FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET

Posted by: eyeFISH

FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/13 02:35 AM

http://fishingthechehalis.net/

This deserves a new thread of its own.

As someone who has spent the past decade in the trenches fighting the good fight in Grays Harbor, I request that the MODS keep it stuck to the ABSOLUTE top of the board until the NOF process for 2013 is complete.

Rivrguy is to be commended for his tireless efforts to help bring the light of day on the harvest abuses perpetrated on the salmon stocks of Grays Harbor and the Chehalis Basin. This website lays it all out there in full living color. Anyone who has fished our local waters owes it to themselves to click on the link below and explore the ENTIRE site. The video tutorials are especially eye-opening.

http://fishingthechehalis.net/video-tutorials

WDFW is fully aware of what's going on.

The Commission, while somewhat insulated from the issue by WDFW staffers has been apprised by public testimony on these harvest abuses on no less than three occasions over the past decade. While commissioners may lack the detailed technical expertise of Fish Program staff, they have been made aware of our concerns.

So again, have a look-see and feel free to comment on what you read/see/hear.

http://fishingthechehalis.net/video-tutorials
Posted by: GBL

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/13 09:29 AM

Just watched all available videos, darn good information!

As one who has lived in Washington my whole life and have roots on the OP, I found the whole series very interesting. Not surprising at all as most of us that were on the OP and in Washington in the 50's, 60's and 70's knew exactly what the state was doing!
It is just sad to see what the WDFW has systematically done to the Washington fisheries over the years and the worse part, it is all in their own records! They are not even hiding the shame anymore!
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/13 11:06 AM

Nicely put together and easy to navigate. thumbs

Should generate some passionate discussions. I hope it helps produce a positive outcome for all sport fishers in the Chehalis and Willapa basins at the end of NOF.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/13 11:45 AM

Originally Posted By: GBL
It is just sad to see what the WDFW has systematically done to the Washington fisheries over the years and the worse part, it is all in their own records! They are not even hiding the shame anymore!


Took some shaking, thru PDR's, to get WDFW to release information. A classical example of "we are government, we'll do things how we want, and feed the general public, what WE feel they need to know".

Still not sure the upper WDFW management, upper Region personnel and upper Olympia Fish management personnel are getting the message???

Time tells all !!!!!! Wheels of progress, move very slowly. Wynoochee River Dam mitigation is a example.....more than 20 years since a fund was established for Coho and Steelhead. That's 20 years that fish have not been placed in the river, for all to enjoy.

More will be forth coming on Tacoma Public Light, WDFW.....and the $2.4 million that "sits", grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: AP a.k.a. Kaiser D

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/13 03:29 PM

That is a fabulous, informative website. Big props to all involved!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/13 03:31 PM

One of the rumours making the rounds is that TCL has (now) less than 10 years left on their operation at the dam. They could choose to not renew their operation. If they so chose, and WDFW still had not figured out how to spend the money, would it all go back to TCL?

May be in their best interest to just let WDFW play with itself.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/13 09:20 PM

I’ve only seen the WDFW Historical Bias video, and have found it to be interesting and informative. So well done, that I’m looking forward to watching the rest of the videos, as time permits.
Posted by: superfly

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/13 11:30 PM

Good work ! lets try and get things changed , a number of people here on this site have been inolved for a lot of years with no progress and its got to be frustrating to them. I have been involed for 8-9 years now and feel that at times we are moving in the right direction, then the department just changes its mind and tears down everything that we worked on..... very similiar to a dictatorship..................

Peace
Fly
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/13 12:05 AM

My testimony to the Commission 2 weekends ago...


Good Morning, Commissioners

My name is Francis Estalilla, an eye surgeon from Aberdeen, newly re-appointed member to the Grays Harbor Advisory, member of the Coastal Conservation Association, and concerned sportsman.

A little over four years ago I addressed this body in person to bring your attention to ongoing harvest abuses in Grays Harbor, particularly Chehalis River Fall Chinook. You took genuine interest in the matter and even initiated a “green sheet” to further investigate the allegations. I return today to give you a “report card” of sorts… something to consider as we embark on another NOF proceeding in the next 2 months.

Four years ago I told you that Chehalis fall Chinook had only exceeded the minimum escapement goal twice in the previous 11 years. Since then, we’ve only made it ONCE more. I’d wager that when the 2012 escapement figures are released next month, the record will stand at 3 for 15. In other words, managers are missing the mark 4 out of 5 times! In my profession, I can’t imagine the repercussions if I were to blind 4 out of every 5 eyes that I took to the operating room.

Why does this happen? Well sometimes it’s just bad luck. Some years, the total run size falls short of the escapement goal. Can’t blame the managers for fish that simply aren’t there. Hey… fish happens!

But what about most other years…. when more than enough fish show up to seed the gravel? Once those kings cross the bar at Westport, the only controllable factor keeping them from reaching their spawning grounds is the fishery.

As you are well aware, that fishery is crafted by making a preseason forecast of how many paper fish to expect, subtracting the fish necessary for escapement, and then allocating who gets to kill the remaining “surplus” paper fish. This is the annual ritual we all know as the NOF process.

On paper it all seems to work out, but in the real world, we’re simply kill too many kings. The reality is that the harvest models CLEARLY understate the true fishing power of the fleet… commercial, sport, and tribal. Moreover, understating the fishing power of one user group has an allocative domino effect as it makes even more paper fish available to be exploited by the next. As managers seek to expend every last paper fish, they’re simply fishing the stock too hard… so hard that we’ve made it past the escapement benchmark only 3 times in the past 15 seasons. Sadly the only reason we made it those 3 years is that the run-size happened to come in much stronger expected. Divine grace or blind luck? Take your pick. I would NOT want to rely on chance alone to save my bacon in the operating room.


Another insidious mechanism that promotes the systematic overexploitation of Chehalis fish is the application of faulty assumptions about the co-mingling of Humptulips- and Chehalis-origin kings in the Grays Harbor estuary. The model grossly overstates the proportion of Humptulips stock to effectively dilute and mask the true magnitude of exploitation on Chehalis stock, particularly in the recreational marine area and commercial Area 2A/2D. This allows seemingly benign fishing seasons to occur on paper pre-season…. to the direct detriment of escapement post-season.

I’m prepared to address any questions you may have with very detailed examples. Thank you for your time.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/13 12:09 AM

Unfortunately, I got no takers on my invitation for questions.

Here's a year-by-year summary of what I was prepared to present if they had taken any interest in digging deeper. Just wasn't meant to be.

...


How badly do the managers underestimate that fishing power? Let me give some recent examples from each component of the fishery.

In 2005 managers set a 10% impact objective of 1100 dead paper kings for the entire basin. Gillnets alone actually killed 2600 of the free-swimming variety…. most of them at the hands of the QIN.

In 2006 Region 6 set a rec season to harvest 215 paper kings in MA 2-2. We killed 5 times that many (1065).

In 2007 Region 6 set a rec season to harvest 1168 paper kings. We killed 1719.

In 2008 (with no harvestable Chinook, no harvestable chum, and only a Tier 2 coho forecast), a NT gillnet season was set to target Chehalis coho despite specific language stating “no directed commercial coho fishery”. With a NT share of only 3800 wild coho and -400 kings, the NT nets killed over 5200 wild coho AND 150 incidental kings were discarded as bycatch.

The harvest abuses and intentional deviations from the Tier Plan came to a head in 2009. At long last, WDFW finally demonstrated restraint and stewardship when Director Anderson and Pat Patillo settled a NOF stalemate in Montesano by leaving 150 paper kings on the allocation table to reach the gravel. For the first time in my decade-long involvement in this process, the state’s conservation objectives were met for all three species of Chehalis fall salmon (Chinook, coho, and chum). If that was the direct result of Commission intervention, then I owe you my sincere thanks.

2010 and 2011 saw poor Chinook returns that should have compelled Region 6 to manage with a precautionary approach but progressively more gillnet days were added to exceed the planned pre-season impacts.

2012 saw a harvestable Chinook run-size and it was back to business as usual…. with a full court press to maximize the harvest of paper fish while shirking the conservation of REAL fish.
Posted by: metaladdiction

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/13 02:09 AM

Have only watched sevaral of the videos so far, but want to thank all involved for there tireless efforts. Thanks guys, we appreciate all your hard work.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/13 10:19 AM

Back when I first started in front-line management of salmon the goal was achievement of the escapement goal. If the numbers did not show harvestable fish there was no fishery. If the numbers did not show enough fish to cover incidental harvest there was no directed fishery.

That has now morphed into "share the catch". Say that in order to have an ocean sport fishery that 100 Hoh coho will be taken. To balance things, 100 will also be taken in the river by the tribes. What is most important, now, is to craft fisheries that balance catch (first goal).

After a contentious fishing season when Hood Canal coho (at one time a primary stock controlling ocean fisheries) failed to meet goal (again), the WDFW manager noted that "We had a pre-season plan, we all followed it, management was successful".

You just need to set goals that are achievable. So, Doc, your surgery goal is to perform 10 operations per week. Success is doing that. It's not the results, it's the process.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/13 10:28 AM

The credit for the website videos goes to Tim the site administrator. I am the gopher / teacher / traffic cop here as I lack the skills to do the videos. Good match really as I have 30 years around fish and the agency and some of the team have even more. The thing about it is this. I am in this for one reason, to break the continuing institutionalized discrimination of WDF&W toward the inland communities and inriver sports fisher. Hopefully in the process help the fish.

Agree or disagree to our views but I think we all can agree on this, the destruction of the resource for the benefit of 22 gillnetters and denying the tax paying citizens of the inland Chehalis Basin communities reasonable access to salmon harvest must end. The failure to allow additional fish to reach spawning areas to utilize revitalized, under seeded, restored habitat must end. The destruction of one species to harvest another must end. Simply put " the Big Lie " that WDF&W manages for anything but commercial harvest must end. It is " game on ".
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/13 02:51 PM

In case I haven't said it enough, THANK YOU to those of you (you know who you are) who have dedicated so much of their personal time to righting the wrongs of WDFW's management of the Chehalis Basin. I have recently become much more active in the same pursuit, but I recognize that my efforts pale in comparison to those put forth by a few of you over many more years.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/13 05:10 PM

Just a note to expand on the EYEfish summary for 2012.

Quote:
2012 saw a harvestable Chinook run-size and it was back to business as usual…. with a full court press to maximize the harvest of paper fish while shirking the conservation of REAL fish.
Quote:


When the NOF was in progress for 2012 the estimated Chehalis Chinook run size was 20,515 fish (mostly wild). The escapement goal was 12,942 leaving 7,573 harvestable fish. This was split up between the Quin, Commercials, Sports, and the Chehalis tribe. This is the critical run that determines how much fishing gets done in Grays Harbor.

After the season ended it became clear that actual harvest for all groups was about 50% of the modeled rate. It was'nt your fishing skill, the fish just were not there. What this means is that the actual run size was about 50% of the forecast or just over 10,000 fish. Clearly not enough for escapement alone! When the actual harvest is known it will probably exceed 4,000 fish!

So our plan to fish to the last paper fish resulted in an escapement of less than 6,000 fish or about half the escapement goal.

The above numbers are my harvest estimates and not from an official source.
Posted by: gooybob

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/13 06:13 PM

You guys are doing fantastic work! The website and video presentations are first class! I take my hat off to you. After looking through the website I'm feeling motivated. I love the Chehalis River along with all its tributaries. The Chehalis itself is a real wonder. It's almost ancient and unique as rivers go in this state. Going forward I am going to try and get involved. I will follow your cause and see where I can help. Again, that is an incredible, well thought out site. Your hard work is much appreciated by me and I'm sure everyone else who is in touch with the cause. Thank you!
Posted by: chromer_simpson

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/13 11:40 PM

Excellent resource! Thanks for the hard work!! I know these guys aren't getting paid for this, and really appreciate that people actually DO give a damn
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/31/13 01:31 AM

Excellent post. PM sent.
R
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/31/13 11:03 PM

Rvrguy,

Some good work there! You might think about contacting Sam Wright (retired WDFW biologist) in Olympia about a petition to list "Gray's Harbor" wild chum salmon as threatened under the ESA. That could throw a rock into the Region 6 salmon management plan since they don't have to deal with ESA issues on the coast. Yet. Sam has experience with submitting successful ESA petitions. I might not have thought about this until seeing that WDFW is systematically trying to extirpate chum salmon from the creek I grew up on simply to appease 22 gillnetters.

Sg
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 12:03 AM

The smallest unit of listing is an ESU.... evolutionary significant unit.

GH chum belong to a HUGE unit... the Pacific coast chum.

Basically, in the ESA world, there's three small distinct ESU's for chum... Columbia R, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal.

Then there's this giant "other" basket for the rest.... Pacific Coast... which includes No. CA, OR, and WA coasts.

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Maps/upload/chumpac.pdf

The entire ESU must be threatened to achieve a listing. And it may well be that the entire ESU is in deep doo doo. Proving it over over such a wide range over three states is another matter altogether.
Posted by: superfly

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 02:50 AM

good to see you tonight doc......

Man is dave H going to ruffle some feathers or what .....

nice to have him on board......

I think they have me on a very short leash.....choker short... LOL

Peace
Fly
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 10:01 AM

Here's a thought. The gillnetters are used to protect the tribal fishery. Without the gillnetters you would have one fishery that can and does fish selectively with little mortality to the incidental and non-target stocks. If the tribal fishery were the only "kill 'em all" show going it might be politically harder to portray ones self as conservation minded. So, the non-Indian gillnets provide cover.

I suspect that if the tribes were forced to fish selectively that there would be a myriad of legal challenges such as what is the superior law-ESA or treaties. And, the one that should concern WA the most; how many salmon do we need to ensure the tribes have access to (Boldt II).
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 10:49 AM

Sorry for the lengthy post below, but there is, within the ESA ESU designation a provision for a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) to allow for management of species within a portion of their overall range. A DPS listing can drive management schemes down to a very small level. In theory, if a DPS within an ESU is never "recovered" the application of 4d take restrictions can be continued on ad infinitum. Personally, I would suggest a strong caution for a DPS listing.

The following is copied from the NOAA website on chum:

"NOAA Fisheries has identified 4 evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of chum salmon in Washington, Oregon and California. Each ESU is treated as a separate species under the Endangered Species Act. Click the links below to get information about a specific ESU, its status, and other relevant information"

The 4 "distinct" ESUs for chum are the coast (Doc's map) and the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia, both of which are not currently listed. The other two are the Hood Canal summer chum and the Columbia River chum which are both listed as threatened.



http://www.eoearth.org/article/Distinct_Population_Segment_policy_(1996)_under_the_Endangered_Species_Act,_United_States
Distinct Population Segment policy (1996) under the Endangered Species Act, United States
Published: June 18, 2008, 8:41 pm
Updated: June 18, 2008, 8:41 pm
Lead Author: Tatjana Rosen
Topics: Ecology Environmental Law

This article has been reviewed by the following Topic Editor: Peter Saundry
Under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA" or "Act") as originally enacted, the term species was defined to include "any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants and any other group of fish or wildlife of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature".
In 1978, the Act was amended and the new definition provides that a species includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (ESA, Section 4). (emphasis added)
In 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) convened a Vertebrate Population Workshop to develop guidelines for interpreting the DPS language in the ESA. The NMFS memorandum provided that a vertebrate population (or group of populations) will be considered "distinct" for purposes of the ESA if it represents “an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species”. An ESU was defined as a population that (1) is substantially “reproductively isolated” from other populations of the same species and (2) represents an “important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species”.
In 1996, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the NMFS developed a joint policy (1996 Policy) intended to clarify the meaning of Distinct Population Segment (61 Fed. Reg. 4722, Feb. 7, 1996). Three basic principles guided the development of the 1996 Policy: (1) the intent of the framers of the ESA to use it to protect genetic diversity (93rd Congress, 1st session, 1973, H.R. Report 412); (2) the 1979 directive that the government agencies involved list populations “sparingly“; and (3) the stipulation in the ESA (section 4(b)(1)(A)) that listing decisions be based “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available”.
To constitute a DPS, the policy provides a population must exhibit (i) “discreteness” in relation to the remainder of the species and (ii) “significance” to the species to which it belongs.
As to "discreteness" the 1996 Policy states that: “A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if [either]: 1. It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors …. [or] 2. It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of explication, management of habitat, conservation status or regulatory mechanisms exist ….” (1996 Policy)
Once discreteness has been established, “the Services will consider available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment’s importance to the taxon to which it belongs.” This “significance” test may be satisfied by: “1. Persistence of the [DPS] in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon. 2. Evidence that loss of the [DPS] would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon. 3. Evidence that the [DPS] represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon . . . . [and] 4. Evidence that the [DPS] differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics….” (1996 Policy)
Further Reading
• Rosen T. 2007. The Endangered Species Act and the distinct population segment policy. Ursus, 18(1):109-116
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program. 1996 Distinct Population Segment Policy (full text).
• Waples R.S. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp. and the definition of “species” under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review, 53:11-22
Citation
Tatjana Rosen (Lead Author);Peter Saundry (Topic Editor) "Distinct Population Segment policy (1996) under the Endangered Species Act, United States". In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth June 18, 2008; Last revised Date June 18, 2008; Retrieved February 1, 2013 <http://www.eoearth.org/article/Distinct_Population_Segment_policy_(1996)_under_the_Endangered_Species_Act,_United_States>



http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/grizzly/esafacts.htm
LITTLE KNOWN BUT IMPORTANT FEATURES
OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Distinct Population Segments, 4(d) Rules, and Experimental Populations
There are features built into the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations that give the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) flexibility in listing, protecting, managing, and recovering species that need the ESA's protections.
Distinct Population Segments
In addition to the listing and delisting of species and subspecies, the ESA allows the listing/delisting of Distinct Population Segments of vertebrate species (i.e., animals with backbones, mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians). A Distinct Population Segment is a portion of a species' or subspecies' population or range. The Distinct Population Segment is described geographically instead of biologically, such as "all members of XYZ that occur north of 40 north latitude."
The use of Distinct Population Segments is a benefit to species conservation and a benefit to people whose activities may be affected by the ESA's prohibitions. Conservation efforts are more effective and less costly if they are started early and a Distinct Population Segment listing makes earlier listings possible. By listing a Distinct Population Segment, we apply the ESA's protections only to the deteriorating portion of a species' range. Threats can then be addressed in that specific (and smaller) area instead of waiting until the entire species has declined to the point that listing the entire species throughout its range is necessary.
Also, the USFWS uses Distinct Population Segment listings to customize application of the ESA across the range of listed vertebrate species. For listed species with improving populations, we can delist or reclassify (from endangered to threatened) a Distinct Population Segment. By doing this we remove or reduce the ESA's protections from part of the listed species' range (where it is doing well) while keeping full ESA protection for the Distinct Population Segment of that species that has not yet experienced recovery.
The USFWS's policy for designating Distinct Population Segments is sometimes called the Vertebrate Population Policy. This policy contains the criteria that must be met for a portion of a species' population to be designated as a Distinct Population Segment. Those criteria include the requirements that a Distinct Population Segment must be discrete and significant. This policy was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 4722-4725; February 7, 1996) and can be found on the Web at http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp/pol005.html .
Examples of currently listed Distinct Population Segments:
the northern population of the copperbelly water snake
the interior population of the least tern
the northern population of the bog turtle
Section 4(d) Special Rules
Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the USFWS to establish special regulations for threatened (not endangered) species, subspecies, and Distinct Population Segments. These "4(d) rules" take the place of the normal protections of the ESA and may either increase or decrease the ESA's normal protections. The ESA specifies that 4(d) rules must be "necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species."
One use of 4(d) rules is to relax the normal ESA restrictions to reduce conflicts between people and the protections provided to the threatened species by the ESA. A 4(d) rule can be used in such a situation if those conflicts would adversely affect recovery and if the reduced protection would not slow the species' recovery. This type of 4(d) rule is already in effect for gray wolves. Under authority of a 4(d) rule, Minnesota wolves that have preyed on domestic animals can be trapped and killed by designated government agents. This 4(d) rule was developed to avoid even larger numbers of wolves being killed by private citizens who might otherwise take wolf control into their own hands. (For more details on this example of a section 4(d) special rule, refer to Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.40(d).)
Experimental Populations
Re-establishing a threatened or endangered species in areas of its former range is often necessary for recovery. However, residents and businesses frequently oppose such reintroductions because they fear the presence of the species will also bring severe restrictions on the use of private and public land in the area. To overcome this serious obstacle to species reintroductions, Congress added the concept of experimental populations to the ESA. Experimental population designations are sometimes referred to as section 10(j) rules.
An experimental population is a geographically described group of reintroduced plants or animals that is isolated from other existing populations of the species. Members of the experimental population are considered to be threatened under the ESA, and thus can have special regulations written for them under section 4(d). In addition, if the experimental population is determined to be "nonessential" to the survival of the species, for some activities the experimental population is treated like a species that is proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. In other words, the nonessential experimental population is not given the full protections of the ESA.
Among numerous examples of experimental populations are the Colorado pikeminnow, the southern sea otter, the gray wolf, and the black-footed ferret.
Summary
These three aspects of the ESA all can promote the recovery of declining species by fine-tuning the protections of the ESA. This fine-tuning minimizes adverse impacts on people and society while maximizing the likelihood of eventual recovery and delisting of the species. Thus, humans and rare species both benefit from their careful use.
-FWS-

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Index.cfm
Salmon Populations

Dec. 21, 2012: home page story, Small research station provides immense value to scientific advancement and marine exploration
Pacific salmon and steelhead are salmonids, of the scientific family Salmonidae. They are anadromous fish, which means that they migrate up rivers from the ocean to breed in fresh water. Pacific salmon are in the scientific genus Oncorhynchus, which includes pink, sockeye, chum, Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead and rainbow trout.
These fish have a complex life-cycle that spans a variety of fresh and saltwater habitats. Salmon are born in inland streams and rivers, migrate to coastal estuaries, and then disperse into ocean waters to grow. Once mature, they reverse their course, returning through the estuaries, fighting their way back upriver to the very streams where they were born, to reproduce, die and begin the cycle again.
In 1991, NOAA Fisheries received a petition to list Pacific Northwest salmon runs under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In response, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Southwest Fisheries Science Center launched a proactive, systematic review of all West Coast salmon runs. To do this, however, the agency first had to determine how a “species” of salmon was defined under the ESA.
The ESA allows listing of “distinct population segments” of vertebrates. NOAA Fisheries, through the scientific leadership and expertise of its science centers, developed a technical document to describe how it will apply this definition in evaluating Pacific salmon stocks for listing under the ESA. A policy (PDF 902KB) was then developed that establishes a group of salmon populations to be a distinct population segment if it is an “evolutionarily significant unit,” or ESU. Scientists established two criteria for ESUs: 1) the population must show substantial reproductive isolation; and 2) there must be an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species as a whole.
From 1994 to 1999, NOAA Fisheries, through biological review teams (BRTs) convened by its science centers, reviewed the ESA status of all anadromous salmon species on the West Coast. (BRTs are groups of federal agency scientists with expertise in the species being reviewed. They solicit and review all pertinent data and assess risks to the viability of the species.) During these reviews the BRTs identified 52 ESUs, and evaluated whether they were at risk of extinction and should be considered for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
The final BRT reports provided a solid scientific foundation for NOAA Fisheries to make ESA listing determinations. Before beginning the coast-wide status review, the agency had listed two salmon populations in the Snake River basin and one in California's Sacramento River. Following the reviews, NOAA Fisheries had listed a total of 26 salmon and steelhead populations; five as endangered and 21 as threatened. In 2005 the agency completed a periodic review and update of the status of the 26 ESA-listed populations. The agency later listed Oregon coast coho and Puget Sound steelhead as threatened, for a total of 28 populations.
NOAA Fisheries' Northwest Region issued the results of another periodic review of listed salmon and steelhead in August 2011. The agency made no changes to the ESA status of any populations.

