10/09/20 Page 4, Advocacy Notice of Breach of Settlement Page 5, Advocacy Notice of Breach of Settlement had no intention to “.... conduct a thorough review of the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C-3622)”. The recent move to terminate the Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Advisory Groups When Willapa was on the agenda in a recent meeting of the Commission, Ron Warren was asked what was going on with the advisors. He apparently explained that all of the advisors appointments expired on Dec. 31, 2020 and the Advisory Group was being disbanded. Why? Mr. Warren stated the advisors had gotten older and the Department wanted to increase the engagement with the open public. This was the first the Advisors heard of this intention. The Advocacy offers another rationale for this action. While the advisors have surely aged during this nearly decade long effort to correct the mismanagement of the salmon in Twin Harbors, best available science says Mr. Warren and other staffers did as well. Members of the Advocacy would consider it disrespectful if not slanderous or discriminatory to make such a claim against him. We also believe the real problem facing the Department is the fact that we’ve not only gotten older but also wiser during this period. As for this notion the Department is seeking enhanced public participation, since the 2013 settlement all of the Advisory meetings were opened to the public and an opportunity for comment was provided to all at the end of the meeting. Our interpretation of the rationale for this latest move is the Department seeks to block experienced advisors from requesting data and information through the advisor format which was helpful in all the public understanding the facts. Further, said advisors and the public would then use this knowledge to offer comments to the Commission. By disbanding the Advisor Group, the public will be limited to “dog and pony shows” wherein the staff controls and limits in its sole discretion the information available to the public. A desire to limit the public’s ability to communicate with the Commission and prevent Advisors from acting as “fact checkers” seems to be the primary objective of this action by WDFW. It is also noteworthy to point out what happened at the last meeting of the Advisory Group. Commercial advisors expressed dissatisfaction that the other advisors would not endorse changes they wanted which included: • repealing the Policy entirely or, modifying it to eliminate: • the recreational priority for Chinook • spawner escapement goals for natural spawners • all harvest rate caps • the application of HSRG or other state standards to hatcheries in Willapa Bay When it was clear the non-commercial advisors were unwilling to return to the days of “managing for hatchery fish for commercial harvest”, the concept that dug the hole this deep in the first place. Page 6, Advocacy Notice of Breach of Settlement The commercial advisors then suggested elimination of the Advisory Group entirely. Recently, the public and the Commission learned the Department apparently agreed to honor their request. The role played by the members of the Commission The Commission was established by a vote of the people and was provided millions of taxpayer dollars in annual operating budget, scores of office buildings and thousands of employees. Additionally, the Commission was granted the authority to delegate season setting and other functions downward to the Director. While the members of the Advocacy recognize and appreciate the challenges facing the members of the Commission, the enacting legislation did not grant the Commission the ability to delegate its responsibilities of oversight down to others. As the old saying goes, “the buck stops on your desk”. We also believe the Department will continue failing to perform and our resources will continue to decline unless intervention occurs. Without accountability, the public will get more of the same. As for the Department seeking “guidances” from the Commission once again this year, the Advocacy asks the following questions of the Members: 1. Do you know where the Smith Creek boat ramp is located? 2. Do you know where the dispersion line is that defines the changes in the water flow in Willapa Bay? 3. Do you know the “carrying capacity” of the habitat in streams in the Willapa? 4. Where is Marine Area 2M, 2U, and 2T? 5. What are the capital improvements needed at each hatchery in Willapa? 6. What was the decline in natural spawning Chinook in the Naselle over the last 3 years? 