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Chum/Index.cfm
Chum Salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta)

NOAA Fisheries has identified 4 evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of chum salmon in Washington, Oregon and California. Each ESU is treated as a separate species under the Endangered Species Act. Click the links below to get information about a specific ESU, its status, and other relevant information.
ESU ESA Listing Status ESA Critical Habitat
Hood Canal Summer-run
Threatened
6/28/05 (70FR37160) Designated
9/2/05 (70FR52630)
Columbia River
Threatened
6/28/05 (70FR37160) Designated
9/2/05 (70FR52630)
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia
Not Warranted NA
Pacific Coast
Not Warranted NA
ESU Maps
Federal Register Notices

Salmon graphics on the Northwest Region ESA Salmon Web pages are used with permission from Nature Discovery, Copyright © 1996.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 11:21 AM


As a newby to the GH Advisory group a couple of things came out that are worth mentioning. First is the information distributed and the notes can ( and will ) be made public. A shift but not a 8.0 shaker.

Now this is. Staff outlined the public meetings requirements of the different advisory groups and those that applied to the GH Advisory Group. The members of the public have the right to attend GH Advisory Group meetings and observe, key word observe. The public can NOT participate in the processes or discussions just OBSERVE. If anyone has a desire to set in and observe by all means do so as it is a public process concerning a public resource. All that said I would urge you to give Region 6 staff the courtesy of letting them know in advance you are going to attend to insure the facilities utilized can accommodate everyone.

So the dance begins.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 12:40 PM

Is there a way for the observers to interact with the members (breaks, for instance)?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 01:46 PM

Ah ................... you know I do not know for sure. Off hand I would say no, as my thoughts only. I can not see how that would work as Ron Warren was very clear non advisory board ( observers ) could not participate or have input in the discussions. Now the Montesano meeting for the general public input and meeting in Olympia to finalize the NOF for Grays Harbor are open to public participation.
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 02:34 PM

Depending on the meeting, there can be provisions for public comments and they are usually at the end of a meeting. Depends on the what the committee chair or meeting facilitator decide.

It is worth asking for.....
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 03:03 PM

Here is a link to the WDFW "Operating Protocols and Guidelines for Advisory Groups". Depending on the group, a chair may be elected and the group then sets its agenda.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01328/

The Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30) provides the sideboards for the meetings http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30

The WDFW staff coordinator "....will assist each advisory group in understanding whether the OMPA applies as a matter of law. Nevertheless, the Department encourages...advisory groups...to conduct their business in an open, transparent manner, consistent with the intent of the act."
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 04:00 PM

encourages open and transparent. Why not "require"?
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/13 04:18 PM

The protocols haven't been updated since 2010. That could be a change...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/13 09:24 PM

The NOF schedule for GH NOF and Willapa NOF is up on the FTC home page. It also has the NOF WDF&W Team Meetings, PFMC, and WDF&W Tribal meetings in it so read carefully to not mix dates up.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/06/13 12:31 PM

I was asked to identify what information in the Fishing The Chehalis library would be the simplest and best to get a quick read to understand the NOF data. The information exist primarily in a usable form in Excel spread sheets, Preseason and FRAM. While the FRAM maps out the harvest it also has a substantial amount of other information in the pages. You would want the Preseason Forecast spreadsheets that are separate for each of the three salmon species and are a wealth of historical information. Oh yeah almost forgot you want the 2012 sheets.

That was the easy part! If you want to view them go to the Library / WDF&W PDR Responses / PDR Responses Sorted and they are listed. To be honest folks you will still wander around a bit trying to find the year and sheets you want and then down load it. The simplest way is to send a request to me and I will find it for you.

Also the spread sheets when viewed in the library are separated into the many pages of the Excel sheets as that simply is the way the data base is viewed. If you down load them they are intact but some have trouble with them as they xlsx sheets which are compressed Excel.

About had enough of that bit? Don't blame you as breaking out all the information in the PDR was a real pain. So as I said contact me and I will get it to you in a useable form!
Posted by: cohoangler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/06/13 06:02 PM

I have not viewed all the videos, but what I saw was disappointing, disturbing, and depressing. Truly unbelievable. I realize FishDoc, RiverGuy, Carcassman, SuperFly, and others have been concerned about this for decades, but it's startling to see it firsthand. Thanks to all who put this website together, and the folks who continue to fight the good fight.

However, I see a close link between this issue and the current issue of revamping the F/W Commission (HB1189). Whenever the commercial folks don't get their way, they run to their representatives to trot out a proposal to rig the Commission or dismantle it entirely. These bills don't usually get very far, but they still serve their purpose - which is to intimidate the F/W Commissioners. A shot across their bow. Send a message that the commercial folks are politically powerful, and that unless the Commissioners "get in line", the intimidation will continue.

It's clear the commercial folks have a great situation on GH and the Chehalis (but not so great for the fish nor the recreational anglers). The Commission knows this; so their instructions to WDFW leadership are likely very clear - "Do whatever you need to do to maintain viable commercial fishing on GH". That might include rigging the computer models, using phony numbers in the spreadsheets, back-calculating the survival estimates needed to justify the commercial fishery, ignoring the actual escapement levels, and developing PR stunts like survival boxes and "selective fishery" methods without actually requiring their use.

Ideally, more and better transparency through videos and public engagement will turn things around. The website is a terrific start.

Sorry for the rant, but this situation is disturbing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/08/13 08:53 PM

The latest video is up on FTC addressing the national history and events that preceded the federal courts intervention in Washington States salmon harvest. Known to most as simply Boldt, it is the defining decision regarding salmon harvest in the Pacific Northwest and Native American treaty rights.

http://fishingthechehalis.net/boldt-decision
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/13 09:18 AM

Here is a link to the GH Management Plan and the Tiered Harvest Plan. Both are labeled Draft, never had public review, never had scientific review, and have not been formally adopted by the commission. These are the foundation and implementation vehicle utilized by WDF&W for that ugly thing they called the 2012 season. I might add even some of the supporters of the plan were ( find polite words ) ............ were horrified to see.

The Tier Plan would be my first read.

https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B2tWjgmgVy3yOHB1QkFncW5Jdjg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/13 11:35 AM

I was asked to explain how is information presented to the public for NOF and how it is used. It is primarily in a Power Point presentation that boils down a rather large amount of data into something that is easily viewed. Link below for 2012 Montesano meeting.

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjg...Yi0wQlo1ZUpIb0k

Is anything set in stone at this point? No, yes, and maybe. The Harvestable numbers yes, seasons no, who gets what % of the available fish maybe, as by this time WDF&W staff pretty much know what the final harvest picture will look like. The harvestable numbers are put into the tier plan and it dictates some basic things happen. Link below for 2012 Tier Plan.

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjg...MGpmcVA2WXoxaVU

To the question is it a waste of time to attend? Not no but hell no. It is a dog and pony show to be sure but WDF&W records your input FOR THE RECORD. In 2012 only 5 written proposals for the inriver sport season were submitted, so it is of real value for citizens to demand the restoration of the inland communities traditional sport fishing opportunities at the public meeting. In addition you can set in ( but not participate ) in the Grays Harbor and Willapa Advisory Group meetings, which I think many of you would find to be a real eye opener. Otherwise you get 2012 a season with the vast majority of the harvestable fish removed by the 101 Bridge in Aberdeen. Or to put it another way you get to take multiple walks to the river or boat rides enjoying nature and friends, and not catching many fish. Schedule link below.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yZVh2WmQyaHl1MU0/edit

Now then it is time for the rest of the story. The Grays Harbor Management Plan ONLY applies to the non treaty sport & commercial. The Quinault Tribal ( QIN ) commercial fisheries operate under a totally different set of rules that are never presented to the public as to negotiated harvest impacts. Are negotiated after the Non Treaty ( state ) harvest plan has been presented to the public. Then the final bit of deception is that the final harvest plan agreed to by the state and QIN is never made public, impacts clearly defined, or the rational utilized in the finalization of the combined harvest plan explained.

That is a subject in itself for another day!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/13 07:31 PM

I see we got unlocked but onward.

Here is a link to FTC Dave's Rants. In it you will find my thoughts on the NOF Chinook harvest of paper fish. If you don't want read the whole thing hit the link to the 2012 Chinook Impacts. The FRAM 2012 spread sheet data was utilized to produce the numbers of PROJECTED PAPER CHINOOK to be harvested. Just as a teaser how many know that WDF&W agreed to allow the QIN to harvest 18% of the escapement goal or 2426 Chinook. If your blood pressure is rising remember WDF&W AGREED to allow this.



https://fishingthechehalis.publishpath.com/2012-nof-chinook-harvest[i][/i]

Wee Edit: I was asked why not a direct post here? In multi sheet Excel and other documents you loose the formatting plus a bunch of other things when pasted in on PP. It is simply easier with a issue that has a lot of research time involved and multiple links in it to link to FTC work. If it is just one document, or something similar, I usually just write up on PP. It is all about the work required.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/13 10:46 PM

Yes, its a tragedy that the supposed "CO"managers do not cooperatively manage out of the same playbook. Without mutually agreed-upon objectives, the resource is ultimately made to suffer.

QIN does NOT acknowledge/accept that GH chinook stocks should be segregated as separate Hump stock and Chehalis stock.... simply that they are an aggregate GH chinook stock. Nor do they acknowledge/accept that weak stocks with no harvestable surplus should be managed with a 10% impact cap. These are the most basic conservation-minded principles built into the GH Advisory's vision of a responsibly-managed salmon fishery in Gray Harbor.

The Tier Plan directs the state fishery be managed by the lesser of
1) half the harvestable surplus of the WEAKEST harvestable stock or
2) half the allowable impact (5%) on the NON-harvestable stock(s).

In contrast, the QIN basically targets half of the STRONGEST harvestable stock, all other stocks be damned. In 2012, they fully asserted their guaranteed treaty right to take half the harvestable surplus of an abundant Tier 4 coho run-size, irrespective of casualties to chinook and chum.

This is the very reason they were so willing to fish Chehalis kings more than 2400 fish into escapement.

The way the co-managers spend paper fish is like a financially dysfunctional couple sharing the same checking account. Without a mutually accepted budget plan, one spouse's irresponsible spending can't be kept in check by the other..... and the account is chronically overdrawn.
Posted by: Waterz

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/13 08:23 PM

Talked to an oldtimer on the Satsop for several hours that must know you a bit, gave me several flyers and cards for the site. Mentioned the site and provide flyers to our RMEF chapter and regional, posted a flyer at TSC and Cabelas, handed out a few cards on the river. It's not much I guess, but doing what I can to help you.

Suppose some might wonder, what difference does this make to a conservation group like the RMEF, but imho it has the potential to impact everything the WDFW manages.
Posted by: Haus

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/13 08:26 PM

..and finally found my old account heh...
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/13 11:34 PM

Wish this would get "pinned to the top"


Going to be some interesting NOF meetings this year......would be a shame have to search all the topics......to either post or to read the posts.
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/13 12:22 PM

Great thread. I definitely appreciate learning more about the GH area fishery facts.

Doc, or others, do you know of any calendar for WDFW to address any Chehalis or Hump or other GH issues where it would be useful for people to show up?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/13 12:35 PM

The link is to the WDF&W NOF calendar for 2013. The Montesano & Olympia meetings for Grays Harbor ( Humptulips, Chehalis, & The Harbor itself ) are open to public participation. While not generaly known the Grays Harbor Advisory Board Meetings ( also Willapa ) are also open to the public BUT only to observe the proceedings not to participate in the discussions.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yZVh2WmQyaHl1MU0/edit
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/24/13 06:20 PM

Didn't see the Montesano NOF meeting on your linked calendar.

Did I miss it? Not in Monte this year?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/24/13 07:23 PM

i think its march 14th in monte
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/24/13 08:52 PM

Grays Harbor Fisheries March 14 Montesano City Hall 6-8 pm according to my calendar
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/24/13 09:55 PM

Thanks.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/13 12:20 PM

I did not catch that the high lighting had changed as it is the way R-6 provided it, sorry about that and we will try to do better in the future. The meetings for the GH Advisory Group on February 28th, March 6th, and March 20th identified as Montesano are at the Region 6 offices. Remember the public can only observe not participate in the discussions.

The meeting March 14th is Montesano City Hall for public participation & input as is the March 29th meeting which is at the Natural Resources Building in Olympia as shown. The March 29th meeting is about who catches what / when.
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/13 12:00 AM

Rivrguy,

Thank you for what you bring.
I suggest that if you can list 2 or 3 talking points then maybe some folks on this list (like me) could show up for that Mar. 14 meeting and offer supporting comments. Even a simple, "I support identifying separate returning runs," or however that could be better phrased, can be useful. Numbers count! Rivrguy or Francis, can you help us frame the message?

I work until about 4:30 but will plan on coming down to support you and Francis and our fish friends.

Folks, it is very easy to drive to a meeting and be present; just be there to be present. One of the things that is happening is that these local issues, like GH, are coming up on state and regional radar. Rivrguy and Doc Eyefish have worked long and hard on this and they set the tone for how we can help.

Rick
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/13 01:17 AM

What do we want Region 6 to hear? How's this for starters...

1) Let's be intellectually honest about our harvest models. They've been low-balling the true fishing power of the fleets, both rec and commercial, particularly for chinook. At low abundance returns, the rec fleet has a priority allocation. By being honest about how many fish it really takes to fuel the rec fishery, it leaves us with a more realistic figure of how many fish are actually available to fuel any gillnet days.

2) Let's be intellectually honest about the mixing of stocks in the marine area. The model counts nearly 1/2 the kings in the bay as Humptulips stock, effectively diluting the true impact on Chehalis stock. On paper this permits many more fishing days to be added to the season.

3) Let's be intellectually honest about chum. The other species of fall salmon are segregated into Hump stock and Chehalis stock. Why are chums treated with a double standard? Because lumping them together in aggregate allows more fishing days to occur.

Bottom line, let's stop spending phantom fish that don't exist. While it all may work out on paper, there is no buffer to protect against models that don't pan out in real life. The escapement shortfalls are no where to be seen on paper in the final NOF documents, but year after year, they are certainly evident on the gravel.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/13 01:39 AM

Not to bad as a starting point on the conservation side Francis. I will add that we get the preseason forecast at the Advisory Group meeting the 28th, then one can begin to look at what is or is not possible for harvest for 2013. I replied to your PM DR just a little running behind on the e-mail thing.

Little edit: The one thing I can say with certainty that will happen this year is everything that happens in the Grays Harbor NOF and the allocation process will be made public. No exceptions.

Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/13 02:10 PM

Management results from last year can only be considered tragic. Tragic from the standpoint of the destruction of the Chehalis Chinook run and tragic from the standpoint of missed recreational opportunity for Chum.

From my perspective there are four key failure areas:

1. Disfunctional co-management with two different harvest plans for one resource. (Probably not much we can do about it at NOF.)

2. A NOF plan that starts with an imprecise run size estimate and and plans to kill every last theoretically available fish. (The term imprecise is a ephemism for a WAG.)

3. No in-season adjustments are ever intended regardless of new information about actual run size.

4. The harvest model that was used to kill the last theoretical fish had so many arithemetic errors that it was not capable of predicting actual harvest.

Out of this list I think we could make the best improvement by starting with a conservative view of the run size and then making in-season adjustments if the run actually materalizes. I am coming from a perspective that recovery of weak Chinook runs is a desirable result.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/13 05:23 PM

I vote to ask that the NT commercial days be spread out evenly across the season. I'd much rather, as primarily an upstream participant, have three or four days per week with nets in the water over the entire season than lose three entire weeks of prime time opportunity, as we did last October. That way, we can fish the tidewater when the nets are out and fish up higher when they go in. Gives us a legit chance to hook up almost every day. Seems to me this scenario would also ensure that at least some of the wild kings will have a chance to get upstream each week.

Granted, if the weather had cooperated last September, we would have had a great time for those 2-3 weeks, but I've decided that counting on Mother Nature is a recipe for disappointment more often than not.

I also would favor more restrictive seasons that could be adjusted as the runs materialize, including no retention of Chinook outside the Humptulips before Chehalis escapements are either met or imminent.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/27/13 06:55 PM

Commercial non treaty gillnetters:

Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.....have days for NT netting, the same for both Harbors.

For to long, the Non-treaty gill netters, have been allow to pick the days they want to fish....

By allowing them to set/pick days, the NT gill netters are cherry picking, and the in river fishermen, gets the short end of the stick.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/13 01:17 PM

Lost the forematting on this, it is fine in the preveiw but toast here but you should be able to pick out the numbers. Gzzzzzzzzzz So here are the Chehalis and Humptulips Preseason Forecast numbers. Coho is way up there, Chinook not so and the Chum numbers are combined for the Harbor. More later as I have asked for the preseason forecast Excel spread sheets.


2013 GRAYS HARBOR PRE-SEASON FORECASTS SUMMARY

Spring Chinook
Forecast 2247
Goal 1400
Harvestable 847

Chehalis Fall Chinook Humptulips Fall Chinook
Wild Hatchery Wild Hatchery
Forecast 15132 1202 5504 2430
Goal 12364 47 2236 369
Harvestable 2768 1155 3268 2061

Chehalis Coho Humptulips Coho
Wild Hatchery Wild Hatchery
Forecast 168993 51525 12915 29796
Goal 28506 1202 6894 2120
Harvestable 140487 46675 6021 27676

Chum Grays Harbor
Forecast 30176
Goal 21000
Harvestable 9176

Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/13 03:08 PM

Translation... Chehalis fall chinook will be the constraining stock, esp for the NT gillnets in early October.

Chehalis chinook = Tier 2.... marginally harvestable run-size w/ rec priority. Limited chinook retention is likely.

Chehalis coho = Tier 4... fully liberalized harvest on a HUGE run-size

Hump chinook = Tier 4.... count on a full season w/ wild retention

Hump coho = Tier 4.... count on full season w/ wild retention

Chum are harvestable... count on some addl late Oct gillnet days

Let the games begin!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/13 04:06 PM

If memory serves, that's a lot more chum than they forecasted last year. Probably at least another couple days of NT gillnetting and double for QIN. With chinook and chum in the mix, this could get ugly.... Hoping for a positive outcome, and I will be at the Montesano and Olympia meetings again this year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/13 11:04 PM

Here are the links to the preseason forecast not all messed up. Sorry it took so long but still working on getting up to speed.

Grays Harbor

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yX2o0cS1fMmJaSWM/edit

Willapa

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yUk1NcXJKa1Z1UjA/edit
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/13 05:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
I am in this for one reason, to break the continuing institutionalized discrimination of WDF&W toward the inland communities and inriver sports fisher. Hopefully in the process help the fish.




Just to give folks an idea of how bad the upriver guy got screwed on the Chehalis, just look at the creel counts from Cosi, Monte, and Fuller....

Cosi - 9 days creeled averaging 1 king and 13 coho for 16 boats per day.... thats about 0.06 kings per boat and 0.81 coho per boat.

Monte - 11 days creeled averaging 0.91 king and 16.5 coho for 32 boats per day.... that's about 0.03 king per boat and 0.52 coho per boat

Fuller - ONE glory day creeled (so take it for what it's worth)... 3 kings and 89 coho for 46 boats. That's about 0.06 king per boat and 1.9 coho per boat.


Let's just say the bay guys did a "little" better.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/13 11:42 AM

Rivrguy wanted me to post the image, from his posting above:

This is for the Chehalis and Humptukips


Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/13 11:49 AM

RivrGuy....His 2nd post for Willapa Bay


Posted by: gregsalmon

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/13 11:58 AM

I still wonder about the non reported catch that is sold directly off the gillnet boats right in Aberdeen at the Walmart parking lot and at the mouth of the Wishkah, and near Weyerhauser in Cosmopolis.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/13 12:31 PM

gregsalmon:

Been there, done that........QIN fishermen, can take home X amount of fish, the individual fishermen can now "sell out of the net" but, as I understand it, the sales numbers are reported to the tribe.

Click on the address below, page 2 talks about "sales"


http://209.206.175.157/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf


I think the tribe, in general, is dealing with what might have been a problem?????????
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/13 01:16 PM

So, what is our strongest argument at these meetings to convince the co-managers to avoid another "curtain of death" netting in October. Last year was over-the-top ridiculous and as bad as I've seen in all the years I've lived here.

Chinook aside, with the numbers presented, there's going to be substantial netting again. I've seen nor heard anything from the dept. that convinces me they will shift to a more rec-friendly management scheme and, frankly, don't expect they will short of a court order. So let's just assume there's going to be a lot of netting.

What I see as critical to better upstream opportunity is to break up the net schedule....say max of 4 days a week during peak run timing, both tribal and non-tribal. You've GOT to have more than 1 day a week net-free to let something swim upstream. So how do we get that? Is the lower Chehalis chinook forecast(tier 2) going to achieve that with all those coho and chum swimming around out there?

I realize reduced netting per week on high harvestable numbers will disperse the net schedule out over a longer time but what's worse? That or another October wall of death like last year?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/13 06:38 PM

it will be just like last year..nets nets nets.. we will be lucky to get a single day without them in this year in Oct..
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/13 08:49 PM

Originally Posted By: steely slammer
it will be just like last year..nets nets nets.. we will be lucky to get a single day without them in this year in Oct..

Perhaps on the back end of Oct.... but I wouldn't count on too many NT days in 2A/2D on the front end of Oct.

As far as the QIN nets, all bets are off.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/13 03:06 PM

I wish we could get the QIN to participate in the NOF process. Even if their schedule is whatever they want to make it, knowing it in advance would give us an idea of their planned impact throughout the season, and it would allow us an opportunity to negotiate over which days the NT gillnetters will fish so that we don't lose entire weeks to nets.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one....
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/13 08:02 PM

I hope some day they join us.....
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/13 02:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Soft bite
Management results from last year can only be considered tragic. Tragic from the standpoint of the destruction of the Chehalis Chinook run...




JEEBUS... the 2012 Chehalis king escapement is HORRIBLE!

Wild escapement of only 7500 fish.

Goal is 12.4 K

We've exceeded that benchmark only three times (2003, 2004, 2011) in the past 15 years! Hit it just right once (2005). Failed miserably all the rest.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/13 10:10 AM

The management goal is to keep the fish off of ESA. They have succeeded.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/13 11:55 AM

When you look at 2012 it is easy enough to see the in river fishery got screwed big time as did the the fish. The co-managers targeted the Coho harvest on the front 40% of the run which just plain wrong. Disregarded the Chum populations above Fuller Hill and continued to destroy the upper Chehalis Chum stocks by targeting the higher producing hatchery supported lower river stocks. Agreed to allow the QIN to harvest 18% into Chinook escapement, then the fish did not show so massive over harvest.

2012 in the Chehalis Basin violated about every rule in the book for conservation driven harvest allocation. It was about sacrificing Chinook & Chum stocks & the in river sport to drive commercial fisheries on abundant Coho. Somebody want to tell me again how great of a job Mr. Anderson is doing?

Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/13 12:02 PM

what do you expect from a commercial guy???
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/13 11:28 PM

Looking forward,

To anyone reading this, Have you been interested in how these Wonderfully Wacky Washington fisheries work?
Have you wanted to learn more?
Have you wondered if your participation matter?
Have you wanted to attend a democratic process in action? Or maybe to participate in one?

If you can answer "Yes" to any of the above then here is a great opportunity. Here is a great place to jump in without drowning.

Be present at one of both of these meetings.

March 14, Thurs:
WDFW Public Meeting Gray's Harbor Fisheries
Montesano City Hall
6 pm - 8 pm
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/

March 29, Fri:
WDFW Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor Fisheries Final Planning
Olympia
Olympia Room 172
9 am to 4 pm
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/ scroll down in the link

For background, go to the OP's site, fishingthechehalis.net site and drive around. View the vids, they are great.

EyeDoc, Rivrguy, and Flicker of Fleas, and others are working hard in this fishery, and they have proven that they love to share that with the rest of us. So, let's show up and support them.

Being present is a great place to be.

Thank You,

Rick
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/06/13 01:44 AM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
What do we want Region 6 to hear? How's this for starters...

2) Let's be intellectually honest about the mixing of stocks in the marine area. The model counts nearly 1/2 the kings in the bay as Humptulips stock, effectively diluting the true impact on Chehalis stock. On paper this permits many more fishing days to be added to the season.

Bottom line, let's stop spending phantom fish that don't exist. While it all may work out on paper, there is no buffer to protect against models that don't pan out in real life. The escapement shortfalls are no where to be seen on paper in the final NOF documents, but year after year, they are certainly evident on the gravel.


I believe we've obtained the proverbial smoking gun regarding this problem.... ho'boy, and how!

Gonna make sure this gets counted right in the 2013 harvest model
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/07/13 07:37 PM

theres been a couple GH advisory committe meetings latly and i was wondering what went on??? whats all the talk???
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/07/13 10:17 PM

All very preliminary at this time but this should give you some reasonable expectations.

Chehalis:
Should look a lot like last year but even more generous for wild coho... OODLE's of them to be caught... expectations are 4W:1H
Tier plan ensures a rec fishery for kings, but smaller than last year
Some of you will even get to keep some chums.

Hump:
Should look identical to last year except that chum will be bonkable.

Lots of details to work out yet.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/13 10:32 AM

The first Advisory meeting was " hi how are you " and the second was throw ideas as to seasons in the hat plus some issues. Will add moving the Chehalis opening two weeks forward was put in the mix. The commercial seasons the NT nets put forward was more or less like last year on steroids.

Folks in all honesty I ( or Francis ) could put a lot more feathers on this bird but it would mean little. I will add this, on the issue of the inriver sport getting paper fish and then corked off by the nets was brought forward. Additionally the fact that many traditional fisheries ( such as the late summer Chehalis jacks and tributary Chum ) had been sacrificed in past years and that had to stop was also brought forward. Oh and one more thing, the issue of the mainstem Chehalis commercial fishery on Chum chronically over harvesting mid and upper Chehalis tributaries Chum was discussed.

As a proponent of the public's right to know even I am hesitant to say much more as this was simply the advisers pushing forward broad proposals but will add that two gentlemen from East County attended and observed the meeting with out the sky falling. So it is NOF at Montesano March 14th up next and folks need to attend and push for the sports fisheries. ALL sport fisheries not just your pet. So you do not fish the bay or do not fish tide water or do not fish Chum, well the list is as diverse as the sport fisheries are but what we all must argue for is a complete restoration of all the traditional sport fisheries on harvest of all three spices of salmon. After that as public input is brought into the process with options then wide open discussion time.
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/13 10:37 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
gregsalmon:

Been there, done that........QIN fishermen, can take home X amount of fish, the individual fishermen can now "sell out of the net" but, as I understand it, the sales numbers are reported to the tribe.

Click on the address below, page 2 talks about "sales"


http://209.206.175.157/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf


I think the tribe, in general, is dealing with what might have been a problem?????????


Wow! The QIN nets 6 days a week, and on the 7th the fish can rest?
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/13 10:42 PM

Nice write up of FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET in the current The Reel News.

Regarding Gray's Harbor, escapement goals seems to be the hinge issue across all the species' fisheries. Honesty and transparency in escapement goals. Doc and Dave, do you agree?

FWIW, I finally watched the rest of the tutorial videos, and "Where did all the Salmon Go" is my favorite of the whole series. The "Boldt Decision" is a close second.

I will be driving from Seattle to the Montesano City Hall meeting and can stop and pick up and deliver folks along the way. PM me.

Rick
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/13 08:31 AM


DR I would say the failure to make escapement goals is a primary issue but it is stock specific not so much as the Basin as a whole. Now that said what we have is a harvest driven problem plain and simple. In the effort to kill every paper fish possible, WDF&W ( and the QIN ) are willing to sacrifice the weaker stocks. It is that simple. It is not that the vast majority of the streams can not make escapement but rather they can not sustain the commercial harvest levels applied.

As to transparency, what transparency? I would like to point out last years NOF with no this / no that then WDF&W agrees to allow the QIN to take 18% of the Chinook escapement and never made it public. In fact if it had not been for Softbite's effort it may not have ever been made public. Transparency is a WDF&W policy? Nope but if you believe that transparency is WDF&W's policy in the Chehalis Basin I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/13 10:22 AM

Just so you don't think that the Basin is being picked on for a lack of transparency, check out the thread on the recent adoption of sport regs and the open, clear, above board, etc. cabezon regs.

As long as folks stay in their own little worlds (watersheds. fisheries, etc.) this stuff will continue to happen.

Organize
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/13 11:37 AM


Jim " Tug " Tuggle did an great article for Reel News on the FTC website. Any and all help is greatly appreciated as we continue down the road of letting the public understand how the Chehalis Basin salmon harvest is managed by WDF&W. Link below to the article.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yNDFjcFZ4NS15MXc/edit
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/13 08:30 AM


One last heads up to the NOF public input meeting at Montesano City Hall 6 to 8 this Thursday the 14th. It is your chance to let the agency know your thoughts on the 2013 seasons be it good, bad, or ugly!
Posted by: wsu

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/13 06:49 PM

I will be there. It will be nice to meet you Dave.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/13 12:47 PM

Well it was a interesting meeting in Montesano to say the least. Still digesting the process a bit but somethings jumped at me. That said I am just going to do a link to FTC because frankly this is Bob's BB and I do not feel comfortable using it as a platform to express my personal views. Will add this bit though, twice WDF&W's Kirt Hughes put forth the assertion that available Chinook for harvest would likely be used in the gillnets mortality harvesting Coho. Not buyin that Turkey for minute and that had to be the most outrageous thought put forward by WDF&W

http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-montesano-update
Posted by: no fish10

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/13 03:06 PM

Last year I went to the Willapa Bay NOF and I heard the words fair and equitable mentioned a couple of times. I never expected to hear those words considering the net seasons down there. Did anyone hear that this year? I fish a couple of days early October out by the Hoquiam airport. It looks like the river is going to be barren unless things change dramatically. Did WDFW say the commercials get to keep the kings they catch fishing for coho or are they going to do the sling? If they are going to hit the Chinook harvest in their coho catch does that mean there will be no king season for sports? I wanted to attend the Montesano meeting but I got the flu and thought I shouldn't give it to all of you therefore the questions. Thanks
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/13 09:30 PM

No Fish 10:

The battle is not done......If you have some recommendations, crank up the email ability of your computer, send to WDFW, what you'd like to have for a fishery in Region 6.

Emails should go to the following people:

Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov
Ron.Warren@dfw.wa.gov
Barbara.Mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov
kirt.hughes@dfw.wa.gov



If you are a "in-river" fisherman, NOW, is the time to let your WANTS be heard......In-river fishermen definition...ABOVE 101 bridge, Chehalis, Wishkah, Wynoochee, Satsop!!!! This could be the year, to get our CHANCE, for the fair share, that is taken from us!!!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/13 12:30 AM

No to fair and equitable question.

What Kirt said was the harvestable Chinook would likely be used up in mortality release http://fishingthechehalis.net/chehalis-fling in the NT Nets but it is likely the NT Nets would retain marked Chinook. He did not say that no in river or bay Chinook directly but it would suggest that or into the 5% of escapement that the Non Treaty is allowed and a drastically reduced targeted sport Chinook sport fishery.

We are at round two of a ten round brawl. It is not give up time but rather dig in and fight like hell time.
Posted by: yelloweye

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/13 10:19 AM

So what is the prognosis for a chinook fishery in the bay? That's the one I want! Missed it last year cause it was too short and conflicted with archery season. So I haven't been able to fish chinook in the bay for years.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/13 10:45 AM

It will be shorter than last year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/13 01:15 PM


As a member of the Grays Harbor Advisory Group and out of respect for the other advisers participating the best I can say is this. There is not a consensus on seasons or days or species for any of the three user groups. The three are Fresh Water Sport, Marine Sport or Non Treaty Commercial and we meet again the 28th. The silence that is deafening comes from the courtesy one offers others participating in a stake holder process where different priorities and views leave the issue unresolved.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/13 04:17 PM

As a "sitter on the side", at the Advisory Group meeting, 3/22/2013.

Sitter.....Not allow to speak!!!!!


Observation---- Dog and Pony Show in Region 6 is alive and well


If you don't know what a Dog and Pony show is......the following is a good definition of what I see happening !!!!!


"Dog and pony show" is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/13 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: yelloweye
So what is the prognosis for a chinook fishery in the bay? That's the one I want! Missed it last year cause it was too short and conflicted with archery season. So I haven't been able to fish chinook in the bay for years.


As f4b posted, count on 2012-minus.

If we could just get GN's in the same "2012-minus" frame of mind, we'll be able to move this thing forward.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/29/13 10:25 PM

Left the GH discussion at NOF more dejected than anyone can imagine.

Despite all our objections, the NT gillnetters sailed outta the meeting with 14, yes that's FOURTEEN, days of netting in 2A/2D.

Paper fish created out of thin air. Imagine delaminating a three ply roll of Charmin toilet tissue.... suddenly one square becomes three! How is that possible, you ask?

Tangle nets!

Instantaneously, a 45% paper release mortality was transformed into a paltry 14.7% release mortality.... effectively fueling more than three times the gill netting than previous harvest models!
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/29/13 11:44 PM

This year I thought that recreational fishers had won the lottery. A Tier 2 Chehalis Chinook fishery should provide enough fish for a limited direct recreational fishery. The commercials would be left with impacts so long as they did not restrict the recreational fishery. Because any gill net impact mortality would reduce the recreational fishery it looked like Tier 2 would dictate no commercial net days in September or October.

WDFW claimed that Tier 2 only dicates recreational start dates and does not define what a limited direct fishery is. Obviously they think it should be limited enough to fuel a significant commercial fishery in 2A/2D.

WDFW sprung a new plan on the meeting that includes a first time use of tangle nets with a 14.7% release mortality and about three times as much netting opportunity. We did not even talk about 2C net days or impacts on Humptulips fish. When they imposed the tangle net plan at least they did not ask for consensus like in past years. Most of the sport group in attendance seemed shell shocked about the outcome.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/30/13 01:18 AM

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors to give the NT nets more days on the water at the expense of the sport fishermen. I don't see how RW can stand there in front of everyone and say some of the things he does. You can roll the same turd in sugar over and over, it will never taste good.

The management objective for Chehalis chinook is to meet the escapement goal, only 3 out of 15 years has this happened, and based on what I've seen the last 3 or 4 years I would guess it was pure luck. How long does it take for the manager to be held accountable? Total failure.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/30/13 02:12 AM

Didn't stick around for the discussions about regulations... we could run 6 barbed hooks in front of lead and not catch fish upriver this fall.

f4b: It'll be 3 for 16 after this season. My sense is that Ron and Kurt are the Agrncy's fall guys, and they don't have anything to say about what seasons are set; it's a foregone conclusion each year, and Phil Anderson makes the calls. The commercial bias is really shining through now, though. Sarcastic remarks like (paraphrasing) "What do you want me to do - jump in the river and put a salmon on a hook for you?" are starting to wear thin. "I AM the Department of fisheries" (a direct quote) was a good one, too.

Wonder how many days the QIN will take after they see that schedule? I'll be surprised if we don't see somebody's nets in the water 6 out of 7 days a week from October on. This may be the year I can take my mind off salmon and spend some serious time fishing late summer runs....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/30/13 09:39 AM


Interesting thoughts so far and I want to think a bit before I jump in with both feet but I will say this. Meet Phil Anderson, the real Phil Anderson! No more he helps with conservation, looks after the sport fisher, just what WDF&W is under his direction. http://fishingthechehalis.net/wdfws-historical-bias
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/13 01:21 PM

After thinking things over in general I took some time to put my thoughts down on FTC. ( link below ) It is a fast run by of events but I think it captures what happened be good, bad or ugly. I think I will go with bad leaning toward a real ugly!

https://fishingthechehalis.publishpath.com/nof-or-what-just-happened
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/13 10:47 PM

What I find very interesting is they used a study on the Columbia River, done on Spring Chinook.....

When in fact there is a complete study on tangle nets, done in Willapa Bay.....done in 2006....but written in 2007....

There is no way they would used the Willapa Bay study .......


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/sk/pdf/Report_8.pdf


RW, KH, and Phil Anderson cooked the books.........The bias for the commercial NT fishery, reared its ugly head again.......Region 6, Management team needs to be "replaced with a new team"......Phil Anderson, shame on you...wonder what % of sports money goes to pay your salary?????? You sure don't earn it......
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/13 11:06 PM

I wonder what Ron Warren told the director when he went up to his office? You think he accurately conveyed the sports' opposition? Don't think so. He seemed to already have his mind made up before it started. An observation I made is that RW is very unprofessional in the way he conducts the meetings.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/13 10:28 AM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
What I find very interesting is they used a study on the Columbia River, done on Spring Chinook.....

When in fact there is a complete study on tangle nets, done in Willapa Bay.....done in 2006....but written in 2007....

There is no way they would used the Willapa Bay study .......


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/sk/pdf/Report_8.pdf




Scroll to page 59 to read the discussion about finding NO difference in post-release survival of fall chinook from tangle vs gill nets.

It goes on to point out the SHARP contrast with results found in the CR on spring chinook.

Using the CR results for tangle nets and applying them to GH is TOTALLY inappropriate.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/13 11:35 AM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
What I find very interesting is they used a study on the Columbia River, done on Spring Chinook.....

When in fact there is a complete study on tangle nets, done in Willapa Bay.....done in 2006....but written in 2007....

There is no way they would used the Willapa Bay study .......


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/sk/pdf/Report_8.pdf




Scroll to page 59 to read the discussion about finding NO difference in post-release survival of fall chinook from tangle vs gill nets.

It goes on to point out the SHARP contrast with results found in the CR on spring chinook.

Using the CR results for tangle nets and applying them to GH is TOTALLY inappropriate.


Agreed. Apparently, the "best available science" is that which helps WDFW Region 6 make its bogus case for yet another commercial screw job.

I wonder what the mythical "96%" of citizens the gillnetters so nobly serve would react to learning that the few thousand extra coho available in markets this fall as a result of these irresponsible fisheries came at the expense of all but an entire run of wild chinook.

Would anybody out there care to argue that hatcheries or habitat will be the ultimate cause of the extinction of the Chehalis Basin's chinook and chum?
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/13 11:47 AM

I have never seen much of a difference between gill nets and tangle nets in actual practice. Both snag fish and then they drown. Any potential improvement in survival is based on ideas of short soak times and recovery boxes, both useful in theory but not actually a factor in the fisheries.

From a netter's perspective, there are just too many things to keep track of and to do in the middle of a busy fishery. Thus, a fish fling happens. Any fish that survives the first experience will most likely encounter another net in short order. And so it goes.

We are kidding ourselves if we think tangle nets are the answer. We have to move from non selective harvest methods to selective ones.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/13 11:59 AM

Edit: This e mail thread is from the FTC library and is intended to show the internal WDF&W conversations but not endorse anything but rather further the discussion. The last post by Kirt is informative just as to how they came to the 45% mortality on normal gillnets and what was utilized to arrive at it.

Kirt Hughes response is the last post in the e mail chain on net mortality.

For NT GN fisheries in WB and GH we are using 45%. The Nisqually used 50% last year and will end up near that for 2012. The 45% is a fairly long standing value that Flint identified based on the work Vanderhagen did on the Columbia. Ashbrook was involved in some of that stuff at the end.

From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:04 AM
To: Barkdull, Brett C (DFW)
Cc: Phillips, Larry C (DFW); Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: RE: Tangle net survival estimates

Hi Brett,

I'm not aware of any NOF wide agreed-to mortality rates for tangle nets. There was some work done about 10 years ago with tangle nets in Area 10 with the Suquamish Tribe, and I think there was something for the Nisqually fishery, and there must be some agreement on mortality rates for gill net release in Grays Harbor. So it might be worth while checking with Jay Zischke, Larry Phillips, and/or Kirt Hughes to see what was used for modeling in those areas.
Cheers

From: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:05 AM
To: Barkdull, Brett C (DFW)
Cc: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: RE: Tangle net survival estimates

Yep, I’m sure you’ve seen those estimates. They are for spring Chinook released from tangle nets in the Columbia River just above the estuary. The caveats include: cold water, spring Chinook, freshwater. These are important because we were unable to make post-release survival estimates for fall Chinook and coho captured and released from Willapa Bay but the fish were in significantly worse condition at capture, and this indicates to me they did not survive as well. In the Willapa, the water was warmer, and the fish were in the midst of physiologic transformation in the estuary.
All that said, I think the estimate for you to use is the one that has been informed by my work and then gone through policy consideration –Steve Thiesfeld has a list with mortality values that are assigned so I’ve cc-ed him. Stevo, will you send Brett your list? If Steve doesn’t have tangle net info, then the post-release survival estimate based on my groups’ work is 86.2%. I attach the BPA report with this info and more provided. The table with post-release survival estimates and their confidence intervals is on p. 1-21. Also, in the appendix on p. 1-64, you’ll find a summary of the Willapa results.
Cheers!
Charmane

From: Barkdull, Brett C (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:29 PM
To: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Subject: RE: Sport Rules: Latest WAC changes and Trout Pamphlet Day

Hey, got an unrelated question for ya’ since you are the tangle net queen! LOL!

Somewhere, I have seen your estimates of tangle net mortalities on Chinook released. At least I think I have. I’m drawing a blank where to get those numbers. Got the paper you wrote handy or link or???? I’m lazy, and getting tired. Thanks, getting ready to do battle with Lummi!

From: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:28 AM
To: Bosworth, Aaron (DFW); Whitney, Jennifer L (DFW); Barkdull, Brett C (DFW)
Cc: Hoffmann, Annette (DFW)
Subject: FW: Sport Rules: Latest WAC changes and Trout Pamphlet Day

Here you go, Region 4 District Bios!

From: Hoffmann, Annette (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:25 AM
To: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW); Frazier, Patrick A (DFW); Whalen, John T (DFW); Easterbrooks, John A (DFW); Warren, Ron R (DFW); Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Korth, Jeff (DFW)
Cc: Long, John A (DFW); Bramwell, David R (DFW)
Subject: RE: Sport Rules: Latest WAC changes and Trout Pamphlet Day

You will want to sent the doodle pool to the Region 4 District Bio’s who know their rivers to look at these WAC’s. So, please include them in these emails (Aaron Bosworth, Jenni Whitney, Brett Barkdull).

From: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:59 AM
To: Frazier, Patrick A (DFW); Whalen, John T (DFW); Easterbrooks, John A (DFW); Hoffmann, Annette (DFW); Warren, Ron R (DFW); Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Korth, Jeff (DFW)
Cc: Long, John A (DFW); Bramwell, David R (DFW)
Subject: Sport Rules: Latest WAC changes and Trout Pamphlet Day

Hi Everyone,
Here is the document that will be given to the Commission for this weekend’s rule adoption. I expect the Commission may have a few tweaks before it is filed as the CR103. At next Monday’s meeting and in a follow up email, I will update you regarding any changes.

Regarding the trout pamphlet day –please decide which of your staff will attend and have them fill out the Doodle Poll (http://www.doodle.com/md3htu9n7umf37eb) by this Friday. I’ll plan to announce the day of the meeting at next Monday’s meeting and send a follow up email that includes the date and who will be attending by region. Or, if none of the dates on the Doodle Poll work, please let me know what weekends work and I’ll follow up on Monday with a weekend plan.

The objectives for this meeting are 1) to get all the gamefish rules in the pamphlet; 2) to improve the pamphlet and pamphlet process; and 3) to have all gamefish rules in the pamphlet before the NOF pamphlet weekend. Please know that I have heard from many people, including regional staff, that this meeting is much needed. We are going to try and improve efficiency by making changes in “real time” with meeting rules that include 1) focus on content and not format until the end and 2) where there are disputes, one person will be the lead for determining and instructing Dave about the change. Dave plans to send the pamphlet draft in mid-February to help provide everyone prep time.

Thank you for all your help,
Charmane


Charmane Ashbrook
ESA Response, Scientific Collection Permits and Sport Rules Unit Leader
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
360-902-2672
[i][/i][color:#C0C0C0][/color]
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/13 03:09 PM

Key words regarding chinook release mortality from tangle nets...

Quote:
Yep, I’m sure you’ve seen those estimates. They are for spring Chinook released from tangle nets in the Columbia River just above the estuary. The caveats include: cold water, spring Chinook, freshwater. These are important because we were unable to make post-release survival estimates for fall Chinook and coho captured and released from Willapa Bay but the fish were in significantly worse condition at capture, and this indicates to me they did not survive as well. In the Willapa, the water was warmer, and the fish were in the midst of physiologic transformation in the estuary.


Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/13 03:53 PM

In my mind, the only meaningful chinook savings in using tangle nets is PERHAPS a lower encounter rate as the gear may not be as efficient in capturing the fish.

Once encountered, the release mortality comes from the unavoidable physical handling of an already stressed fish. Suspending entangled fish mid-air while busy dealing with other fish already on board... yeah that's real healthy. Just bringing fish over the roller is another added stress. If the fish isn't moving/thrashing, it's probably good as dead. If it is still thrashing, it must be manhandled to disentangle it from the webbing, further contributing to the stress factor. A rec guy isn't even allowed to remove a salmon from the water!

OK it's out of the net, now what? Live boxes? Well, we've all seen how consistently they were (NOT) used in the video. And with all the coho they will have to be dealing with, how much time and care do we expect them to spend on handling/reviving the economically worthless (to them) wild chinook bycatch.

Finally, there's the issue of recapture. Let's be intellectually honest here. When 20+ nets are strung completely across the migratory channel, a released king is as good as dead. This is especially true in the narrow bottleneck we know as area 2A. If he's not dead the first time, he will be by the second or third recapture. The only lucky ones are the ones released from the closing set of the fishing day.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/13 04:32 PM

Notable excerpts from...

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/sk/pdf/Report_8.pdf


Because many fish needed to be revived, a successful commercial selective fishery in this setting is expected to require a high ratio of marked hatchery to wild fish.

For the record, the mark rate for Chehalis fall chinook is exceedingly LOW

We did observe that many coho and Chinook captured in tangle nets and gill nets in this environment were lethargic and needed to be revived. This differs from similar studies in the Columbia River, where most spring Chinook and steelhead were in vigorous condition at capture.

Fish are going to be much more stressed by this gear type in warmer estuary water

Based on the condition at capture and method of capture results, a net that is appropriate for a tangle net coho fishery will also act as a tangle net for fall Chinook bycatch. Similarly, a net that acts as a gill net for a coho fishery will also act as a gill net for fall Chinook bycatch.

As mentioned earlier, we did not detect a difference between the tangle net and gill net for Chinook post release survival.

These results contrast sharply with a similar evaluation of the post-release survival of spring Chinook salmon on the Columbia River (Vander Haegen et al. 2004). In that study, spring Chinook captured and released from tangle nets did not differ in immediate survival from gill net captured fish but did survive at significantly higher rates following their release than Chinook released from gill nets.

Different species are known to have different responses to the same stressors (Schreck et al. 2001), and so may not respond to the nets in the same ways. A given species may also display a different response in a more stressful environment than a less stressful environment. Another possibility is that environmental stressors may override and mask survival benefits provided by the tangle net. In our study, the estuarine environment was likely unfavorable to capture and release because the water was relatively warm during the coho migration. Fishing in better conditions (e.g. cooler water, fewer predators) would most likely increase survival, although we do not know the magnitude of the difference. On the Columbia River, spring Chinook salmon were captured after they had migrated about 140 miles upstream, and were presumably habituated to the river environment.

To date, WDFW personnel have conducted several studies to evaluate the usefulness of different gear types in reducing the release mortality of non-targeted stocks in commercial selective fisheries. A three-year study in the Columbia River found statistically significant differences in long-term survival among fish released from a tangle net versus those caught and released from gill nets. This study found no statistically significant differences in long term survival among fish caught and released from tangle versus gill nets.


I think that last paragraph says it all
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/13 10:42 PM

Exactly right! Very clear detail.

I love the way a detail oriented Eye Doc phrases things, helps a ER guy out with the details.

This is a great discussion. I had no idea that there was access to these detailed email discussions.