7. What was the redd counts by stream for salmon species found in Willapa Bay? The point is the Commission should be seeking guidance from the staff not the other way around. With the huge number of issues and diverse situations in this state it is impossible for a Member to have the kind of knowledge needed to provide this function and the Department is fully aware of that fact. Why doesn’t the Department develop proposed guidance options and present them to the Commission? We suggest the staff doesn’t want to be face an astonished local public who understands the facts on the ground and will have to live with the results. So the Department tries to use the old Flip Wilson routine “The devil (Commission) made me do it” as cover for its not-so secret goals to increase harvest and avoid managing the resource for the future generations. The success of the strategy is determined by the ability to control the data and limit the information presented to the Commission. We state this with strong conviction because the public has repeatedly watched staff successfully use this strategy to maneuver decisions it desires out of the Commission. Request to each individual member of the Commission As the Commission proceeds with considerations regarding the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy, the Advocacy members submit a list of requests to each serving on the Commission as follows: • If a WDFW presentation does not provide you with the information you need to make a knowledgeable decision, delay voting until the Department takes care of the problem; • If you don’t fully understand how passage would change WDFW future actions (what they would do with it), vote no; • If you can not clearly determine the ramifications or potential unintended consequences of the future actions to be taken by WDFW, vote no again; • Whether introduced by WDFW or by a fellow member of Commission, insist that the proposal and any amendments to the proposal be published in entirety and made available for public comment before a vote is taken. Members of the Commission have recently inquired about the intent of the Policy. We again point to the first paragraph that states: The objective of this policy is to achieve the conservation and restoration of wild salmon in Willapa Bay and avoid ESA designation of any salmon species. That threat existed in 2015 and due to actions or inactions of WDFW and the enabling of the Commission, its even greater today. The members of the Advocacy and our families and neighbors would never support a measure that placed that kind of threat on those who live in the areas where the individual members of the Commission reside. We simply ask for the same consideration in return. The three members of the Advocacy are retired on fixed incomes. We surely hope this issue can be resolved without further involvement of the courts. We await your response. Tim Hamilton Art Holman Ron Schweitzer President Vice-President Secretary/Treasurer cc: Director Kelly Susewind, WDFW Ron Warren, WDFW Joe Panesko, ATG Joe Frawley, Esq. WDFW Region 6 Staff Chad Herring, WDFW
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048139 - 02/23/21 09:44 AM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4413
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
As Doc would say " give the man a cigar " but SG it is a mystery to many. Not only harvest is totally messed up they want to shut down the best hatchery at Forks Creek, not maintain the most cost effective at Nemah, then put 10 million in Naselle which is a hatchery where there should not be one. I can understand the harvest managers making a mess of things as they are not culturist but Ron Warren came up from Salmon Culture and knows hatcheries and harvest. So why all this? I have no idea but frankly you have to wonder what he is thinking or if he is even thinking!
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048140 - 02/23/21 10:14 AM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
bobrr
Unregistered
|
Oh, he's thinking, all right. Thinking about his future in politics, since this clusterfu*k is right on par with most political minds. NO accountability!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048141 - 02/23/21 10:18 AM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 08/02/12
Posts: 1052
Loc: In a drift boat...
|
Time and again I am astonished and confused about WDFW and Willapa Bay. Willapa is the poster child of salmon management where WDFW alone is the manager. The Department doesn't have to cooperate, coordinate, or co-manage salmon with any agency but itself. So why does the Department design such a major clusterfvck that almost makes the complexities of Puget Sound salmon management seem clear and straight forward? Generally speaking, simplified rules usually mean shorter more restrictive season. Be careful what you wish for.
_________________________
YOUR MOTHER IS A TULE!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048142 - 02/23/21 10:29 AM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7431
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Salmo wasn't talking about regulations but about the process. WDFW has to deal with all the PS Tribes, the Feds with ESA, and so on to manage in PS. Even need to deal with Canada directly. Lots of people to be involved and "listen" to.
In Willapa they are not only the Big Dog, they are the Only Dog. Although, a few more seasons of wiping out runs and ESA may wander in. The actual rules for fishing could be just as complex over time, space, and gear if they actually tried to optimize harvest and maximize escapement of wild fish.
Obviously, the Commission doesn't care and they are the first line of accountability.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048143 - 02/23/21 10:54 AM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
|
I can’t answer Salmo G’s question either, but here’s a possibility (it's an expansion on what Carcassman just wrote).