Makes me happy I try to say mostly smart things on forums and in work email, although my friends point out my goofiness plenty.
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/13 11:10 PM

As I read further into the data I get a little smarter and more aggravated and discouraged at the same time. It seems that good science is being intentionally or ignorantly disregarded. I more fully understand Francis' post about being discouraged, but I have no doubt he will persevere.

"This study found no statistically significant differences in long term survival among fish caught and released from tangle versus gill nets."

OK, True Dat, so why then are we forcing our commercial fishers to use this outdated technology that cuts off recreational fishers from catching opportunities and harms non targeted stocks at the same time?

This current WB/GH commercial fishery is a sinking ship, destined to go down. I mean, that as this is brought to light it will not continue. I predict that Region 6 will be heavily, heavily scrutinized going forward. It used to be that local areas stayed local, but those days are gone. this is a regional issue, if not national wrt harvest and sustainability, and we need to up the ante. Time to work those smart proposals and talking points.

"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" "Time to roll the dice."

I think that emails, letters, and personal conversations with WDFW staff and administration are all good. And I think that it is sage advice to "Keep our words sweet, lest we have to eat them." That does not mean the words cannot be focused, just that we should all leave here as "friends." I believe the WDFW staff are concerned and want "all this" to work, doing good things while staying employed and providing for their families.

This took up more bandwidth than I intended. I hope it is useful.

Regards,

Rick
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/13 01:54 AM

The Commission policy for the 2013/14 NOF process....


http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3608.html



Fish and Wildlife Commission

Commission Policy Documents




<< Commission Policy Documents Index


POLICY DECISION



POLICY TITLE:

2013-2014 North of Falcon

POLICY NUMBER:

POL-C3608



Supersedes:

: C-3608, 2011-2012

Effective Date:

February 8, 2013







Termination Date:

December 31, 2014



See Also:

POL C-3001

Approved by:

/s/ Miranda Wecker





POL C-3620



Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair




DOWNLOAD: Signed copy of POL-C3608 (PDF)



North of Falcon Policy

This Policy will guide Department staff in considering conservation, allocation, in-season management, and monitoring issues associated with the annual salmon fishery planning process known as “North of Falcon.” When considering management issues, Department staff will ensure that decisions are made consistent with: the Department’s statutory authority; U.S. v. Washington, U.S. v. Oregon, the Endangered Species Act; the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan; the Pacific Salmon Treaty; the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Framework Salmon Management Plan; pertinent state/tribal agreements; and the applicable Fish and Wildlife Commission policies.

The Department will implement this Policy consistent with the purposes and intended outcomes described in the 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Planning Project including:
•Salmon and steelhead will be managed to recover and assure sustainability in a way that is science-based, well-documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable.
•Fisheries will be managed to meet or exceed ESA, recovery, and conservation goals; and harvest management measures will protect and promote the long-term well-being of the commercial and recreational fisheries.

Fishery Management

General
•On a statewide basis, fishing opportunities will be provided when they can be directed at healthy wild and hatchery stocks.
•Selective fishing methods and gears that maximize fishing opportunity and minimize impacts on depressed stocks will be utilized to the fullest extent possible taking into consideration legal constraints on implementation and budgetary limits associated with required sampling, monitoring and enforcement programs.
•When assessed from a statewide perspective, fishing directed at chinook, coho, pink, sockeye, or chum salmon will not be exclusively reserved for either sport or commercial users.
•When managing sport fisheries, meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers, including retention and catch and release fisheries.
•The Department will seek non-treaty fishing access to unutilized portions of treaty harvest allocations through the implementation of pre-season agreements, taking into consideration changes in abundance, fishery conflicts, and factors that may influence attainment of spawning escapement objectives.

Sockeye, Chum, and Pink Salmon
•For fisheries directed at Fraser River-origin chum, pink, and sockeye stocks, the majority of harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
•For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound-origin chum stocks, the majority of harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
•For fisheries directed at Lake Washington sockeye, the first 200,000 non-treaty harvest will be provided to recreational fishers. If the allowable non-treaty harvest is greater than 200,000, commercial harvest directed at this stock may be considered.
•For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound origin pink salmon, seasons will be established that provide meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries while minimizing gear and other fishery conflicts.

Chinook and Coho Salmon
•The Puget Sound harvest management objectives for chinook and coho stocks, in priority order, are to: (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and (2) identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest. When managing sport fisheries in this region, recreational opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas, considering factors such as: the uniqueness of each area; the availability of opportunities for various species in each area throughout the season; the desire to provide high levels of total recreational opportunity; and the biological impacts.
•Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the recreational and commercial fisheries.
•The Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policy on Columbia River Salmon Management (POL-C3620) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River salmon fisheries. Columbia River harvest management regimes shall be developed in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives.
•Willapa Bay harvest management shall be consistent with Willapa Bay Framework management objectives. The following general intent shall apply: Willapa Bay harvest management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries.
•Pacific Ocean harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers.

In-Season Management
•When in-season management actions are taken, they will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with pre-season conservation and harvest management objectives, and the fishery intent developed through the North of Falcon process.

Monitoring, Sampling and Enforcement
•Monitoring, sampling and enforcement programs will be provided to account for species and population impacts of all fisheries and to ensure compliance with state regulations.
•Fishery participants will be required to comply with fishery monitoring and evaluation programs designed to account for species and population impacts.

Gear and Fishery Conflicts
•Recreational and commercial fisheries shall be structured to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. Unanticipated fishery interaction issues identified in-season, including conflicts with fisheries directed at other species, shall be resolved by involving the appropriate sport and commercial representatives in a dispute resolution process managed by Department staff.

Incidental Mortalities
•The Department will manage fisheries to minimize mortalities on non-target species (e.g. rockfish, sea birds, etc.). Management regimes will include strategies to limit seabird mortalities consistent with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Communications
•The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements for effective public involvement during the North of Falcon planning process and annual salmon fishery implementation, incorporating the following intents:
&#9702;North of Falcon participants will be included as observers during appropriate state/tribal discussions of fishery issues.
&#9702;all decisions made during the North of Falcon process will be recorded in writing.
&#9702;variety of tools will be used to effectively communicate with the public, to receive input on pre-season planning or in-season fishery issues, and to make available the record of decisions. Such tools will include: recreational and commercial advisory groups; public workshops to address key issues; the WDFW North of Falcon Web site; and in-season tele-conferences.

Other Species
•The Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policy on Lower Columbia Sturgeon Management (POL-C3001) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River and coastal sturgeon fisheries and related incidental impacts. Management of Willapa Bay sturgeon fisheries will be further guided by Willapa Bay Framework management objectives.

Delegation of Authority

The Fish and Wildlife Commission delegates the authority to the Director to make harvest agreements with Northwest treaty tribes and other governmental agencies, and adopt permanent and emergency regulations resulting from the agreements made during the annual North of Falcon process.


Here is a link to all the Commission policies....

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies.html
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/13 02:22 PM


Update time but on April 1, 20013 Hamilton vs WDF&W was filed in Thurston County Court. After many months of efforts to obtain information and make it public and being stymied few options remained. A link to the information is http://fishingthechehalis.net/want-to-help
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/13 05:33 PM

Reading this got me to thinking that the Gray's Harbor fishery management exercise needs to be subjected to a trial-type hearing, complete with pre-trial discovery, sworn witnesses, and rules of evidence. And then along comes Rivrguy! Way to go!
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/13 08:51 PM

I sure wouldnt bet against Dave on this given the past success at Satsop Springs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/13 09:18 PM

Just catching up. Thanks for the vote of confidence but folks this is not a Dave bit as ain't no way I have all the skills needed. From my brother Tim to Ron S. from Elma to Randy B. at Rochester to a huge number of folks pitching in it is simply a grass roots thing. It is time to speak out and object to having your rights trampled. That simple but to prevail far more complex and will take all of us.

If I recall correctly the line in the movie was " I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore".
Posted by: fp

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/05/13 02:15 AM

Rivrguy,

I would gladly post up a raffle/auction of one of my homemade stainless Steel Clam digging tubes and donate the proceeds to this cause. It is very important to anybody who fishes the two Bays and rivers mentioned and I commend you for doing what you are doing.

Can you get it approved with Bob or Corey and I'll get it made and start the auction? Highest bidder gets it but the winner will be responsible to pick it up in Hoquiam or maybe someone could deliver it wherever.

I have never done anything like this but somehow I will help all I can.

Thank you for doing this,

fp
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/05/13 11:56 AM


Will PM Bob and ask the question Fred. Thx for the support guy!!
Posted by: fp

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/13 02:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

Will PM Bob and ask the question Fred. Thx for the support guy!!


Rivrguy,

As soon as I can get a Clam tube put together I will put it up for an auction. High bidder gets it no matter what the price is and all the money raised will go to your, or should I say "our", FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET fund? Hope it does well. Somebody might get the tube for 5 bucks or 500. Ya never know!

Anybody wanting to donate to FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET this will be a good way to get a free Clam tube and they work great.

Look for it soon.

fp
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/13 08:59 AM

Our FishingtheChehalis fund Fred. Our is a good word Fred as FTC staff is all volunteer. Due to the efforts of many sport fishers from the Chehalis Basin and across the state FTC it is becoming the Chehalis Basin's citizen's voice for change. That is what it is about the average citizen's right to available harvest and the protection of the resource.

Off the soap box and again thanks Fred.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/13 12:00 PM

Well !!!!!!

In eastern WA, watching the rain.......guess I'll bet 1st on the fp clam gun, $$$$$$ to go to FTC

bid....... $ 85.00


I haven't dug clams in 30+ years......maybe I'll just walk up and down the beach "to show fp's awesome work".........
Posted by: fp

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/13 01:45 PM

[quote=DrifterWA]Well !!!!!!


Dang DrifterWA,

I haven't even got it built yet. Guess I better get out in the shop and get it done today, take a picture and start a thread on the auction. It looks like it will go to a great cause.

Thank you for bidding,

fp
Posted by: no fish10

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/13 07:12 PM

I'll bid $100
Posted by: fp

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/13 10:16 PM

I now have the auction up for bids.

Looks like we have a couple of bidders already. WOW!!!!!

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post833294

Lets get the bids going.

fp
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/11/13 12:45 PM

Thought I would put this link up so all can view the Region 6 presentation to the Commission February 8, 2008 regarding the Chehalis Basin. It is interesting to say the least!

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yNW5jbjV6ZE92VTA/edit

Also the link below is to a letter of June 6, 2012 addressing many of the issues associated with Grays Harbor and Chehalis Basin management to the Commission. Oh almost forgot, not one of the Commissioners responded.

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjg...bHdQeEEwQW5aOEE
Posted by: fp

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/13 10:14 PM

Got the PC going again so it's time to figure out a closing date on the auction.

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post833294

Sunday April 14th at 9:00 P.M.

Remember, all the money goes to FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET.

Thanks,

fp
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/13 08:45 AM

Well another thread running on seasons but I thought I would put some feathers on it here. Last night was the last advisers meeting and it had it's moments. Seems the NT commercial guys were unaware that the 14 day season proposed at NOF in Olympia went down to 7 and ............ ah..they did not take it well?

So as it stands now no 2 C or Hump netting. Chehalis bound Chinook limited things so if the NT's fish there it cuts back on Chehalis time.

Here is the Chehalis netting schedule for NT nets and keep in mind this does not include the QIN. Should work out with nets in the river 6 days a week for the month of October.

Chehalis with 25 % mortality on released wild ( unmarked ) Chinook. 25% mortality is from " soft data " not a study.

wk numbers
http://www.epochconverter.com/date-and-time/weeknumbers-by-year.php

wk 40 / 0
wk 41 / 2
wk 42 / 1
wk 43 / 2
wk 44 / 2
wk 45 / 0
wk 46 / 0
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/13 12:14 PM

Let me understand what just happened! At the end of NOF the WDFW imposed a season with 14 net days in 2A/2D and perhaps 5 days in 2C that were not shown at the meeting. Now it is 7 tangle net days in 2A/2D only.

At first I thought the gill netters realized the huge economic value of recreational fishing and gave up 12 days for the good of the community. Then Rivrguy said they did not know about the change until last night.

So did WDFW realize that the final NOF season was a mistake? Not a chance. Something good happened and I would guess we owe the rec advisors or a few in the rec community big time. This year has the potential to be the best recreational river fishery in years. A big thank you to those involved on our behalf.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/13 06:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Soft bite

Something good happened and I would guess we owe the rec advisors or a few in the rec community big time. This year has the potential to be the best recreational river fishery in years. A big thank you to those involved on our behalf.


As you are well aware, it can be a mundane, frustrating, maddening and often unrewarding process. This year was different, and the Chehalis chinook were saved from a potentially devastating net schedule. Not singing "Everything's Coming up Roses" just yet, but at least we finally got the pendulum to swing a bit in the other direction.

Thanks for noticing, SB.
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/13 08:19 PM

That's good news.
Maybe the documentation on the website, a good turnout by recreationals, and the hard work of the advisors made a difference.
Thanks.
Posted by: Ken I

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/17/13 08:50 PM

Thank you all for your hard work and bullheadedness.
I was considering golfing in october until I heard that netting days got dialed back. You saved me from a life of suburbia. See you on the water.
Take Care,
Ken
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/18/13 09:37 PM

Front page of the Region 6 hometown paper....

http://thevidette.com/sections/news/loca...ife-agency.html
Posted by: Doctor Rick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/18/13 11:45 PM

Excellent!
Rick
Posted by: jordywan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/13 05:29 PM

wow, new here thanks for all the info. I grew up on the eastside and had the privalige of fishing the upriver Chehalis for the fist time this winter. Found it very alarming every fish I landed was scarred by nets. eeeeek.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/13 11:28 AM


Several of us have been tracking the WAC process for both the commercial and recreational fisheries for the harbor and rivers. The link below is to a bit I did up on the FTC website that has a bunch of links in it that will allow you to see the current status of both. Rather interesting as neither the rec or commercial WAC's have been adopted by the Commission.

http://fishingthechehalis.publishpath.com/latest-greatest-well-latest
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/01/13 08:45 PM

Well the supplemental CR 102's were put out today with some on sports for coast bottom & PS. Nothing on Willapa / Grays Harbor commercial but I will do a link once it is posted on WDF&W's website. So here is all I have.

"We did not file anything today re: NOF WB/GH or NOF recreational salmon rules. The next filing deadline is May 22. We may be filing the NOF WB/GH CR-102 Supplemental then. We are still a few months away from filing the NOF recreational salmon CR-102.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/01/13 10:12 PM

Just checked with my source on the process. After filing the CR-102 they have to schedule a public hearing, take testimony, make a decision, file the CR-103, and 31 days later the regs are "legal".

This sure looks like the 2013 salmon seasons will be done by Emergency Reg. It also means that none of the salmon fisheries done in NOF that are in the pamphlet are actually real rules.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/01/13 11:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman

It also means that none of the salmon fisheries done in NOF that are in the pamphlet are actually real rules.


Real rules?

Really?

I was under the impression the paper rec impacts have been spent and the season is a done deal, hence the move to go to final print after advisers were asked to help proofread for errors/typos a couple weeks ago.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/02/13 12:55 AM

I am talking about what is actually a legal rule, meeting the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. What was agreed to, proofed, and all that may well be "correct", just not legal.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/02/13 01:24 AM

The "dog and pony show" continues in Region 6........
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/02/13 09:46 AM

On sports regs the pamphlet reflects the regs BUT the sport fishing WAC has not been passed so WDF&W has been doing emergency rules to keep it straight sorta. Here is GH http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/emergency_rules/2013/wsr_13-10-024.pdf

Francis the bit you referred to has zero to do with the current WAC or the proposed supplemental. What the adviser's say or anything from North of Falcon IS NOT binding on WDF&W in fact they can just set and let the current CR 102 for commercials go to the commission for approval. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#13-01-064 or they can do a supplemental but either way it is the WAC not anything said or NOF speeches that sets law. As of now it is the current CR 102 that is linked above.

The sports WAC is the pamphlet, so to speak, but it does not match the WAC so the emergency and supplemental WAC's are needed to keep the pamphlet and WAC straight. More to come as each time a season or something is different from the 2012 WAC ( which is still running ) does not match the new pamphlet WDF&W will do something to be legal. Most likely supplemental but as CM said they can try a end run with an emergency WAC.

The problem WDF&W has is as DW said, NOF is a " dog & pony show " that never matched the WAC process which is the law. Commercial or sport the manner in which R-6 has done business for years can be seen easily be seen http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/registerfiling.aspx?cite=220-36-023 If you take the time it research it this is clear WDF&W has it's mind made up to as to impact numbers for marine sport / fresh water ( river ) / commercial and how much of harvest goes to who / where in February as they prepare the original notice in or around March dependent on the QIN agreement. Now they do move around on species, days, ect but in the end come close to the original numbers they post in the CR 102 which was March this year. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2012/wsr_13-01-064.pdf The CR 102 is the first break out on the commercial seasons is seldom much different than the permanent rule that the commission adopts and if it is requires a supplemental WSR filing. The rest that comes with NOF is pure BS as it means about zip.

So look at it this way on the GH / Willapa commercial WAC. If they post it May 22nd it has a 20 day comment period so we are at June 20th. The next meeting of the Commission would be July 5th as the May 22nd posting puts them one day past the Commission schedule http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html. Then the 31 day bit to take effect puts you to August at a minimum. Now if you are a believer in " Murphy's Law " then one could envision a scenario that backs WDF&W up to a time line that would leave few options for supplemental WAC for Willapa and GH so it is emergency rule time. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/emergency_rules.html
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/14/13 11:25 AM

Link is to D's Rant on the FTC website. http://fishingthechehalis.publishpath.com/is-nof-dog-pony-show- In our recent PDR we received some very interesting pieces of information ( which are linked to ) regarding the NT Commercial WAC. Bottom line R-6 staff were informed that they were violating the WAC process in 2011 and they simply ignored it. No need to read the Rant if you do not care to but the links will provide insight in how R-6 does business.

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yTXZ6UmNHZkUtWFU/edit This is a link to the first installment on PDR 13108 we just received. The larger files are multiple e mails ( hundreds ) so when you open the file you will have to do a down load ( usually on a prompt ) and get a warning that the file is to large to scan but the files are virus free so just hit a download. You will see a list of e mails at the top of the page and it scrolls and you can open each up. Adobe Reader or Adobe is required and some of what I outlined will differ dependent on how your computer is set up. Interesting reading.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/15/13 10:14 AM

Yesterday I listened to a group of steelhead anglers who were upset at the way some steelhead proposed regs were politicked for and snuck back into the process. Couple that with the whole Cabezon situation and it looks like there are a lot of games being played with the regulation process.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/20/13 08:17 AM

Anyone else have anything to add that they know about the reg / WAC process not being followed. In Willapa / GH that utter disregard is documented, as is the Cabezon fiasco. Seems to be a pattern of manipulation of the WAC / public hearing process to get and outcome that is not necessarily what WDF&W staff says it is. Thoughts?

For my part the following links take away any of the " " we are confused bit " often used. This link is to an email thread where Lori Pruess clealy identifies to R-6 staff that you can not make major changes to the CR 102 https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjg...Q0VBcG56bG1HZTg which is how the regs / seasons are set. Why is this important? Take this year the CR 102 was in March 8th before even the Advisers met which means no major changes allowed with out a supplemental WAC or redo is another way of putting it.

Hit this link https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjg...QmxIYXNKZVNKWVk and look at 2010 / 2011 / 2012 and you will see the very process used each year that Lori is commenting on and this link will be the history by years. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/registerfiling.aspx?cite=220-36-023

Bottom line is as put forward before, the NOF process for sports and commercial fisheries is smoke and mirrors in and attempt to meet requirements for public input. Most folks have given up on that process but few have grasped just how WDF&W did this year after year. The reality is they do a public NOF that is little more than a " rope a dope " then pretty much do whatever they want which has been in recent years screw the fish and in river sports.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/24/13 10:04 AM


The link provided is to a document that was attached to a e mail in the latest PDR response. Why is this interesting one might ask? Well it concerns Wynoochee Mitigation and not the funds from TCL but the ORIGINAL dam mitigation. Twice before WDF&W has attempted to cut the Steelhead Mitigation in budget reductions and the local folks nailed them. Seems old WDG used the funds to upgrade Aberdeen Lake Hatchery and guaranteed they would make up future shortfalls out of pocket. Now WDF&W appears to be out rummaging around again.

The thing about both the original mitigation and the failure to produce the additional fish that were funded at the time the dam power plant went in 1993 is utter lack information they provide even when asked point blank.

Anyway here is the link. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yWGtBV1hEMHpzRmc/edit
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/13 09:57 AM

Was asked to update on the commercial seasons so here it is ........... got me. The silence is deafening but sooner or later WDF&W has either to move the current CR 102 forward http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#13-01-064 or drop a supplemental WAC for a redo. The last word was seven days @ 25% mortality with tangle nets but that takes a supplemental WAC and as as I said nothing yet. As to the QIN seasons their are lots of rumors swirling around but nothing formally announced.

As to the question regarding the accuracy of the preseason forecast, they are seldom correct. https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjg...d2NJRHV4Sm5SSkE for 2013 Coho and https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjg...SXE0Rnd6SFlRNUk for 2013 Chinook. The best way to view the spreadsheets and down load them ( just hit the down load arrow ) as the data base stores them as they were constructed and by down loading you get the functioning sheets. Their is a considerable amount of information in each spread sheet including performance graphs. Just walk through the tabs at the bottom of the sheet.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/09/13 11:42 AM

The paper below is a briefing paper created for the WDF&W Commission by R-6 staffer Kirt Hughes. Now lets not get side tracked on a hatchery good or bad thing as this was a conceptual briefing but that said look to the thoughts involved. In particular how the proposal is completely aimed at creating another commercial fishery and maybe the sports might catch some. ( I will highlight the spots ) Now I do not think this ever went anyplace but the mind set and thought process on assigning values does come out. Often words while not intended to do so show the bias in a persons thoughts unintentionally and brother this little ditty does. I will try to get a link to the Power Point presentation that went with this soon.


“GREEN SHEET”

Meeting dates: August 8-9, 2008 Meeting (briefing)

Agenda item #: Willapa Bay SAFE Program – briefing

Staff Contact: Kirt Hughes, Region 6 Fish Program Manager (Fish Program)

Presenter(s): Kirt Hughes, Region 6 Fish Program Manager (Fish Program)

Background:

In June 2008, WDFW staff received an official request from the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, to investigate the benefits, risk, logistics and costs associated with the development of a hatchery spring Chinook (SAFE type project) program to provide additional fishery opportunity in Willapa Bay. Staff has discussed the merits of this type of program and outlined the details associated with developing such a program in the Willapa Bay watershed. The following is a brief synopsis of those discussions.

Meaningful Fishery
The first item to consider is whether a meaningful fishery would be created. From a commercial perspective the threshold for a meaningful fishery was measured in terms of ex-
vessel value a range of program sizes were determined by back-calculating price/pound,
average weight of returning adults, contribution to fisheries and smolt release to adult survival rates. Assumptions utilized in these calculations are an average 15 pounds per fish, $7.50 per pound with 72.9% of the adult return contributing to the local commercial fishery. An average of 0.88% smolt to adult return rate was used to estimate the number of fish available to the fishery. The contribution to fisheries and return rate are averages for similar programs in the lower Columbia River. A pilot or proof-of-concept program with a 50K yearling smolt release would provide a projected return of 440 adults and approximately $36,000 ex-vessel value annually after the third release year; a full production level release of 300K – similar to Deep River net-pens – would yield 2,640 adults with a projected ex-vessel value $217,000. Defining a meaningful fishery in recreational terms is a bit more abstract although availability of returning adults in abundance that support commercial harvest generally provides for recreational opportunity at some level.

Facility Location
Any of the three existing Willapa hatchery facilities (Forks Creek, Nemah and Naselle) could rear spring Chinook, however that production should not displace current production.
However, because of the additional water needs and pond space required for rearing spring
Chinook, current programs would be impacted if this new production was anticipated to occur at existing facilities. With that in mind, a net-pen facility offers the greatest possibility of
success. Net-pen production would be developed in a similar fashion to the Columbia River
Select Area Fishery Evaluation Projects (SAFE projects) at Deep River, Youngs Bay and other locations in the lower Columbia River. Additionally a net-pen facility would concentrate returning adults in the vicinity of the pens thereby maximizing the contribution to harvest.
Net-pen site location requires certain physical conditions such as water depth, high levels of tidal exchange or freshwater flow, and a host of parameters associated with permitting a site.
Within Willapa Bay the best locations appear to be near Toke Point or in the lower Willapa River between towns of South Bend and Raymond; other sites continue to be explored.

Broodstock Source
There are no natural spring Chinook stocks in Willapa Bay, therefore a hatchery brood stock would require an out-of-basin source. As with any hatchery program there are disease considerations that must be taken into account. Development of a hatchery Spring Chinook program in Willapa Bay would need to be done consistent with fish health standards and in compliance with the co-managers disease policy. Sources considered in this evaluation:
• Willapa Bay; does not have natural spring Chinook stock.
• Chehalis River springs Chinook; closest stock geographically, however the absence of spring Chinook hatchery programs within the Chehalis system would require brood stock
collection from natural spawning stocks within the upper river.
• Sol Duc River spring Chinook, which were historically introduced have integrated genetically with the Sol Duc River summer Chinook and as a result have a later run timing.
• Puget Sound has a number of spring Chinook hatchery programs, however these are recovery projects and as such not available for transfer to out-of-basin locations.
• Cowlitz and Kalama hatcheries in the lower Columbia River basin, both have spring Chinook program; these are considered to be the most viable sources.

The most likely brood stock source would be Kalama Hatchery because of their ability to provide early rearing of juveniles needed to meet program goals. A proof-of-concept size program might represent a first step. Fingerlings would be transferred to the site after initial rearing at a land-based facility in the lower Columbia, again Kalama in the most likely brood source. It is assumed that a proof-of-concept level of production could be absorbed into Kalama’s current program. However at the receiving facility on additional hatchery worker would be required to feed and care for the fish while there are in the net-pens. To reduce disease loss due to temperature of the receiving water it is recommended that fingerlings be transferred in September or October and reared to release in May.

Non-target Stock and Species Interactions
Hatchery net-pen operations and fisheries management have the potential to have unintended implications on non-target stocks and species. The full extent of fishery impacts on non-target stock and species are unknown. This is the case for any new fish production project and those which have not operated for the length of time necessary to evaluate through data collection and monitoring. Proper fishery management requires that all fisheries are monitored at some level. Monitoring and evaluation of fisheries targeting a spring Chinook in Willapa Bay would be critical to understanding the impact on non-targeted stocks and species and the success of the program. To facilitate monitoring and evaluation all releases would need to be coded-wire tagged and externally marked. The commercial component would require on-board observer coverage and dockside sampling. Additional spawning ground surveys and hatchery sampling would be needed. This information would provide estimated catch, bycatch, estimated escapement back to the release site and the spawning grounds to obtain survival rates, as well as potential information about interactions with natural spawning stocks.

Enforcement
This fishery would be conducted during spring and early summer, during a time when fisheries had not been previously occurring in Willapa Bay. This would require additional enforcement. It is likely that this would result in some additional enforcement costs and potential conflicts with other enforcement priorities.

Cost
Net-pen and associated cost of set-up are estimated at $7,000 per net-pen (except permitting); loading densities and size of net-pen evaluated here have a capacity of 50,000 yearling smolts
averaging 10 fish/pound. Annual fish food cost currently $4,300, per year per 50,000 yearlingsmolts being reared from fingerling to an average of 10 fish/pound at release. Salary and operating costs (vehicle, vessel, etc.) for a temporary worker to care for and feed fish while in the net-pens are approximately $63,000. The cost of initial rearing at the source facility has not been evaluated. For the initial acquisition of permits, sighting of the location, installation of required markers, buoys, and other associated hardware, plus the aforementioned actual rearing costs, the pilot projects estimated first year budget impact would be approximately $120,000; subsequent annual costs would be about $75,000 at the pilot project level of fish production. The total cost of this program if initiated would require new funding from the legislature. Additional cost will be associated with monitoring and evaluation once adult begin
to return and fisheries are initiated.


Policy issue(s) you are bringing to the Commission for consideration:
Should WDFW staff continue to pursue this activity?


Public involvement process used and what you learned:
It will be important to involve the public should WDFW Regional Fish Program staff be asked to move forward with investigating this concept further. As part of that staff would look to the Willapa Bay Fishery Advisory Group to gain initial insight and comments from both recreational and commercial interests and from the local Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group. Staff would also request that the Hatchery Scientific Review Group review and comment. Should those discussions result in a favorable outcome relative to this concept; staff would begin discussing logistical aspects of this program with other agencies at both the state and federal level, such as: Washington State Department of Ecology, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA Fisheries to name a few.


Action requested:
None. Briefing Only.


Draft motion language:
N/A


Justification for Commission action:
N/A

Form revised 10/25/07
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/09/13 07:48 PM

The value of a recreational fishery is participation. The "perfect" fishery is lots of anglers and no catch; notice how sports fisheries are all about "opportunity"? That mindset has been around WDF/WDFW for a long time.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/10/13 03:14 PM

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3ybDhZWWRMOWVONU0/edit

The link to the Willapa Springer presentation.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/10/13 03:56 PM

Looking at the SAFE pens in the CR:

SAFE pens have the same inherent problems as private aquaculture pens and go through similar permit process.

It would seem hypocritical for those against private aquaculture pens to be for state run SAFE pens in Willapa.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/13/13 10:54 AM

This posting is a letter obtained in PDR 13108 directed at the Commission in 2010. Not a lot has changed since, well they moved the NT Nets back a bit in the bay but that is all. I have blocked out the gentleman's name as a courtesy

.
From:
To: Commission (DFW);
Subject: Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:25:36 PM

Commission Members,

I thought you might be interested in this situation.


Westport/Grayland Chamber of Commerce

I am contacting you on behalf of recreational fishers in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Business owners should be able to support both commercial and sport fishing. They should not be bullied into making a choice. Most of the gill netters in this area are fine people. There is a very small fraction that want the sport fishers out by any means. There has been name calling and harassment on the Tokeland
docks. Here is an example, a man was walking down the dock to his boat in the morning. He passed by a few gill netters standing by one of their boats. He said nothing to them but after he walked by one of them shouted "we gotta get these ---- suckers outa here". They threaten business people with the loss of their dollars if they support us in any way. My wife and I stayed a month per year in Tokeland for 18 years and spent a considerable amount of money from South Bend to Westport. We don't fish there anymore because of what I have encountered. I won't elaborate on what I have been called.

In past years, we had to struggle but both sides got a decent season at the annual salmon meetings. In 2010 the WDFW made no pretense of fairness. The sport fishing representatives that attended thought it was not a legitimate negotiation. They held private meetings with the gill netters before each of the last two meetings. Towards the end of the last meeting, one of the commercial fishers said something like, "we've wasted enough time, isn't it time to tell them how it's going to be?" Soon after his statement the DFW did just that. In recent years the gill net fishing started around mid September in Willapa Bay. In 2010 They received a so called "test fishery" with not many boats but quite a few dates. They got two full fleet openers in August just when the recreational season is beginning. They started their regular season
about four days earlier than the recent average.

The DFW also required us to release all unmarked Chinook and coho. This is very frustrating, many anglers reported a 50% release rate. With Chinook, the naturally spawning and hatchery salmon are all the same stock. The native silvers that are scarce don't come in until nearly a month after the marine sport fishery is basically over. They required the gill netters to release the unmarked salmon also. Catch and release gill netting makes no sense. At the mortality rate they are assessed at, they wasted 940 kings and 9,544 silvers, then add the sport fishing mortality. This is an awful waste of food and I was told it was a disgusting sight, the dead salmon drifting down with the tide.

Westport spends a lot of money attracting us to this area. The DFW and the gill netters appear to be trying to get rid of us. The Department totally ignored the letter the Chamber sent last year. If this doesn't change there will be a constant decline in recreational fishing. I was told the South Bend launch was down about 50% last year, Tokeland was down too. Some members of the Legislature seem to have some

leverage on the DFW. You probably know a lot more about that than I do. We do not want to take over, we just want what is fair for us and for the business community. I am sending a copy to the 19th District Legislators.

On the subject of South Grays Harbor, as you know a great Chinook sport fishery has been lost. It was good for us and for you. The DFW still allows a non tribal gill net Chinook mortality and they have allowed a sport fishing Chinook mortality with a coho fishery. With Tribal fishing, I wondered if you had tried talking directly to them. This could be of interest to sport and commercial fishers also. There is also the habitat destruction in the Chehalis headwaters. I really hope we can make some progress on all these problems.

Sincerely,
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/20/13 10:49 AM

CR 102 Supplemental Splits Grays Harbor / Willapa WAC



As we have all waited for the CR 102 Supplemental for Grays Harbor & Willapa that will define the Non Treaty Commercial seasons one had to wonder how WDF&W would get the implementation timelines in sync with the legal requirements. TaDa .................. now we know how, you separate Willapa from Grays Harbor with a CR 102 Supplemental. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#13-01-064

From WDF&W the notification below:

Today we filed a CR-102 Supplemental for Willapa Bay and river-mouth definitions. You can view it by going to this page, http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html, and clicking on the item for NOF Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor. Our Fish Program tells me they do not know when they will be ready to file a CR-102 Supplemental for Grays Harbor. I’ll let you know if and when we do file one.

With mid August for the Willapa Commercial start up and supposedly the first week of October in the Chehalis something had to give as the timeline for public comment / passage / implementation on the combined Grays Harbor and Willapa WAC was about to be out of reach for the agency. To be honest this is not really a surprise for the reasons stated above and at first read looks to follow what Region 6 staff put forward at the Olympia North of Falcon meeting March 29th.

Grays Harbor? Darned if I know but they do have a CR 102 on the books filed March 6th ( same Link provided above ) that could be voted on by the Commission or they can do a CR 102 Supplemental. Anyway you look at it the separation of Willapa and Grays Harbor did little to solve any of the issues revolving around the 2013 Commercial Seasons just simply got the Willapa timeline in compliance with the law.

Come to think of it that is a new one .............. being in compliance with the law ............... look at the progress!
Posted by: wsu

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/20/13 01:19 PM

Everyone should make a point of submitting input to WDFW. This is basically NOF starting over because WDFW couldn't push through it's original plan.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/25/13 11:15 AM


I forgot to add that another individual was told by R 6 staff that the CR 102 supplemental for the GH commercial fisheries will be submitted July 3rd. As to the QIN, all I know is that the word is they have a " big disagreement" with the agency. Time will tell but until the commercial CR 102 supplemental is filed and the QIN commercial days are announced one has no idea on the lay of the land this fall for the in river sport.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/04/13 09:18 AM

At last WDF&W Region 6 ( R-6 ) has put the CR 102 Supplemental for the Non Treaty Commercial Nets ( NT ) for Grays Harbor in play and here is the link to take a look at it. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#13-01-064 As outlined at the March 29th North of Falcon ( NOF ) by R -6 Fish Program Manager Ron Warren at the meeting in Olympia it is seven days on the Chehalis with tangle nets. To achieve this the Humptulips 2 C is not targeted because that fishery would harvest a substantial number of Chehalis bound Chinook but as last year the Quinault Nations ( QIN ) commercial fishery will in all likelihood pick up the slack.

So simple terms what does this mean to the inriver sport fishery and the fish. Now not knowing the QIN's netting schedule for the 2013 one can only make a educated guess that with the similar run size to 2012 it will closely resemble the 2012 effort. So folks you should see nets of one kind or another in the Chehalis six to seven days a week for the entire month of October. Which means the inriver sport is getting paper fish just as the last four years but real opportunity is not there because the fish will be killed at the 101 bridge in Aberdeen. The same old inept and corrupt management of Region 6 marches on!!!

So what to do? Well to start you can object to the CR 102 Supplemental by e-mailing your comments opposing this horrific giveaway to the commercial fishery to Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov. and urge others to do the same. Fishing The Chehalis will begin a in depth review of the CR 102 Supplemental after the Forth of July holiday so more to come to be sure!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/04/13 05:24 PM

(3) Recovery boxes and soak times:


(a) For Areas 2A and 2D, soak time must not exceed 45 minutes. Soak time is defined as the time elapsed from when the first of the gillnet web is deployed into the water until the gillnet web is fully retrieved from the water.

(b) Any steelhead or salmon that is required to be released and is bleeding or lethargic must be placed in a recovery box prior to being released to the river/bay. The recovery box must meet the requirements in (d) of this subsection.

(c) All fish placed in recovery boxes must be released to the river/bay prior to landing or docking.

(d) Each boat must have two operable recovery boxes or one box with two chambers on board when fishing Areas 2A and 2D. Each box must be operating during any time the net is being retrieved or picked. The flow in the recovery box must be a minimum of 16 gallons per minute in each chamber of the box, not to exceed 20 gallons per minute. Each chamber of the recovery box must meet the following dimensions as measured from within the box: The inside length measurement must be at or within 39-1/2 inches to 48 inches, the inside width measurements must be at or within 8 to 10 inches, and the inside height measurement must be at or within 14 to 16 inches. Each chamber of the recovery box must include a water inlet hole between 3/4 inch and 1 inch in diameter, centered horizontally across the door or wall of the chamber and 1-3/4 inches from the floor of the chamber. Each chamber of the recovery box must include a water outlet hole opposite the inflow that is at least 1-1/2 inches in diameter. The center of the outlet hole must be located a minimum of 12 inches above the floor of the box or chamber. The fisher must demonstrate to department employees, fish and wildlife enforcement officers, or other peace officers, upon request, that the pumping system is delivering the proper volume of fresh river/bay water into each chamber.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/04/13 05:58 PM

In a nutshell the new CR102 REDUCES commercial time from 14 days spread over the entire Hump/Chehalis estuary using std gillnet mesh and condenses the fishery to 7 days prosecuted ENTIRELY on the Chehalis side with small mesh "tangle" nets.

The old schedule which was approved at NOF on March 29 was as follows

Five 24-hr days in 2C (Hump estuary) on Aug 20, 24, 28, 30, and Sept 6.

Eight 12-hr days in 2A/2D (Chehalis estuary) on Oct 1, 2, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 24.

One 24-hr day in 2A/2D on Oct 21

...


The new revised schedule submitted in the CR102 yesterday reflects a recalculation of the assigned tangle net mortality for this fishery. With a bit of pressure WDFW was persuaded to increase the release mortality by an additional 67% compared to that proposed on Mar 29 at NOF. That recalculation logically increased commercial chinook impact by 67% resulting in a massive scale-back of the original GH gillnet schedule above.

The new and improved schedule is as follows:

Seven 12-hr days in 2A/2D on Oct 7, 8, 14, 22, 24, 29, 30.

Note that the final opener on Oct 30 allows them to fish an expanded area for the entirety of 2D (all the way west to the marker at the mouth of Johns River)
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/04/13 06:09 PM

As Rivrguy states, even though the reduction in GH gillnet time went from a total of 240 hrs down to only 84 hours, ALL 84 HOURS WILL BE PROSECUTED ON THE CHEHALIS SIDE.

This does not include the tribal schedule, which has yet to be published.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/04/13 07:39 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
In a nutshell the new CR102 REDUCES commercial time from 14 days spread over the entire Hump/Chehalis estuary using std gillnet mesh and condenses the fishery to 7 days prosecuted ENTIRELY on the Chehalis side with small mesh "tangle" nets.

The old schedule which was approved at NOF on March 29 was as follows

Five 24-hr days in 2C (Hump estuary) on Aug 20, 24, 28, 30, and Sept 6.

Eight 12-hr days in 2A/2D (Chehalis estuary) on Oct 1, 2, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 24.

One 24-hr day in 2A/2D on Oct 21

...




Well those are the proposed days that were revised in the text of the CR102 filed y'day. As I was typing my post, my 50 yr old brain kept telling my fingers, "Damn, I remember something more along the lines of 14 days on the Chehalis side"

Not sure how I managed to remember that, but hey.... the ol' noggin' was right!

I took an iPhone image of the final package (in Excel format) that was approved at NOF on March 29, and here it is...



As you can see, Region 6 was ready to go with a 14 day package on the Chehalis side.... and that doesn't count the 5 days on the Hump side. So a total of 19 days has been reduced to only 7.

Count our blessings?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/04/13 08:13 PM

FYI, from a letter I received, here's the final breakdown on how all the paper Chehalis chinook will be spent this fall.

Total harvestable = 2768 kings, to be split 50:50 w/ QIN.

QIN share = 1384 kings.... consider them spent, and then some

NON-treaty share = 1384 kings.... allocated on paper as follows:

Chehalis Tribe = 229 (16.5%)
State nets = 170 (12.3%)
Rec = 985 (71.2%)

Spent right down to the LAST paper fish in grand NOF tradition!

It will be interesting to see how it all works out in real life.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/04/13 08:17 PM

Count our blessings? I'd like to think so but the bigger (and all important) unknown is how does the tribal side respond?

Quoting Riverguy from an earlier post...

Quote:
I forgot to add that another individual was told by R 6 staff that the CR 102 supplemental for the GH commercial fisheries will be submitted July 3rd. As to the QIN, all I know is that the word is they have a " big disagreement" with the agency.


Pretty easy to surmise what that disagreement is.

So, the scaling back of the NT commercials to 7 days could definitely be a blessing IF the tribe doesn't fill those lost NT days with days of their own above and beyond what they are already planning. If they do, it will be the same obscene net schedule as the last several years with no marked improvement or hope for the in-river fishermen having decent numbers to fish on.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/05/13 01:46 AM

The reduction from 14 days to seven happened at the last Advisory meeting AFTER public participation ended as the sport side Advisers objected in writing to the Commission. In fact when one Adviser brought forward in an Advisory Meeting that the numbers needed to reflect reality Ron Warren responded that " he should be careful what you wish for " and it is on tape you can request it and listen yourself. It was a warning to the Adviser that if you corrected the numbers it would impact the season ( alter / shorten ) the bay sport fishery. Besides will you folks quit listening to what WDF&W says but rather look at what they do. The key thing is R 6 knows the numbers are not correct as the model in the last four four years hugely under estimates the bay sport & NT net impact and over estimates the inriver sport catch shown in the model. The real model impact error over the last four years numbers have been posted in the past on this website and FTC. In addition the mortality on releasing Chinook from the Tangle nets is a joke and the agency knows it. Take a look at it in action http://fishingthechehalis.net/chehalis-fling as WDF&W's own staff recognized in studies that a warm water estuary is nothing like the Columbia and the release does not work as most of the fish are dead. The idea that there is a reduction from that SWAG ( Wild Ass Scientific Guess ) 45% mortality to a lower percentage is just pure BS and WDF&W knows it. Falsifying math to achieve a harvest scenario is called " cooking the books ".

As I said before if you feel nets 6 to seven days a week are sound management you should be happy. Frankly this is little more than the same shell game that R 6 staff has done for years under the present staffing which have shown and unbelievable ability to utilize facts and numbers they know to be wrong and grossly misrepresent to citizens their ability to participate in the decision process. NOF itself is nothing but a " dog & pony show " and you pick the definition of someone that stands in front of a room full of citizens putting forth information that is completely inaccurate and misleading and they know full well it is. I know what my father called it .

Oh almost forgot, " Count your blessings " ? Nah I for one am not going to accept this load of crap. Opposition to the continuing institutionalized discriminatory policies toward the inland communities / inriver sport by WDF&W Region 6 policies is growing and folks have learned they can object to the CR 102 and the WAC right to the Commission as they adopt and more. It is game on.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/06/13 02:25 PM

WDFW (its predecessor WDF) have institutionally supported marine sport fisheries over freshwater since at least the early 80s. Once salmon get in the rivers they are supposed to be left alone to spawn. What is happening in R6 is really nothing new. Getting them to put the freshwater fisheries and communities at a higher priority will be difficult.

From a purely economic benefit standpoint which dead fish in the boat brings more economic value; the coho taken on a Westport Charter or that same coho taken by a Satsop bankie?

We like to argue that recreational fish generate more economic value than commercial catch; that same argument can and will be used to divide up the sport fisheries.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/06/13 03:41 PM

Escapement policy is the real question here, isnt it? The goals are way too low for that system and they are seldom achieved anyway. MSY is an evil mistress.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/06/13 05:09 PM

QIN would argue that the goals are way too high
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/06/13 06:12 PM

Based on the way they manage, WDFW would agree that the goals are too high. Otherwise, they would develop management strategies that would show a higher rate of achievement.

What matters in not what the managers say about the resource or their goals. What matters is the end result. And the most important end result for GH fisheries is meeting the Bay net needs, with Bay sport next.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/06/13 06:30 PM

Yep. missing the Chehalis chinook goal 80% of the time over the past 15 years speaks volumes.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/06/13 08:43 PM

Meeting the goals, as low as they are, would be a start.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/07/13 10:52 AM

But to meet even the low goals would mean unacceptable restrictions on fishing.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/07/13 09:40 PM

Funny how WDFW and the tribes scated by the ESA and their own wild salmonid policy to do whatever they want, wherever they want.

While ESA does not apply yet to the chehalis except for bull trout, the WSP says they will meet and/ or exceed escapement goals unless they demonstrate poor habitat capability to benefit from those spawners. So lets see the data demonstrating poor habitat quality to excuse the current dismissal of wild escapement needs. They cant do it, unless they load their models with their own assumptions about habitat capability. And that isnt science, it is fitting models to suit their pre-held assumptions.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/08/13 03:20 PM

Every now and then insight comes roaming through the e-mail world. I found this a rather insightful read.



Here's a thought on the whole harvest thing. May have mentioned it before but it may explain at least some of the why and the powers behind it.

In Hoh v. Baldridge the tribe sued the Feds because they approved of ocean fisheries (the WA sport and troll) that took so many Hoh fish that the Tribe was closed for conservation. The Court held that the Tribes could not be shut down for conservation if the reason was prior harvest essentially, the tribes can't be corked. WDF response, from the technical folks, was OK-close the ocean. Escapement still being the #1 priority. Both the Tribes and Feds said no, just share the harvest. If you take 50 in the ocean, the tribe gets 50 in the river. WDF "went" along. This was begun under Wilkerson; Co-management and sharing the pain.

So, the Tribes are in favor of the ocean and bay fisheries (essentially in front of them) because it guarantees them a fishery. If the management paradigm was no fishing until we confirm runsize (some update fisheries) then the schedules would have to reflect something closer to reality. They tribes, and state, would have to manage in-season (more expensive) and might actually have to be close. The river sport is not only the bastard step-child but would put the tribe(s) in the uncomfortable position of having to be responsible managers as they could not cork the sporties if there was a significant fishery that came after them. This is what the court (Boldt) said about steelhead. The tribe can't cork the sporties.

So, ultimately, getting a significant increase in the river fishery will likely be opposed by not only QIN but many other WA tribes who prefer to see the non-Indians take their fish ahead of the tribal nets, so those nets can fish unfettered and if the run comes in stronger all the benefits are reaped by the tribe because the non-Indians took the shot they wanted.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/10/13 11:37 AM

Well as I have been going after the management of the Chehalis Basin for sometime I thought I would post up my comments on the proposed Grays Harbor Commercial CR 102 Supplemental. For those who do not know it is the legal process used to create a Washington Administrative Code ( WAC ) rule used to legally create a sport or commercial season. Bit long winded but there was a lot of ground to cover. If you want to comment the CR 102 can be at viewed http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#13-01-064 and your comments can be e-mailed to Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov

July 10, 2013


Lori Pruess copy by mail Via email, hard copy by mail
WDFW Rules Coordinator,
600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Fax: 360-902-2155


Ms Pruess,

I am writing to express my opposition to the CR 102 Supplemental for Grays Harbor filed as WSR 13-14-123 on July 3, 2013 for the following reasons.

1. The commercial non treaty net fishery outlined continues the policies of institutionalized discrimination by WDF&W Region 6 ( R-6 ) toward the inland communities and in-river sport fishers. The proposed commercial harvest will remove the ability for the vast majority of fishers in these communities to harvest an equitable share.