WDFW has an obligation to support commercial fishing. It’s in their mission statement, as outlined by the State legislature. Unfortunately, they seem to rely heavily on the commercial sector to determine how they do that. WB is an area where WDFW doesn’t have to rely on co-management with the Tribes, or the complications that flow from that. Plus, there aren’t any stocks listed under the ESA.
As such, the commercial folks may see WB as their only opportunity to practice commercial fishing as they once did. They want to be able to take any fish that hits their nets, with the only restriction being getting enough adults to meet hatchery broodstock. The wild fish stocks become ‘collateral damage’, in part because the habitat is marginal for natural reproduction; and natural reproduction will never be able to produce enough adult salmon for a viable commercial fishery in WB. WDFW seems more than happy to accommodate them. Ensuring enough salmon for the commercial sector in WB seems to drive most, if not all, their decisions. The only exception might be the constraints on their budget. They can’t get around a vastly smaller budget than they once had. The decisions on hatcheries are likely driven by dollars.
The WB commercial fishery is somewhat of an anachronism, a relic of the good-ole-days when commercial fishing interests drove fishery management in the State. Everyone else (including the Tribes) caught whatever was left over after the commercial folks took what they wanted. This is what drove Pacific salmon stocks in Washington State to the depths we see today. This will be the result if this continues in WB. Let’s hope the good folks who are focused on WB fishery management take a more enlightened approach. But the news thus far seems disappointing.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048144 - 02/23/21 12:35 PM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7431
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Kind of agree and disagree with cohoangler. WB was never much for Chinook production. Not the right habitat. It could, arguably, support a massive Socialist Chinook Hatchery Program to prop up the gill netters. We know enough timing, and selection for timing, to create a net fishery for Chinook with an ancillary production to the ocean rec fisheries and maybe some more or less minor bay and river Chinook fisheries. The watershed was certainly a chum producer and the number fo chum that successfully spawn in many PS creeks suggest to me that an escapement in few millions of chum would not only support the ecosystem but provide a modest net and rec harvest. I mean 10% of a million is 100K... The large chum escapement would fuel a strong coho run, which should provide decent bay and river fishing and support a strong wild steelhead run.
All of this COULD be done, but won't be.
I also disagree that WDFW's mission statement favors "commercial". It speaks to the fishing industry, which includes rec and commercial. Now, the Commercials have a number of legislators in their corner. I also believe that the rest of the State's managers and co-mangers do not want to try to see what ecosystem-based escapements would do as that would set a very bad precedent for the rest of the state.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048146 - 02/23/21 01:29 PM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4413
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
I still am surprised all these years later that the lessons learned about the interdependency of salmon & steelhead are not recognized by Rec fishers. I remember Jim lecturing me on that when I answered the question " what is the most valuable fish to a watershed " It is Chum and brother did I get it wrong with Chinook. The correct answer is Chum because they take little from the watershed and bring back all the biomass from the marine and contribute massive nutrients by simply dying after they spawn. Not that valuable in harvest extremely valuable to a watershed and the other species.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048147 - 02/23/21 01:53 PM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
|
Carcassman – I think you’re probably correct on the productivity of Chinook, but I’m confused as to why. If chum habitat is productive in WB tribs, why can’t fall Chinook be also?
The life history between the two species is not much different. They spawn in the fall, over-winter in the gravel, emerge in the late winter and spring, and outmigrate either immediately, on the spring freshet, or when water temperatures get too warm as summer approaches. And given that chum normally require groundwater upwelling’s to spawn, I would think that chum habitat would be even more limited than Chinook. I’m not arguing, but I am a bit confused as to why only one of these two species are, or can be, productive when their life histories are so similar.
Also, minor point - I didn’t say WDFW’s mission statement favored commercial fishing. Only that commercial fishing is in their mission statement, so they are obligated to support it.