2. WDF&W Region 6 continues to refuse to recognize and take as a whole the accumulative effect of three commercial fisheries in the Chehalis Basin / Grays Harbor. I fully recognize that the Quinault Nation's and Confederation of Chehalis Tribes share of the commercial harvest are court mandated and not open to discussion. The Legislature has mandated that the WDF&W Commission manage salmon harvest for both sport and commercial harvest is also true but it is my belief that the two tribal fisheries meet the commercial requirement and needs. For WDF&W R-6 to attempt to maintain and continue the non treaty net commercial harvest in the manner and magnitude proposed is to continue rejected past policies of WDF&W that identify fishers by race and ethnicity rather than accept that the court mandated tribal fisheries are the Chehalis Basin / Grays Harbor preeminent commercial fisheries.

3. During Public process know as North of Falcon ( NOF ) WDF&W Region 6 intentionally mislead the public by failing to identify and define the WAC processes. Staff described it as " opening the WAC " knowing full well that the CR 101 was filed 12/7/12 and CR 102 on 3/6/13 before the first Grays Harbor Adviser or the NOF Public Input meeting in Montesano. In addition staff were told via e mail in 2010 by the WDF&W Rules Coordinator that their approach to the WAC process was incorrect as substantial changes could not be made to the CR 102. WDF&W R-6 chose to disregard and continued with the practice identifying the process to the general public in a manner that was intentionally misleading.

After the public meeting in Montesano R-6 staff presented a modified non treaty commercial season to Grays Harbor Advisers with a season utilizing tangle nets for fourteen days with a 14.7 release mortality. This plan was again presented at the NOF meeting March 29th which is a daytime meeting that few citizens can attend due to having to work. On April 2, 2013 a number of GH Advisers supported a letter to WDF&W Commission Chair Wecker authored by Adviser Dr. Francis Estalilla outlining their opposition to the revised commercial season identified above. After Dr. Estalilla met with Director Anderson and several Commission Members at the following GH Adviser meeting WDF&W R-6 staff outlined a new schedule of 7 days at 25% release mortality which is reflected in the CR 102 Supplemental. At this date WDF&W R-6 has not released or provided documentation of the baseline data or methodology used to develop either the 14.7% release mortality or the 25% release mortality reflected in the CR 102 Supplemental. Having broodstocked both Chinook and Chum utilizing tangle nets, seine nets, and hook & line for over twenty years I can say with certainty the 25% tangle net mortality is not a valid release mortality anymore than the discredited 14.7% tangle net mortality or the previously utilized 45% gillnet release mortality assumption.

The 2013 Grays Harbor Fall Non Treaty Planning Model provided by WDF&W R-6 does not have the Quinault Nation or Confederation of Chehalis Tribes seasons and projected harvest data entered which is badly needed in any assessment of the proposed Grays Harbor CR 102 Supplemental. In addition WDF&W R-6 refuses to release the date, time, or location of the NOF allocation meetings with the Quinault Nation or Confederation of Chehalis Tribes and simply states the meetings are not open to the public. While I fully understand that a citizen can not actively participate in the meetings with the two tribes they can observe.

Blocking public access to WDF&W R-6 interactions with the Quinault co-managers is not a new issue as WDF&W R-6 staff even took the position that the Grays Harbor Adviser meeting could be held behind closed doors away from the public view without records being kept until this year when a newly appointed Adviser strenuously objected. The allocation meetings between the tribes are part of the NOF process and WDF&W R-6 is violating numerous rules and WDF&W Commission guidelines by denying citizens an opportunity to observe the WDF&W / tribal harvest allocation meetings which are part of the mandated public NOF process.

In reviewing the WAC processes utilized by WDF&W R-6 I that have outlined it is doubtful that any citizen would have the information needed to understand or comment on the commercial CR 102 Supplemental in an informed and knowledgeable manner.

4. It is my understanding that the approximately 48 mathematical errors in 2012 harvest model, identified by citizen John Campbell, have been corrected in the 2013 Grays Harbor Fall Non Treaty Planning Model but not the harvest assumptions that create the baseline impacts in the model. The model performance greatly underestimates 2A and 2D non treaty commercial fisheries, and the Grays Harbor Bay sport fishery. It also overestimates the in river sport harvest and both problems have been brought to WDF&W R-6 staff's attention repeatedly.

On average, the marine recreational harvest exceeds the model predictions by a factor of 350% and in 2006, anglers in the marine area overfished the modeled harvest by over 500%. Moreover, the non-treaty gillnets have historically killed 150% of their modeled paper impact over the past decade. The over-exploitation by non-treaty nets has become particularly acute in the past three years, averaging 250% of the modeled rate.

5. The management of Chinook stocks in the Chehalis Basin is in such disarray that Chehalis fall Chinook have only exceeded the minimum escapement goal twice in the previous 11 years and only 3 of the last 15 years. In other words WDF&W R-6 fails 4 out of 5 years to correctly manage harvest / escapement. This is compounded by the incorrect base line assumptions on Chinook release mortalities as WDF&W R-6 does not require utilization of the internationally accepted release protocols.
The survivability of released Chinook in a “selective” tangle net or gillnet fishery is predicated on the following protocols which are 1) avoidance 2) limited soak times 3) careful handling 4) use of revival boxes and 5) gentle release into safe waters. The non treaty commercial fishers simply release netted fish by throwing the captured fish into the river at the time of retrieval of the net at the bottom end of the drift and then proceed back upstream to reset their nets for another drift resulting in the same fish being caught time after time until it perishes, if it was fortunate to survive the first encounter. The use of revival boxes is discretionary and the released fish are simply hurled back into the river be it dead or alive. The end result being that the vast majority released salmon either sink to the bottom of the river dead with those that are alive being very lethargic resulting in the fish falling prey to marauding pinnipeds .
Another element of release survival is that Grays Harbor is NOT the Columbia River, these are NOT spring Chinook, and the water temperature is NOT nearly as cool and conducive to releasing stressed salmon. Water temperature in the time and area proposed is 57 degrees F in the Chehalis estuary compared to 44 degrees F in the mainstem Columbia in early spring. That makes the proposed 25% release mortality for tangle nets in Grays Harbor completely invalid as studies in the Willapa have shown. Factoring in what we already know about how the fish are mishandled the proposed tangle net season is simply a continuation of the same WDF&W R-6 policies of falsely representing the impacts of all Grays Harbor Bay marine fisheries with the non treaty commercial nets being the most egregious.

6. WDF&W R-6 identifies Chum stocks not by stream of origin but rather as Grays Harbor Chum, which is not done with any other salmonid species. Utilizing only three spawning reaches on the East Folk Satsop and Stevens Creek, a Humptulips tributary, the combined spawner escapement is extrapolated to provide the projected spawner success for the entire Chehalis & Humptulips watersheds and future harvest opportunity in any given year. This methodology is extremely problematic as it incorporates the returning adults from the 400,000 hatchery released Chum smolt from Bingham and Satsop Springs hatcheries located on the East Folk Satsop that spawn naturally with the wild Chum spawners. The hatchery origin adult Chum spawning are a substantial portion of the naturally spawning population resulting in massively inflated success ratio for wild naturally spawning Chum adults in the East Fork Satsop. This grossly inflated wild spawner recruitment extrapolated for the entire Chehalis Basin and Humptulips River Chum stocks results in a fatally flawed methodology. This methodology has allowed and dictated the continued overharvest / exploitation of Chehalis River Chum stocks above the Satsop River. This problem is not unknown to WDF&W R-6 as it has been identified by WDF&W's Science Division in the Ecosystem Diagnostic Tool potential projects report and others. In simplest terms the current WDF&W R-6 management of Chehalis Basin Chum harvest continues to decimate naturally spawning stocks of Chum and push many Chehalis tributary stocks above the Satsop River to the point of extinction.






Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/10/13 11:55 AM

Quote:

5. The management of Chinook stocks in the Chehalis Basin is in such disarray that Chehalis fall Chinook have only exceeded the minimum escapement goal twice in the previous 11 years and only 3 of the last 15 years.


This is complete failure of management. Ron Warren was very defensive and unprofessional when I pointed this out at the NOF meeting.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/10/13 12:32 PM

WDFW, actively destroying Chehalis basin salmon, for what? 19 gillnetters?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/10/13 01:50 PM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
Quote:

5. The management of Chinook stocks in the Chehalis Basin is in such disarray that Chehalis fall Chinook have only exceeded the minimum escapement goal twice in the previous 11 years and only 3 of the last 15 years.


This is complete failure of management. Ron Warren was very defensive and unprofessional when I pointed this out at the NOF meeting.


Yup. Probably less telling, but possibly more unprofessional, was Warren's snide response to citizen complaints that, despite what appeared to be banner coho returns, anglers had a tough time catching fish in the rivers. His response was (paraphrasing), What do you want me to do? Jump in the river and put a salmon on your hook?

It's pretty clear that Region 6 staff is directed to maximize the non-tribal harvest. Unlike most of the season setting meetings, the public is allowed to participate in NOF. As Rivrguy demonstrates, we're effectively only observers there, too.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/13/13 11:00 PM

Recent events have interesting parallels.

The pilots of the Asiana plane goiung to SFO flew the plane by the (pre-season) models-all the various automatic controls. Even after taking them off they apparently ignored the Real-World data. They were too low and too slow (run not materializing as expected). They took action at the last moment (closed the in-river sport fishery) and still broke off the tail (missed escapement).

In fish management, as in flying a plane, real world data and hands-on management seem to be needed. Unfortunately, this is expensive, time consuming, and may result in "aborting the landing"-closing a bunch of fisheries.

Or, keep flying on autopilot; it works most of the time.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/16/13 03:43 PM

The question was asked of R-6 " Nothing was discussed about the amount of Commercial boats that will be moving North into the Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor fisheries. Could you please tell me what the affects will be? "

Below is the body of the e mail from R-6 in response to the question. Now the model already under estimates NT Nets by 250% the past four years, just imagine what the increased number of boats fishing would do to the models accuracy! Do not know where they would fit them all but silly me did not know where 22 would fit in the river. Oh almost forgot. It took the gentleman several reminders and more than a bit to get the information.

The numbers are not formatted well but you can match them up to the categories.



RESPONSE:
As to your question about the potential effect of effort transfer from the Columbia River to Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, there is no way to know for certain what shift in effort might occur. The critical factor is that of the human dimension and as a biologist not an economist or psychologist I can only speak to data from licenses issued during 2012.

There were 248 salmon gill net licenses issued for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Of the 248 licenses issues, 201 were active, the remaining 47 were voluntarily placed in a suspended status by the owner. Additional detail is provided in the table below.

License status

Grays Harbor Net / Willapa Bay / Total
Active 47 154 201
Suspended 12 35 47
Grand Total 59 189 248


Possession of either license allows the owner to operate in the Columbia River. It is worth noting that of the 201 active licenses only 24 owners possess a license for both Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. From that you can infer that there are 177 WDFW license owner that could operate in the Columbia River. As to the magnitude of a potential effort shift, in 2012 there were only 39 license holders who had no landing outside the Columbia River, in other words 39 of the 201 licenses operated exclusively in the Columbia. Of these 39 license holders 28 held a Willapa Bay license, so at most we could see an increase in the Willapa from 126 vessels to 154 or about 22% more than in 2012. For Grays Harbor the potential increase would be from 47 to 58 or about 31%. With the closure only affecting a portion of the Columbia and full opportunities in the SAFE areas it is unlikely that we would see a full shift in effort but some shift is possible.

Hope this helps, and again I apologize for the delay.
Sincerely
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/13 04:27 PM

I was asked to provide the models and here they are in the links below. Now the links take you to the FTC library and the manner in which they are displayed is confusing and not that great. Our data storage is bulk by pages but if you down load them off the website ( hit the little down arrow ) they come in as fully functioning Excel spreadsheets.

Grays Harbor https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3ySTEwTWI4WDBJSU0/edit

Willapa https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yUk9LMHVwMkQxbXM/edit
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/13 12:25 PM


Here is template going around for objecting to the CR 102's for Willapa and Grays Harbor. As always it is best to draft your own objections but as so many are not familiar with the WAC process that sets seasons I thought I would put this out. Change or whatever you feel is needed or use this template but one should object. You can hard copy your objections to Lori Pruess at

WDFW Rules Coordinator
600 Capitol Way N
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone: 360-902-2930

Or e mail at lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov




July 19, 2013

To: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Re: Proposed CR 102 Supplementals for commercial gill net seasons in Willapa and Grays Harbor


I am a recreational license holder that fishes in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor and their tributaries. I believe my license entitles me to fish and retain salmon just as much as does a license issued to a commercial gill netter. I do not believe it is proper for the Department to intentionally discriminate against one category of license holders in favor of another.

WDFW has historically allocated 75% to 100% of the Chinook, Coho, and Chum available for harvest in GH and the Willapa to commercial gill netters. At the same time, the number of fish actually reaching the spawning grounds continue to decline creating significant risks for future fisherman of all kinds. The current proposed season continues these improper practices by over-fishing with nets to the point the sportsman and the spawning grounds are shorted fish.

I and other sport fisherman purchase products and services from local small businesses in the areas where I am able to fish. The seasons currently proposed will prove as disappointing this year as it was last year. Many sport fisherman have stated they are not willing to spend the money to travel to fish in Willapa or Grays Harbor if these gill net seasons go forward as planned. The proposed seasons act to discourage tourism in the local towns around Twin Harbors and adversely affect the economy of the region.

It is disappointing that hundreds of citizens can say the same things over and over in meetings, hearings, and letters or petitions and have a public institution like WDFW simply ignore them. The two new proposals do not address the concerns that all those citizens raised with their objections to the first proposals announced earlier this year. Once again, WDFW has chosen to simply ignore the public.

I ask that you do not pass the proposed seasons and develop new proposals that are fair and equitable to those who hold recreational fishing licenses. I sincerely hope an agreement that ends the discriminatory treatment of sports fishing and the favoritism shown commercial gill netters regarding harvest allocation can be found.



Most importantly, for all fishing in these areas, are seasons that no longer over fish with nets. We must allow the fish needed to preserve and maintain the runs to actually complete their journey to the spawning grounds and/or to the hatcheries. Without allowing this cycle to function, the complete fishery in these areas will collapse.



What a travesty this would be, to see no more salmon running in these rivers.



Sincerely,
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/13 10:50 AM


I know it is not the Chehalis but it is last call to comment on the CR 102 Supplemental for Willapa. It is Grays Harbor on steroids as to mismanagement. Over 82% of the harvest will go to the commercials, nearly 9% of the TOTAL Chum run will be moralities tossed over the side and we are talking the total run not harvestable numbers. Pretty much more of the same. What is not normal is the reaction of the local community in objecting to and taking on the agency. Had a full room at the Monte hearing ( such as it was ) on the CR 102 and they are learning they do not have to take it.


From Barbara A Mcclellan WDF&W Region 6

We wanted to inform you that the written comments for the public hearing scheduled for July 23rd for the rules proposed in the CR-102 Supplemental filing for commercial salmon fishing in Willapa Bay has been extended to July 25th, which is two days after the public hearing. The Dept. wanted to provided additional opportunity to comment.

You can view the CR-102 Supplemental filing documents at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#11-03-058

If you have any questions, please contact us here in the Region 6 office.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/30/13 10:00 AM

Today is the final day to object to the CR 102 Supplemental for Grays Harbor Commercial Gillnets for 2013. The information and links are back up this thread along with enough information to cherry pick yourself over the edge. Bottom line last year one individual ended up on the permanent record objecting to that fiasco ( and it was not me and that is embarrassing to say the least ) Look all your have to do e mail Lori Pruess and identify your objecting to the CR 102 Supplemental for Grays Harbor Commercial Gillnets for 2013. Use your thoughts or others but get in the debate. This problem with the commercial nets is a self inflicted wound on the sports side. As so many are willing to set on their butt bitching and unwilling to take 5 minutes to join the effort to roll back the commercial harvest abuses by Region 6, then the end result is what you see now.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/30/13 01:18 PM

Done. Thanks for the reminder.

As I have been known to do, to a fault, I wrote a novella. The subject line and opening paragraph clearly stated my intentions, so if that's all they read, it should get the job done.
Posted by: N W Panhandler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/30/13 08:12 PM

Sent my email yesterday, actually received email from reg 6 inviting me to comment.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/01/13 07:23 PM

The link is to FTC's North of Falcon page and the updated write up and documentation. http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process At the top of Latest Documentation are the comments on the Grays Harbor CR 102 Supplemental for the Grays Harbor Non Treaty Commercial Net Fishery authored by Tim called " Tim's Grays Harbor Opposition Presentation ". Interesting read as in Willapa it is the first time a blow by blow description of what WDF&W does in Grays Harbor has been put in writing!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/01/13 10:58 PM

Must applaud Team Hamilton for spearheading this valiant effort.

A decade of involvement doing it the WDFW way has left me and at least four other rec advisors extremely frustrated at the lack of basic conservation.

It's harvest harvest harvest at all cost.

Perhaps FTC.net will give the agency cause to pause to consider its mission in these proceedings in the future.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/02/13 10:58 AM

The advisors and especially eye FISH have worked tirelessly for years to make the NOF process fair to recreational anglers.

What Tim is claiming is that both the WDFW science and the NOF process are intentionally rigged games. The next 30 days will be interesting for sure.
Posted by: wsu

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/02/13 05:09 PM

Hopefully this effort helps eyeFish and the rest with their efforts in the future.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/13 01:23 PM



This last call for the public process on the Commercial Gillnet Fishery CR 102 Supplemental which creates the WAC that is the commercial gillnet seasons. It is good to be present and object, it is far better to object and submit your written objections to the permanent record.

A public hearing for Grays Harbor rules will take place on August 6, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.
Region 6 Fish and Wildlife Office, Conference Room
48 Devonshire Rd.
Montesano, WA 98563
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/13 03:29 PM

why ?? cant they figure it out????

thought they already had the rules out???
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/13 07:54 PM

Lord, it is somewhere back in this thread but the proposed I assume your talking about is what was modified in the rules GH Commercial CR 102 on March 6th that was modified to the current CR 102 Supplemental which has to go through the formal process and be voted on by the Commission. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#13-01-064 In written comments submitted at the hearing in Monte Tuesday the agency must respond to ALL citizen comments on the record to legal standards ( no smoke & mirrors ) in the required Concise Statement BEFORE the Commission can vote. Once the Commission votes off to the Code reviser and it becomes a WAC then 31 days for a citizen to legally challenge any or all the WAC before it becomes law.

It is a process that governs fisheries in GH & Willapa not the Dog & Pony show NOF.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/05/13 09:53 AM

I hope the end result of all of this is Ron Warren losing his job.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/05/13 12:06 PM

From the Willapa thread as both Harbors are linked so a dual posting.

Was asked to explain a bit why Willapa is important. Well first if you do not separate commercial fishers by race or ethnicity both Willapa & Grays Harbor are managed about the same. No tribal in Willapa over 80% of the fish to commercial. Qin + Chehalis + NT nets = the same over 80% to GH commercial fisheries. The courts mandated 50% of the harvest to tribal fisheries in GH, no discussion, but the courts did not mandate over 80% of the harvestable fish to commercial fisheries. That is WDF&W and might I add I know of no place where the local communities have been bullied, ignored, just plain s--- on by WDF&W like Willapa.

Second up is WDF&W uses a completely fabricated mortality mix in the numbers to empower the commercial fleet in GH and Willapa. This thing where someone decides this is it, this is what we will use for mortality numbers with just plain zero relevance to reality needs to stop and right damn now! As luck would have it Willapa is first up this year.

From Swanson & Young in BC to Ashcroft in Willapa studies have shown that ain't no way no how that Chinook encountering a gillnet and then released survive at 55%. It they may be that 55% ( 45% mortality ) barely alive going over the side when released by the netters but the vast vast majority do not make maturity and spawn. It is no different for tangle nets with the unbelievable near 75% ( 25 % mortality ) WDF&W claims. Hell folks GH was where broodstocking Chinook with tangle nets was developed and then abandoned for one reason, MORTALITY.

Third is in both Harbors the models WDF&W is using are incorrect and they know it. It is intentionally disregarded in R-6 madness to comply with the old adage " the only good fish is a dead fish, on the dock, in a tote, and sold " . You put the definition on it but what do you call it when and individual stands in front of a roomful of citizens and proceeds to out line a course of action that he or she knows intentionally misleading, factually false, and intended to disguise the true end results. My Mom pretty much had a definition for that particular conduct when I was a kid and tried it which resulted in me getting my butt seriously kicked.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/13 10:55 AM

The hearing and how did it go? Well it was better organized, ran fairly close to the rules, and we even had LE present! As to content Willapa reared its head in testimony as the Gillnetters wanted to know seasons or lack of. Then the usual but even they are catching on that the so called Management Plan is nothing but a sham.

Sports side good input from all but the defining moment came when Softbite laid out a documented, in detail, with photos & drawings of the Gillnetter that puts his net in three feet of water allowing the lead line to anchor it on the mud ( essentially create one huge set net ). SB even submitted the E mail string to enforcement objecting! Bloody good job I think.

So it is up to WDF&W now as they have seven weeks to finish up the process which includes responding to all objections in the Concise Statement, adopted by the Commission, filed with the Code Reviser, and then 31 days before it takes effect. This should be interesting to say the least.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/13 11:37 AM

I understand this meeting was concerning GH but will the Willapa gillnet season also be decided in the time frame you just described?

If so, then we should expect news for each area, correct?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/13 11:54 AM

Now GH as outlined but Willapa is different. The time frame is the same to implement Willapa's Commercial CR 102 so the the answer is yes. Now the BUT factor and it is that the Commercial season is set to start the August 12th ( I think I may be off a day or so) and they have screwed around for six months and have run out of time to complete the WAC process. Here is a link to the entire process. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/glossary.html

So now what? The only two options are no commercial Willapa season until the WAC is finalized or for the Director to attempt a Emergency WAC to open the Willapa Commercial Net season anywhere from this very moment to anytime he more or less chooses in the proposed season. Now that opens up a whole can of worms as there are legal requirements to how & when a Emergency rule can be utilized.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/13 12:00 PM

It will be an interesting next 5 days to say the least
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/13 12:48 PM

Here is the link to rules on Emergency Rule making and we are idiots and totally messed things up is not one of the justifications.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=34.05.350
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/13 01:06 PM

Intersting read about "emergency" rules.

Doesn't sound like there is much justification to deem this an "emergency"

If the emergercy rule option is exercised, there is a provision to object within 7 days.

"Within seven days after submission of the petition, the governor shall either deny the petition in writing, stating his or her reasons for the denial, or order the immediate repeal of the rule. "

That still leaves a window to allow the first 84 hour opening to happen before rescinding the emergency rule.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/13 02:10 PM


This link is to the Concise Explanatory Statement requirements in the WAC process. In 2008 ( I think ) the Legislature altered requirements that agencies utilized ( they would cherry pick & ignore citizen input ) so they have to respond to each subject. They can group things up from different sources ( citizens ) but must respond to each issue placed into comment on the record.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=34.05.325
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/11/13 10:47 AM

I was asked to update the Chehalis fall season process and not much to say really. Nothing, not a peep from the co managers since the Montesano hearing on the Commercial CR 102 Supplemental. As to the QIN netting schedule I do not have a clue. So it is still wait and see time as after that innovative bit of rule making Mr. Anderson did in the Willapa I am finished with guessing.

Now to this little ditty below and as in many things it is the thought process that gets you there not what is said. This is a meeting between WDF&W & QIN technical staff in 2010. Nothing special until you get to Escapement Item 1 & 2. Now to item 1 in Red , " is there an issue? " You got to be joking has to be your first thought! Chinook seldom make escapement and the same with Chum. Steelhead ain't got a picnic coming either.

Item 2 in Purple "e.g. when we have underescapement, does this mean we are not meeting our escapement goal or that we are not obtaining enough data?" Good lord when you short the gravel with Chinook year after year and wipe out up river Chum stocks it is because they did not get out of the office and do enough redd counts?