Riverguy - Chum are likely the most valuable species to a watershed, but only for those watersheds where chum exist. Chinook are more likely to be present in many more tribs, so your original answer (Chinook) is more correct than you might think. For example, chum salmon do not exist on the Columbia upstream of Bonneville Dam, and were never upstream of Celilo Falls (pre-dam). But Chinook went all the way to the headwaters of the Columbia in British Columbia. So which species is more important on the Columbia River? Chinook salmon. And it’s not even close……
Edited by cohoangler (02/23/21 01:54 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048153 - 02/23/21 05:04 PM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: cohoangler]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4413
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Not the river but the watershed. In fact a river cares little about fish they just live there part time. That Chinook are important but more to humans than the other species in the stream. Streams that naturally had large Chum populations and Chum do poorly that has an negative impact on Coho which in turn effects Steelhead. Chinook in most watersheds are not in enough numbers to drive the interaction between species. Human values and natures are not the same at all.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048155 - 02/23/21 09:20 PM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7431
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
The watershed is the metric. For salmon, particularly coho, they spawn high, as far as they can go, and rear low. They need food in the lowlands.
But, we have to consider the needs of all the species and how they interact.
Chinook are Big Water fish. They matured at 30-50 or more pounds and needed big water to spawn in. Mainstems. Plus, they spawn in August/September when the rain driven streams, like Willapa, are at their lowest and warmest. That's why WB is not Chinook land. They want lots of water.
Chum typically spawn low in the watershed, but almost everywhere. They do go way upstream, too. Used to be chum in the Walla Walla. I think there are, or were, Yukon chum in Canada, eh. They are the primary deliverers of nutrients because they basically just import them, They don't rear much in FW, so their carcasss are for everybody else.
Coho, as I said, spawn high and rear low. We used to think that they only produced yearling smolts so they needed to overwinter and thereby were overwinter habitat limited. Nope. They can smolts as fry, as fingerlings, as Fall migrants, and as yearlings. The more fry in the creek, the more outmigrants of the other types. Used to think they were stream fish. They dearly love lakes and lakes are so much more productive of smolts, and bigger smolts (higher marine survival) than streams. Their carcasses are most desired by juvenile steelhead.
Pinks, like chum, are givers rather than takers. Plus, they spawn in the same places and time as Chinook. Cleaning the gravel for Chinook and setting the table for the next spring's fry.
Sockeye, in most situations, feed themselves.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048178 - 02/24/21 11:18 AM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7431
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Maybe we have WDFW all wrong. In pro sports, teams often seem to tank it for a season so they can get high draft choices and rebuild. WDFW is simply in a rebuilding mode. They are getting rid of non-performing resources (wild fish) and so on. Getting rid of the stakeholders who don't support them. Fine plan they have going for them.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048183 - 02/24/21 12:44 PM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
|
Thanks guys for the great discussion.
I have always been impressed by the natural production of coho from the Naselle. In some years, we can take three coho (wild or hatchery) from the Naselle. I don't know of any river in Washington where we can keep three wild coho.
This past year, it was three coho on the Naselle, but only one could be wild. Still, it was a great run for coho. They had 21,000 adults return to the hatchery.......
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048184 - 02/24/21 01:22 PM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: cohoangler]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4413
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
CA the nets in Willapa are limited by W Chinook and a Chum passage window. If WDFW can get the Commission to roll over they will do away with the Chinook limiter which will allow them to go right after the Coho with nets and your nice fishery will be toast. Staff has been chipping away at the Willapa Policy from day one but so far the Commission has held their ground but some new Commissioners now so we will see if staff can get to them. The Agencies problem is that they put out so much BS that nobody believes a word they say.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1048186 - 02/24/21 01:47 PM
Re: WILLAPA & BACK TO THE OLD WAYS ...... MAYBE
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
|
Thanks RG. I agree. The excessive return of adult coho to the Naselle hatchery (21K) will only make matters worse. The commercial folks will point to that as a reason to expand their fishery in WB.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
2 registered (Carcassman, 1 invisible),
1205
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63779 Topics
645378 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|