The bloody fish do not stand a chance in R-6 with this management approach.

Technical Meeting: QIN and WDFW
Scheduled Data and Location: August 20, 2010 in Taholah
Please schedule for 9:30 or 10 am at the earliest; shall we work through lunch and everyone brings their food? WDFW participants will be Curt Holt, Barbara McClellan, Rick Ereth, Charmane Ashbrook, and likely Kirt Hughes

Management Related
1. Coho marine survival estimation used to forecast 2010 coho return, Larry Gilbertson
2. WDFW presents timeline for steelhead accelerated management
a. Cooperation with QIN? Ability to get data sooner, scale data.
b. Pre-season forecast on Sept 1
3. How can management process at technical level be improved?
a. Scale data obtained and analyzed sooner
b. Meeting deadlines (steelhead & salmon)
c. Bingham Creek CWT collection at hatchery, was this an issue in 2009-10?
d. Communication style –email, phone, prior notice?

&#8195;
Escapement/ spawning survey related (note: many of these topics will be discussed by Rhoads and Holt previously on August 4th, 2010, and they will update us on their conversation)
1. By species, is there an issue?
a. Chum
b. Coho (e.g. WDFW sampling of Chehalis tribal catch)
c. Chinook
d. Steelhead

2. Data quality (e.g. when we have underescapement, does this mean we are not meeting our escapement goal or that we are not obtaining enough data?)
3. Maple Glen Chum HPA & and request for help trapping beaver and taking out beaver dams.
4. Chum escapement methods
a. Curt provides one page handout on what was done before
b. Charmane provides some initial results from analysis
c. Plan a meeting to focus on just this topic?
5. 2008 Chehalis coho escapement, method change issue (Wynoochee Satsop or subunit)
6. Other suggestions? (i.e. How can escapement/ spawning surveys be improved?)

Other
1. Grays Harbor HAIP process and stock designation
2. Green sturgeon and ESA, WDFW has sent letter of intent to NMFS about WDFW fishery impacts
3. Lamprey estimates –WDFW received funding from UWFWS to extend steelhead surveys, trend for this year is downward
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/11/13 03:27 PM

Good Lord. Don't know how they did it in GH but for PS the escapement goals were based on specific spawner survey arrays. In reality, the escapement number is really only an index of the actual number of spawners but if you do the same surveys every year the relationship between years would be similar.

Here is what an old WDFW scientist told me, regarding chum. The agency was finally recognizing that the escapement number used was actually a third to a hlaf of the real number. So, if we actually get the total escapement number we will have more fish to catch as the goal will stay the same. I asked him if he knew where the goals came from. He didn't. They were developed based on the spawner surveys that were giving the underestimates of the actual number. So, if the estimate is a half to a third of the real number, so is the goal as it was based on the estimate. Conclusion, a more accurate estimate does not give you a single additional fish to kill.

Obviously, by asking that question they don't understand how the numbers they are managing by were developed.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/13 11:53 PM

I see there isn't a schedule yet up on wdfw site for 2013 on the Chehalis for the cowboys.. but theres one for the willipa...

are they looking at it for change in the days???
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/13 01:41 AM

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#13-01-064

Link is to CR 102 supplemental and that is all officially acknowledged so it is wait to see what Mr. Anderson tries next. After the Willapa bit of BS we all have quit guessing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/13 10:31 AM

To follow up a little here is the link to WDF&W Commission meeting August 2nd. In the Public Input section about three minutes in you get the GH Gillnetters bitching their collective asses off. My favorite bit is the one that objects to the harvest model understating the sports catch and omitting it does the same for the gillnetters and OVERSTATE the inriver sport catch.

After the that you just have listen to Mr. Anderson in the Directors report. Now the first few minutes is Joe Storh doing budget stuff then come Phil. First up Grays Harbor then Willapa. Typical Phil to the Commission or " lets baffle them with BS"

The Link to Audio: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/08/audio_aug0313.html

Link to Video: Now if you want to watch it on your computer here is the link http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwsearch&year=2013&contentCode=A and you want the second WDF&W video with Public Input and the Directors Report

Edit: They added video since I posted but you want the one that starts a 8:00 AM and Mr. Anderson starts at minute 54.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/13 10:22 AM

Thought I would take a minute to put up some info from the Willapa Management Plan regarding Chinook harvest as the sports / commercial / conservationist camps do the annual " kick the crap out of each other two step " in both the FTC & Willapa threads. So below is a statement in the plan by WDF&W regarding Willapa Chinook harvest and the numbers are similar for Grays Harbor.

Anyone see anything wrong with the numbers? Millions and millions of dollars spent both private and your taxes in the coastal regions ( Willapa & Grays Harbor ), land restrictions, jobs lost, growth management, water quality improvements all of these things for what? 68% of the Chinook returning are harvested before they even get to coastal waters. Add the Washington marine fisheries ( charter and troll ) and what you have is the local communities sport and commercial interest ripping into each other over the remaining 29%. The big loser? The fish! Conservation is always pushed to the side as the agency attempts to maintain harvest under extreme pressure from a wide variety of interest. You see the fish does not vote, cannot hire an attorney, does not contribute to the politicians campaigns that are elected to write our laws. It is frequently said " the system is broke " and offhand I would say the fish and local communities pretty much agree.


FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Fundamental to fisheries management in Washington is involvement in the PFMC and North of Falcon processes. The annual series of PFMC and North of Falcon meetings is the foundation for the development of all fishing in Washington including the Pacific Ocean, Columbia River, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, inland rivers, and coastal harbors and rivers. There are, however, more northern fisheries occurring in the coastal waters of Canada and Alaska, which substantively impact Chinook and coho originating from Willapa Bay. Agreements for these fisheries are governed through the Pacific Salmon Treaty where overall harvest limits on Washington stocks are negotiated. These fisheries in Canada and Alaska have historically accounted for 67% of total Willapa Bay Chinook harvested (figure 2). When coupled with terminal harvest rates that exceeded 70%, the overall harvest or total exploitation rate of Willapa Bay origin Chinook was near 90%.


Canada 44%
Alaska 23%
Willapa Bay Commercial 23%
Washington Marine 1-4 6%
Willapa Bay Recreational 3%
Oregon 1%

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/16/13 10:15 PM

Well folks the dance started August 15, 2013 on the Willapa legal action challenging the Commercial Gillnet Season. Here is the link http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process to the page on FTC that has a write up by Tim Hamilton, one of the petitioners. In reading Tim's write up you will notice the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association filed a motion to enjoin the asking the presiding judge to allow the association lawyers to team up with WDFW to represent the interests of its members that fish the Willapa during the season.

Sorry about not posting sooner but everyone has been a little maxed out getting the legal issues corralled and then getting everything to the website for you.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/17/13 01:29 PM

When looking through the various papers filed in superior court, it appears that a great deal of persistence and research went into this. thumbs

It will be interesting to see what happens next Friday and best of luck in the results.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/21/13 11:26 AM


On the PM side. No today is not a full blown hearing for a Temporary Restraining Order ( TRO ) but rather we file documents responding to the state's response to our filing the lawsuit. I think I just confused myself but I will do my best to get things out as soon as possible.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/22/13 01:04 PM

I just received notice that the judge has delayed the hearing on the Willapa Commercial Gillnet Fishery legal challenge until next week. WDF&W and Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association (WBGA) have worked cooperatively to flood the court with motions and briefs and it didn't allow the judge time for review. I will update everyone as soon as possible with the court's new schedule.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/22/13 01:58 PM

hey Dave anything new on the Chehalis net schedule ??
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/22/13 02:36 PM

Not that I know of for either the QIN / Chehalis Tribal or NT Nets. Now the proposed CR 102 Supplemental for NT Nets is on the WDF&W website http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#13-01-064 but it sets as the Commission has not voted on it. Draw your own conclusions on that one as after Mr. Phil's shameless antics in Willapa I refuse to guess anymore!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/13 02:01 PM

Just got an oral report that this morning Thurston County Judge Wickham, who is hearing the Willapa challenge filed by Tim, Art, & Ron just threw out the gillnetters case filed earlier this year objecting to changes in the 2013 gillnet season in the Columbia. In that case, the CCA enjoined to argue along with WDFW to defend the changes made to the gill net fishery in the Columbia designed to prevent damage to the fishruns. Same judge as our case in the Willapa, just that WDFW is arguing on opposite side and "on the same team" with the gillnetters in the Willapa case. As they say....."The plot thickens...... More to come.
Posted by: FishinSinsation

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/13 03:53 PM

When's the hump netting schedule going to be posted, trying to get my vacations scheduled at work?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/13 04:13 PM

I don't think they can come to an agreement with the quins... that's the last I heard.. so god only knows.
Posted by: wsu

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/13 04:27 PM

Probably not when the director himself called their mortality rate "arbitrary."
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/13 04:30 PM

Correct nothing on the QIN seasons so far other than a couple of tribal friends who simply say " big f'in disagreement "
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/13 09:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Just got an oral report that this morning Thurston County Judge Wickham, who is hearing the Willapa challenge filed by Tim, Art, & Ron just threw out the gillnetters case filed earlier this year objecting to changes in the 2013 gillnet season in the Columbia. In that case, the CCA enjoined to argue along with WDFW to defend the changes made to the gill net fishery in the Columbia designed to prevent damage to the fishruns. Same judge as our case in the Willapa, just that WDFW is arguing on opposite side and "on the same team" with the gillnetters in the Willapa case. As they say....."The plot thickens...... More to come.


That is disappointing that the court cancelled the hearing on Friday regarding the temporary restraining order. Unfortunately, the commercial fishing season is moving on as scheduled.

CCA intervened in the CR lawsuit- not enjoined. Enjoin has a very different legal meaning. Just saying…
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/13 10:33 AM

Oh OK LL just put forth what I was given on the Columbia. As to Willapa that has been pretty much the agencies strategy from the git go. From the CR process to the courts just drag it out so you can not get at the season. Nothing new and most certainly not unexpected.

Little edit: Got back to my source and a oh oh moment and you hit it LL but it is paper blizzard time and things sneak by. Thanks for catching it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/13 03:42 PM

On the FTC website. http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process


Update- August 24, 2013.

There has been a flurry of motions and briefs filed by the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association (WBGA) and WDFW's counsel from the Office of Attorney General. The AG handling the case for WDFW has comfirmed he is working as if on the same team with the firm representing the WBGA. The paper flying is amazing. As an example, WDFW has just filed new briefs amending its responses and the declaration of Region 6 manager Ron Warren to correct numerous errors in Mr. Warren's intitial declaration. The WBGA has filed a motion to strike portions of my declaration claiming, as one example, I don't have any personal knowledge that the public was upset over WDFW ignoring them in NOF and other proceedings used by WDFW to pass the season (I personally delivered petitions with hundreds of signatures and numerous individual letters of opposition to WDFW during the season setting process).

The revised filings will be posted on this page once we can sort through the growing mountain of paper being thrown at our side by WDFW and the WBGA.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/27/13 09:41 AM

Asked the guys pursuing the legal side of things for a update on the hearing and they forwarded the following.


The injunction hearing is set for Thursday August 29th at 9 AM at Thurston County Courthouse before Judge Wickham. It's only the beginning of the legal road and the only question at this point is whether or not the judge will close the season early this year or let it go on while the legal action plays out. Typically, it is a very short process. Judge delayed hearing date so he has had some time to read the lengthy briefs filed by both sides. Then, a judge will typically allow our side to go first for 10-15 minutes and then the other side the same. Asks questions and then gavels it down. Sometimes the judge will announce the decision orally from the bench and in other cases, let us know later. In this case, the judge will probably first decide whether or not the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association will be allowed to intervene at this point in time. If he agrees to let them in, their attorney will be allotted some time as well. [i][/i]

You can view the documents and updates at http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/30/13 08:58 PM

Sorry I did not get this out sooner but the hearing challenging the Willapa Commercial Net Season was yesterday and Judge Wickham did not issue his ruling until today. Tim has a complete write up on FTC http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process along with all the documents. Look through everything if you wish but even if you do a quick read of the documents the complexity of this issue will be rather apparent. Boiled down Judge Wickham rejected a injunction as the request did not meet the legal standards required. He then indicated in his oral comments that the rejection of the injunction was not the end of the road but rather the issues are complex and will get a complete review and scrutiny as legal process moves forward. I urge you to read the posting on FTC that I linked to previously to get the full picture of the past two days in Thurston County Court.

My thoughts? I have many to sort out but at this stage I think it is a big THANKS Mr. Frawley, our attorney, for the huge effort he has put together for this effort and the PDR legal action. The same kudos for Tim, Art, and Ron for taking the issue on after so many years of pillage of the fisheries resource in the Willapa Estuary.
Posted by: CedarR

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/30/13 09:35 PM

Thanks to those folks you've mentioned, and thanks to you for keeping the rest of us informed... thumbs
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/31/13 05:14 PM

Originally Posted By: CedarR
Thanks to those folks you've mentioned, and thanks to you for keeping the rest of us informed... thumbs



+1


This is no small undertaking. I hope your effort bears some fruit for the sport fishers of WB and it's tribs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/07/13 04:54 PM

Well here is something I find interesting. This link https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yT18zcktaQThHX0k/edit is to a spread sheet for Grays Harbor 2013 dated April 4th 2013 if I remember correctly and has the QIN proposed 2013 netting season. NOW THIS IS THE FIRST RUN NOT THE FINAL SO THE NUMBERS MAY HAVE AND IN FACT HAVE CHANGED. You will need to down load the spread sheet to get it fully functional and head to the page labeled MGMT Summary. What you will see is if it had been adopted along with WDF&W's proposed seasons the Chinook escapement would have been minus 1998 for a escapement of 10366 which is well below 12364. This was with NT Nets at 14 days with a 14.7% mortality for the released wild Chinook. The CR 102 Supplemental ( WAC ) modeled 7 days at 25% but I do not remember the impacts on the states side changing much.

So the read I get from the status of April when the QIN came to the table is that neither Chinook or Chum will make escapement on the Chehalis if both QIN and State fish their respective proposed schedules. Oh yeah almost forgot, the model spread sheet was obtained in a PDR request attached to a e mail. WDF&W Region 6 staff have refused to release the 2013 model with the QIN commercial schedule.

Here are the thoughts of another who reviewed the sheet:

It was interesting.

Comparing the total GH harvest of both Wild and Hatchery for the Quin April
4 schedule with the final Tangle net NT schedule gets the following percentage of the total harvest:
Quin Chinook = 65.9%
Quin Coho = 57.1%
Quin Chum = 72.4%

I used total harvest because the NT and the Quin do not count the same way when allocating fish between rivers. The Quinn are just by location fished while the NT use CWT splits at each location.

I think the Quin net days are about the same as last year, at least in Sept and Oct. The Quin intend to take nearly the total harvestable Chum again and we plan to harvest another 3,607 NT Chum
.


Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/13 11:34 AM

Idaho, and this is from a letter, outlined their fishing plans/history. Although this applied to trout, i think that you'll see a resemblance to salmon.

First, Fish Until Community Collapses Under Pressure (FUCCUP)
then, Planning As Needed In Crisis (PANIC)
followed by hatcheries Synthesis In Nature (SIN)
and finally Restore Excellent Populations Emphasizing Native Trout (REPENT).

according to the author, they would go through regular cycles of FUCCUP, PANIC, SIN, and REPENT.

Looks like WA has the first part down pat, when do we REPENT?
Posted by: OncyT

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/13 01:17 PM

IDF&G motto: "We're not happy til you're not happy."
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/09/13 10:30 AM



Thought I would provide a link to a Montesano Vidette article on the legal action opposing the Willapa Non Tribal Gillnet seasons. It is a interesting read.


http://thevidette.com/sections/news/local/fight-over-gillnetting-gets-serious-heads-court.html
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/09/13 02:48 PM

Those fishing Willapa have had limited success and I think I have the reason. So far this year the commercial nets have taken 9576 Chinook http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html and last year the total Commercial take was 9726 for the entire fall season. This time last year the Commercial catch was 6227 so you do the math. These are just the fish sold now and the agency does not care to release to the public the TOTAL impacts as the Wild Chinook captured in the nets and released have a 45% mortality in the harvest model. The true impact numbers are seldom released to the public and never put up on the WDF&W website.

Bottom line is little is getting through the Gillnet Armada! So much for Kirt Hughes provided court documents stating he would curtail commercial efforts if over harvest appeared to be a problem.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/09/13 05:07 PM

Since WB is a commercial "wipe-out" fishery, over-harvest will never be a problem.

That's the problem.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/09/13 06:15 PM

Salmo g -
If the WB commercial fishery is a "wipe-out" fishery why are both the recreational and commercial fishers required to release unclipped Chinook?

With substantial wild coho and chum returns with established escapement goals and a new found concern about wild Chinook (especially from the Naselle) wipe-out fisheries are not compatible with wild fish management even on Willapa Bay. Maybe that is part of the problem; continued feeding the commercial seasons/catches has to come at the expense of the recreational fishery or the wild fish.

Based on what I saw last week (Sunday, Monday and Tuesday) the current commercial season structure has contributed to a substantial reduction in the recreational effort. The pressure I say last week was 1/4 to 1/3 of what I would have seen 4 or 5 years ago. The South Bend launch was never full (in past years there would be lots of trailers parking along the highway). On Labor launching shortly after daylight we were the 4th trail in the lot. On Tuesday at high tide slack (the traditional peak catch period) I counted only 28 boats between South Bend and to the point west of Tokeland.

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/09/13 09:50 PM

A WDFW administrator once told me, in reference to the Legislature, not to look at what they said or what laws they passed; look at where they put money. Those were the true priotities and showed "Legislative Intent."

If the achievement of escapement goals was truly a WDFW priority then the goals would be achieved more frequently than they are.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/13 01:46 PM

Smalma,

I hear ya' about the "intent" to manage for wild Naselle chinook and WB wild coho and chum, but it's hard to me to take it seriously when I see the commercial GN schedule. Like Carcassman points out, if wild escapement were a management priority, it would happen. It's still a wipe-out fishery to me.

Sg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/13 03:27 PM

Here is the CES that was filed with the CR 102 Supplemental creating the fall Non Treaty Gillnet seasons. Little different than they presented to anyone.

&#61623; Area 2A - Will be open from 7 am to 7 pm (12 hours) on one-day during the week beginning October 6, 2013 using tangle net gear only; 7 am to 7 pm on two-days in the week beginning October 20, 2013 using gill net gear; 7 am to 7 pm on one-day in the week beginning October 27, 2013 using gill net gear; and 6 pm to 6 pm each day for two-days each week in the weeks beginning November 3, 2013 and November 10, 2013 using gill net gear. This schedule for Areas 2A results in a total of 4 12-hour openings and 4 24-hour openings; these opening will occur concurrently with openings in Area 2D.
&#61623; Area 2B – closed. Area 2B is situated at the mouth of Grays Harbor. It has been closed since 2005 due to impacts to Grays Harbor chum and Chehalis River origin fall Chinook.
&#61623; Area 2C – Will be open 7 am to 7 pm (12 hours) each day for 2 days in week starting October 27, and 1 day each for weeks starting November 3 and November 10. The schedule in Area 2C is a total of 4 12-hours days.
&#61623; Area 2D - Will be open only in that portion of Area 2D east of a north-south line from the confluence of the Hoquiam and Chehalis rivers to Renney Island and north of an easterly line from Renney Island to Range Marker G located on the south shore of Grays Harbor from 7 am to 7 pm on one-day during the week beginning October 6, 2013 using tangle net gear only; remaining opening will occur in the entire area from7 am to 7 pm on two-days in the week beginning October 20, 2013 using gill net gear; 7 am to 7 pm on one-day in the week beginning October 27, 2013 using gill net gear; and 6 pm to 6 pm each day for two-days each week in the weeks beginning November 3, 2013 and November 10, 2013 using gill net gear. This schedule for Areas 2D results in a total of 4 12-hour openings and 4 24-hour openings; these opening will occur concurrently with openings in Area 2A.


Here are the changes side by side. Sorry about the lack of formatting but the first dates in each week are the proposed we knew about. The second is the latest.

Some commenters from the commercial fishing sector claimed that proposed WAC 220-36-023 as outlined in the final CR102 supplemental notice does not provide a meaningful opportunity to fish. They contend that Humptulips River Chinook are forecast at abundance large enough to provide full fishery opportunities. However, the current schedule does not provide any commercial fishing days in areas 2C, the northern portion of the Harbor. This is the area of the Harbor were Chinook impacts are primarily on Humptulips River origin Chinook. In response to the lack of commercial fishing opportunity on abundant Humptulips River Chinook, an alternative Grays Harbor commercial fishery schedule was submitted that provides opportunity for a commercial fishery in area 2C.
An alternative commercial fishing schedule was submitted to WDFW during the August 6, 2013 public hearing. The alternative schedule deviates slightly from the WDFW proposal by moving days later in the season resulting in a 2 tenths of 1 fish increase in impacts to Chehalis Basin natural spawning Chinook. In doing so, a total of 60-hours of fishing time were added in Areas 2A and 2D, and four 12-hour opening in Area 2C. This change would alter the schedule in terms of days of fishing (increased slightly), areas of fishing (increased) and change the type of gear (more gill net and less tangle net gear). When modeled, the proposed revisions to the season keep the conservation outcomes within the total Chehalis Basin natural spawning Chinook impacts available for the WDFW managed commercial fishery.
Below is a side-by-side comparison of the two alternatives. Daily openings in Areas 2A and 2D during October will occur 7:00am – 7:00pm (12 hours), during November the openers are 2 consecutive 48 hour periods which open and close at 6:00pm. In Area 2C, daily openings will occur 7:00am – 7:00pm (12 hours)

Areas 2A and 2D: WDFW Proposal Alternative
Week beginning (statistical week):
(41) October 6 2 (tangle net) 1 (tangle net)
(42) October 13 1 (tangle net) 0
(43) October 20 2 (tangle net) 2 (gillnet gear)
(44) October 27 2 (tangle net) 1 (gillnet gear)
(45) November 3 0 2 (gillnet gear)
(46) November 10 0 2 (gillnet gear)
Total openings (hours) 7 (84 hours) 8 (144 hours)

Area 2C: WDFW Proposal Alternative
Week beginning (statistical week):
(44) October 27 0 2 (gillnet gear)
(45) November 3 0 1 (gillnet gear)
(46) November 10 0 1 (gillnet gear)
Total openings (hours) 0 (0 hours) 4 (48 hours)
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/13 11:20 AM

I was asked just what happened? WDF&W put into play a rule that had not been seen by anyone in the public hearings or NOF, that expands Chehalis netting from 7 days tangle nets (84 hours) to 8 days (144 hours) with only one day of tangle nets. Added four days in ( 2C ) which is the the Humptulips River area of the bay. So folks meet Grays Harbor fisheries management courtesy Mr Anderson.

If anyone had doubts as to how Region 6 functions under Ron Warren or the management philosophy of Jim Scot and Phil Anderson the doubt should disappear now.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/13 01:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
I was asked just what happened? WDF&W put into play a rule that had not been seen by anyone in the public hearings or NOF, that expands Chehalis netting from 7 days tangle nets (84 hours) to 8 days (144 hours) with only one day of tangle nets. Added four days in ( 2C ) which is the the Humptulips River area of the bay. So folks meet Grays Harbor fisheries management courtesy Mr Anderson.

If anyone had doubts as to how Region 6 functions under Ron Warren or the management philosophy of Jim Scot and Phil Anderson the doubt should disappear now.


Thank God... I think Grays Harbor just avoided an economic disaster of epic proportions, much like Pacific County did when WDFW heroically saved their immensely valuable commercial fishery in Willapa Bay last month. The law of the land said they were too late, but they came through, just the same, just as they always do.

It's a good thing WDFW is there to protect the well-being of our communities. Without the dozen or so brave souls wielding their gillnets out there, our economy would surely be in shambles. Were they not out there, we would have had sport fishermen from places far and wide crowding our hotels, buying tackle at local sporting goods stores, eating in local restaurants, buying gas from local retailers... The list of horrors goes on and on. Thanks to Warren, Hughes, Anderson, and all the little people, we will once again be spared.

In all seriousness, more and more, I think the reason we never get anywhere with our arguments that sport fishing generates far more revenue across the state than commercial fishing is that no matter how bad they screw us, we keep spending our money anyway, just for the CHANCE to catch a fish. Until that well dries up (and they are right to assume that, as long as there might be one fish swimming, it won't), our arguments about economic impacts will only make them laugh. Our passion for the sport we love is our ultimate weakness.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/13 07:17 PM

North of Falcon process is nothing but a sham. Lot's of meetings, then to have Phil and his State paid dilo's do what ever they want...and the want is heavy on the side of the non treaty netters.

Don't anyone tell me that the North of Falcon process is a fair way to divide up the resource. Hell, Region 6 blows all the smoke about the goals of fish management then to have many of the rivers in Region 6 not make escapement year after year.

I was at the North of Falcon meetings and even some of the "special hand picked group meetings"........the schedule as it is now WAS NOT TALKED about.....

Shame on you Phil, Ron, Curt and Barb.......Hope all of you "back up to the pay window"...cause you sure don't deserve the monies you supposedly work for.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 03:20 AM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
North of Falcon process is nothing but a sham. Lot's of meetings, then to have Phil and his State paid dilo's do what ever they want...and the want is heavy on the side of the non treaty netters.

Don't anyone tell me that the North of Falcon process is a fair way to divide up the resource. Hell, Region 6 blows all the smoke about the goals of fish management then to have many of the rivers in Region 6 not make escapement year after year.

I was at the North of Falcon meetings and even some of the "special hand picked group meetings"........the schedule as it is now WAS NOT TALKED about.....

Shame on you Phil, Ron, Curt and Barb.......Hope all of you "back up to the pay window"...cause you sure don't deserve the monies you supposedly work for.


http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2013/wsr_13-19-027.pdf


"No negative impacts to recreational harvest opportunity were identified."

.
.
.
.
.


Bass turds... dirty bass turds!
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 08:30 AM

"No negative impacts to recreational harvest opportunity were identified."

Sounds like river recreational fisheries continue to be at best secondary fisheries that are only given access to those fish that are not caught in the "nets" or marine recreational fisheries.

Thought the following was insightful -

"The principal reason for adopting the
changes is that they are responsive to comments provided by commercial industry representatives during the last comment period associated with the rule making process, while
maintaining appropriate conservation and harvest opportunity allocation objectives."


Have to wonder if they would nearly as responsive to comments provided to the recreational during the last comment period.

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 10:12 AM

Perhaps the comments were in the form of campaign donations to the appropriate legislators.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 10:23 AM

Curt:

I was there.........none of what I remember "sports" asking for.....got in..

It is very apparent to me that "Region 6 WDFW and the cowboys" are sleeping in the same bed......that includes PA.

I mean to go from 100% tangle nets, no cowboy netting on Humptulips side, to the gill season as it is now ....... "the fix was in".

QIN and WDFW can't get together, on netting season....latest ever on posting......We have major problems in Grays Harbor and Willapa. Commission needs to take a VERY close look, at allowing 1 person, PA, to have the power to control fisheries. Lot's of games being played, thousands of hours spent, thousands of $$$$$$$ spent only to be told, BASICALLY, F. YOU, we are going to weight the fishery, toward the cowboys.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 10:47 AM

Drifter -
I agree given the current situation the best option to get serious discussion on priority changes for the two bay recreational fisheries is via the Commission's North of Falcon policies.

Curt
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 12:27 PM

Curt:

What you perceive "North of Falcon" to be, and what it is, in my opinion, at least in Region 6....doesn't/isn't working.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 12:44 PM

While this looks like a fight among the non-Indian users, consider that the Tribes would look bad to the public (remember that they are The First Conservationists) if they were the only non-selective fishery or the only ones fishing, period (close the Straits to rockfish, for example).

Recreational fisheries can be very targeted, release non-target fish, be off the water if conservation so demands it.

Consider how many problems would be caused in the rest of the State if Willapa had sport only, no wild retention, no chum retention unless there actually were harvestable fish. Sets a really bad precedent.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 01:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Smalma
Drifter -
I agree given the current situation the best option to get serious discussion on priority changes for the two bay recreational fisheries is via the Commission's North of Falcon policies.

Curt


Commissioners are well aware of the contentious fisheries in GH and WB.

They stepped up this past spring.... only to be trumped by the latest CR-103.

They have been duly notified of the latest development.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 03:10 PM

" The principal reason for adopting the changes is that they are responsive to comments provided by commercial industry representatives during the last comment period associated with the rule making process, while maintaining appropriate conservation and harvest opportunity allocation objectives."

That statement was the most ridiculous one in the CES. The hearing was to comment on the proposed CR 102 Supplemental and only that. Ron Warren at the March 29th meeting said Phil approved 14 days at 14.7 %release mortality all done no more input. Then at the following Advisers meeting came with 7 days at 25% release mortality and stated all done and will / did file CR 102 Supplemental. So everyone at the hearing testified as to the proposed CR 102 Supplemental commercial season. Here is the process on WDF&W's website. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/how_to_participate.html This is HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/glossary.html

The APA process is rather straight ahead in most government agencies other than WDF&W. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=34.05 One thing about it WDF&W R 6 it is innovative at the least but rather doubtful that they are in compliance with the APA guidelines but that never seems to bother them much. Following the law that is.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 04:11 PM

Drifter -
Please note I said NOF policies - not NOF.

Every year the Commission asks for comments on that policy (C-3608).

The current version for Chinook and coho states -

"•The Puget Sound harvest management objectives for chinook and coho stocks, in priority order, are to: (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and (2) identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest. When managing sport fisheries in this region, recreational opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas, considering factors such as: the uniqueness of each area; the availability of opportunities for various species in each area throughout the season; the desire to provide high levels of total recreational opportunity; and the biological impacts.

•Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the recreational and commercial fisheries.

•The Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policy on Columbia River Salmon Management (POL-C3620) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River salmon fisheries. Columbia River harvest management regimes shall be developed in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives.

•Willapa Bay harvest management shall be consistent with Willapa Bay Framework management objectives. The following general intent shall apply: Willapa Bay harvest management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries.

•Pacific Ocean harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers."


It seems to me a good strategy would be to try to get the "Willapa Bay Framework and the Grays Harbor harvest objectives on the table for discussion and potential modification. If indeed as eyeFISh suggest the commission is aware of the situation and the late modification in the CR-103 that was something other than what was thought to be agreed to we might be able to argue that more detail direction needs to be provide in policy C-3608.

Something more along the Policy guidance for Puget Sound where recreational fishing (and the economic value that produces) is the first priority would be a great start. That obviously would be a tough sell but that is the process that I see has the best chance of developing meaningful changes (from the recreational perspective).

Curt
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/13 11:49 PM

http://209.206.175.157/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf The link is to the QIN schedule for the Chehalis and Hump.

Chehalis only:

Wk 40 2 days
Wk 41 3 days
Wk 42 4 days
Wk 43 2 days
Wk 46 3 days
Wk 47 5 days

Now the ugly part. The QIN exercised their right to half across the bar but good ole WDF&W tried to stack in the Chehalis rather than pick up the slack on the Hump. ( numbers only now not if is a good or bad thing ) This resulted in 1987 Chinook to the minus for escapement with only 10,377 adults to the gravel. For those not familiar the Chinook goal is 12,364.

Straight talk time. The QIN have rights by treaty and confirmed by the courts. Done deal, period. The problem is not the QIN but rather WDF&W's absolute refusal to recognize that the QIN and Chehalis Tribe ARE the GH commercial fisheries. This thing that WDF&W R-6 is determined to maintain the " non Indian " commonly know as the ' White Boy Commercial " at all cost has gone way past ridiculous the last two years. If ever there was a doubt as to the total lack of any management of the resource by R-6 it should be gone gone gone. These guys could not manage writing instructions on how to use toilet paper without screwing it up.

If anyone wants the Fall Planning Model with the QIN dates in just PM me and I will send it to you.



Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 01:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
http://209.206.175.157/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf The link is to the QIN schedule for the Chehalis and Hump.

Chehalis only:

Wk 40 2 days
Wk 41 3 days
Wk 42 4 days
Wk 43 2 days
Wk 46 3 days
Wk 47 5 days




Not quite.... since QIN puts in and takes out at noon, in terms of calendar days....

2 = 3
3 = 4
4 = 5
and 5 = 6

So it boils down to this....

beginning Sunday Sept 30, Q = QIN nets and W = WA State nets

9/30 = Q
10/1 = Q
2 = Q
3
4
5
6 = Q
7 = Q
8 = Q
9 = Q
10
11 = W
12
13 = Q
14 = Q
15 = Q
16 = Q
17 = Q
18
19
20 = Q
21 = Q
22 = Q
23
24 = W
25 = W
26
27
28 = W
29
30
31
11/1
2
3
4 = W
5 = W
6 = W
7
8
9
10 = W
11 = W
12 = W
13 = Q
14 = Q
15 = Q
16 = Q
17 = Q
18 = Q
19 = Q
20 = Q
21 = Q
22 = Q

13 net-free days in all of Oct, and 5 net-free days in Nov thru the 22nd

Time your Chehalis adventures accordingly.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 08:35 AM

yikes, thanks doc I forget and use 24 hours from modeling.
Posted by: 'nookblood

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 08:45 AM

I don't see anything on 2-c of the Hump updated on either the link or on the State's site. Anybody have any info on that? Am I just missing it somewhere?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 09:41 AM

nookblood:

Here ya go......from QIN web site


http://209.206.175.157/Fishing%20Regs/Quinault%20Nation%20Fishing%20Regulations.mht


Every thing people wanted to know, about scheduling.....when and where!!!!


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 09:52 AM

Hump for the state it is in the CR 103P http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/permanent.html#13-01-064 and is four days November 1 & 2, 6, and the 14th.


Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 10:34 AM

Not absolutely sure, but I think this is actually better than what we had in October last year. November, however, when those nice, big coho are running strong, looks like an absolute slaughter. The NT nets will be done after their last day in November, but the QIN will be in 6 days per week the rest of the way for their "winter steelhead fishery."

I agree that the Tribe is only doing what the law allows in the fall salmon fishery, but I will NEVER be convinced that nets in the water 6 days a week amounts to 50% of the available catch in what is, despite being labeled a steelhead fishery, none other than the rape of the highest quality component of the coho run. This, in my mind, is where they should be challenged about their supposed commitment to sustaining salmon.

As for the NT gillnetters, well, Rivrguy has it pegged. They are legally entitled nothing, but their fishery is the one that cuts into our opportunity the rest of the season. Sickening.
Posted by: banki

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 12:28 PM

Sob story sent to The Daily World, from a commercial fisherman
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 03:50 PM

Back out so no fishing but I did input the QIN seasons for the Hump into the model. Sooooooooooooooooo starting late in the game with the tangle net fiasco the state was running behind on window's of opportunity so they leave 905 paper Chum unharvested. Not to fear though as the QIN will harvest 8465 on paper to a deficient of 3607 but the states screw up let the paper fish 905 come off the impact for a total of 2702 or 12.9% BELOW minimum Grays Harbor Chum escapement. As the actual preseason forecast is not accurate due to counting hatchery Chum and naturally spawning Chum as the same fish one can assume the tributary stocks above the Satsop are just going to get nailed. Another year, another disaster, another dollar as Region 6 ambles down the path of destruction.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 04:45 PM

banki:

I knew there was a reason I stopped my home delivery of the Daily World.......so I wouldn't have to read bull xhit "letters to the editor", like that one.

Thanks for posting.......
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 08:53 PM

Well, all this good news just caps off an already $hitty day.

thumbs
Posted by: gregsalmon

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 09:36 PM

Do they count the fish sold behind Walmart?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/13 11:13 PM

Gregsalmon:

QIN fishermen, can sell up to 3 salmon or steelhead a day......all other fish are suppose to go to the fish buyer.

I don't like it but 3 is better than 100.....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/13 08:10 PM



Up in both threads:

September 20, 2013
Contact: Ron Warren, (360) 249-1201
Grays Harbor anglers required to release chinook Sept. 22;
fishery to close for nearly a week Sept. 23
OLYMPIA - To help ensure spawning goals and management objectives are met for wild chinook salmon, anglers will be required to release all chinook beginning Sept. 22 in Grays Harbor Area 2-2 (east of the buoy 13 line) where the fishery will close for nearly a week the following day (Sept. 23).
The salmon fishery will reopen Sept. 29 with a daily limit of three salmon, but anglers will be required to release all chinook.
Ron Warren, regional fish program manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), said the changes were necessary to help meet spawning goals for wild chinook salmon returning to the Grays Harbor basin.
"Angler effort and catch have been much higher than we anticipated since the fishery opened Sept. 16," Warren said. "With those increases, it was necessary that we take these steps to ensure enough wild chinook salmon make it back to the spawning grounds."
Warren reminds anglers that Grays Harbor Area 2-2 (west of the buoy 13 line) is already closed to salmon fishing.
For more information, check the emergency rule change at https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1363 .
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/13 08:39 PM

now its only 2-2.. next it will be basin wide!!!

I thought they didn't do in season adjustments???
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/13 12:49 PM

The rec community may feel dissatisfied over the loss of fishing access but many of us have beaten up WDFW over the wild Chehalis Chinook rarely making escapement. I think sports probably have exceeded the M.A. 2.2 modeled sport harvest of 572 total Chinook (530 wild). I also think there were few fish counts to back up the harvest estimate for this critical run. Overall I believe we should support this first attempt at in season management and any attempt to meet escapement.

Now contrast this action with Willapa where the modeled Naselle wild Chinook limits the overall fishery. The nets have taken 9,945 hatchery Chinook against a modeled 5,020 hatchery Chinook through September 8. The modeled season total of 8,046 hatchery Chinook has already been exceeded. This would indicate over harvest of the Naselle wilds as well. So what was the WDFW response? They quit posting the harvest numbers while the nets fish on!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/13 03:35 PM

OK this is the lay of the land as to escapement and the Fall Harvest Model. With the QIN seasons in ( R-6 refused to provide the model with the QIN in it so I put their season in ) Chehalis Chinook are minus 1987 and Hump is plus 1023. WDF&W does not separate Chehalis & Hump Chum Chum are minus 2702 for all of Grays Harbor and Chinook are 964 short Grays Harbor as a whole.

The root of this mess is the QIN get half of what comes across the bar by court decision. They are not required to manage separately for the two watersheds only for Grays Harbor as a whole. It was WDF&W that separated the two streams some years back in its management plan and these two methods are not necessarily compatible. When the QIN choose to max their harvest rights WDF&W must mold their impacts around the QIN court mandated harvest. WDF&W continues to choose not too but rather continue down WE STATE THEY INDIAN BIT road. Or to put it another way the state continues to try and impose their system upon the QIN's which is court mandated.

So we get this mess. QIN's fault? Don't think so. Can they do better? Oh he-- yes but with the attitude of WDF&W if I was a QIN fisher I would fly the bird right at them also.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/13 04:38 PM

I definitely agree that the Chehalis Chinook management is a mess, but there is really nothing for WDFW to mold to. If the department shut down all NT fishing in the bay and in all the Chehalis system rivers the QIN would still plan to take 3,370 wild Chehalis Chinook against a total harvestable 2,768 fish. It may be their legal right but an extra thousand Humptulips fish will do nothing for this years Chehalis escapement or for the future of the Chehalis system wild Chinook run. Two managers with different agendas just does not work for one resource.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/13 05:07 PM

Major problem, that I see.......

2 major government identities, WDFW and QIN, handling the same waters in a different manner....

Suggest WDFW and QIN, get on the same page....manage Chehalis and Humptulips as one bay........used to be that way and things seems to work.

Go back to the before Tim Flint days !!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/13 07:57 PM

Not sure I agree SB. To frame it right one has to factor in that the Chinook hatchery production is of broodstocked parents and most returning adult from that program spawn naturally. Same with the Hump and on average near 50% of the Humptulips Chinook are from hatchery origin parents. So the wild / hatchery separation is bogus as well the separation of wild / hatchery being very misleading. In fact WDF&W does not distinguish any difference in Chum at ......... all H or W same fish. Something I strongly disagree with by the way.

So we have in the Chehalis 3392 Chinook to harvest and Hump 5641 for a total of 9033 available for harvest. Now the Chehalis with the QIN in the model show 3370 QIN harvested Chinook or 20 left for the non treaty. Now on the Hump after QIN harvest 4378 are available for harvest AFTER the QIN have their seasons.

Then comes the moment of truth. The QIN know full well the state impact numbers are pure BS. It has been up on this BB and others including in writing to the Commission. The bay impacts are WAY under modeled, the NT Nets WAY under modeled and the inriver well you poor suckers will get about half what it says. Add to the huge hatchery cuts that gutted the Hump Tribal Coho fishery and does anyone really think they should believe anything WDF&W says? Be willing to compromise? I think not.

From designing a separate management plan to posting state seasons in March ( before meeting with the QIN ) to just plain fabricating harvest impacts WDF&W created this mess. While I do not agree with many many current QIN policies I certainly understand why they view things as they do. The QIN did not create this mess and it appears they have grown tired of dealing with a duplistic right close to dishonest R 6 staff.

Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/13 11:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Soft bite
The rec community may feel dissatisfied over the loss of fishing access but many of us have beaten up WDFW over the wild Chehalis Chinook rarely making escapement. I think sports probably have exceeded the M.A. 2.2 modeled sport harvest of 572 total Chinook (530 wild). I also think there were few fish counts to back up the harvest estimate for this critical run. Overall I believe we should support this first attempt at in season management and any attempt to meet escapement.


They have told us for years that in season management is not an option. They have continuously underestimated the catching power of the sport fleet even though they have been asked year after year to look at it and compare to the model. With a dismal king escapement failure of 13 out of 16 years, they should err on the side of conservation and not open for king retention when there are only a few hundred "paper fish" to fund the fishery. Those kings should be used for funding as liberal of a coho fishery as the plan allows. We are getting manipulated by their "generous" offer of king retention, but the real deal is that if we fish for kings, it gives tacit approval for the gillnetters to have more days. Once the model is updated to reflect the improved catching power of the sport fleet, meaning if we can get away from using "the 20 year average", and start using "the 5 year average", chinook retention will be a thing of the past until they manage to get the run healthy. Regarding this closure, their intentions may be viewed as good by some, yes they are protecting kings, but if the model was correct, and the management was proper, it would not have opened for retention in the first place, and the sports wouldn't be left with a bad taste in their mouth again, shut down for coho fishing on one of the largest coho runs in history.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/13 12:26 PM

F4B Yes and no. If the bay and the inriver sport had not taken those Chinook R - 6 would have simply made them available to the NT nets for increased Coho netting days. At this moment in time this is the simple rule. " All Paper Harvestable Fish Must Die " which drives the conversation on seasons front to back. Now if the model was made to reflect reality then yes but probably no sport Chinook bay season. Then again probably not much NT nets either as the 45% release mortality is just a pure fabrication. The two primary GH marine fisheries both have problems with accuracy in the model. QIN is the most accurate as to reflecting truly they will harvest. Inriver gets screwed and modeled well past what will really be caught but the two marine fisheries? Not even in the realm of reality.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/13 04:01 PM

After a little jiggle R6 has the Willapa commercial harvest up. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html 15551 commercial Chinook caught so far and the model showed 13512 total sport & commercial harvest. Now there could be more fish or they were early, or they really had a lot of commercial effort or ............... well you can pick.

Now compare to GH and wella sports bay running ahead / shut it down. Strange how that double standard works.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/13 08:06 PM

I have to think the QIN has more than a little effect on the differences between the management of the two basins. If the State overfishes Grays Harbor, tribal fisheries are impacted (in terms of catch- not effort). In Willapa, only the fish suffer when overharvest occurs. The QIN can sue; fish cannot.

Two likely worthless cents on the matter....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/13 11:29 AM

Had a little jump in PM as how this happened / what can we do? As to what just happened, WDF&W R 6 posted the Willapa landings after inquiries this weekend about why they weren't posted. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html As of Sept. 22nd, the nets have landed and sold to buyers 13,551 hatchery Chinook.

The model shows shows WDFW had anticipated 8,047 net impacts and 3,015 Rec impacts (Marine & FW combined) for a season total for both user groups of 13,512. The commercial nets at this point are 5,504 over the predicted net impact at this point exceed and exceed the entire anticipated impact of both Rec and net seasons in the model for the entire year and we still have a way to go.

"Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)" <Kirt.Hughes@dfw.wa.gov> is the Fish Program Manager that filed a declaration in the court case stating he could make an "inseason adjustment" if the commercial season began to overfish and undermine the escapement goals. I'd suggest he be reminded of his assurance and CC the at commission@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/13 01:58 PM


Lots going on with the Chehalis issues and I will update as soon as I can link to the documents on the FTC website.

Now this bit below is something else. Gary e mailed Kirt Hughes on the Willapa seasons and Kirt responded. ( best to read it bottom post up ) and nothing in his response was not true. What it was is pure 100% BS! The response from Kirt Hughes was intended to mislead and leave a COMPLETELY inaccurate picture of the issues and agency actions with Gary. As luck would have it Gary sought out help and that information is also in the thread.

So folks I would urge you to in the future do not go at R-6 and CC the Commission but rather go right at the Commission and CC R-6. That way R-6 has to meet the Commissioners standards for being forthright and honest. I think it is a better approach as it is clear that the standards the Commissioners have attempted to maintain do not exist in the District 17 ( Willapa & GH ) R-6 staff.


The E mail thread:


Not surprising. The dip in stuff is crappola. Here's some info for a response if you are so inclined.

The dip-in fishery is shown in the FRAM as July 22nd-August 15th. The FRAM predicted they would catch 1833 and they landed 2572. During the dip in they were over prediction by 739 fish. From Aug 16-Sept 22nd the FRAM predicted they would catch 6506. Instead, they caught 10,979 or 4,473 over expectation with the harvest overage occurring in September after the dip-in was long over. The over-whelming majority of the fish taken over the prediction is clearly Willapa and not Columbia fish.

In it's recent emergency rule WDFW stated "Catch and sampling information to date, suggests that the amount of effort and recreational harvest of Chinook in marine area 2-2 (Grays Harbor) will exceed pre-season expectations with no indication that the runsize is commensurately larger." The returns of upriver brights in the Columbia are coming in above the preseason forecast, the joint staff report created by WA & OR dated Sept 12, 2013 finds lower river hatchery returns for Chinook are coming in below expectations (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/crc/2013/crc12sep13_facta.pdf). Willapa Chinook are not "upriver brights" and closely resemble the lower river hatchery Chinook found in the Columbia and those in Grays Harbor where you have already stated no evidence exists that would lead you to believe the run would be larger.

It is obvious your judgement of season conditions changes dramatically depending on whether it is the recreation season or the commercial gill nets that need adjustment.



My response from Kirt

Gary L Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW) (DFW) <Kirt.Hughes@dfw.wa.gov>
To: lk2thlite <lk2thlite@aol.com>
Cc: Commission (DFW) <COMMISSION@dfw.wa.gov>; Warren, Ron R (DFW) (DFW) <Ron.Warren@dfw.wa.gov>; Scott, Jim B (DFW) (DFW) <James.Scott@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Tue, Sep 24, 2013 7:35 am
Subject: RE: Chinook Impacts & Overharvest in the Willapa Bay

Thanks Gary. Appreciate the contact. I am well aware of the catch. There is nothing nefarious about not posting the update prior to Monday. This is a time when staff are quite busy and our posting of the information is a lower priority than monitoring and sampling fisheries.

As you and I have discussed a before catch modeling is based on pre-season predicted abundance using recent harvest rates to predict future harvest. In our monitoring of the Willapa Bay commercial fishery we are seeing effort that is similar to our expectation. Early catch of Chinook is higher relative to prediction than later catches. And I can well imagine that you have seen dam counts at Bonneville. Passage has been particularly good, typically this feeds into early season catches in Willapa – the dip-ins.




From: lk2thlite@aol.com [mailto:lk2thlite@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 6:51 PM
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Cc: Commission (DFW)
Subject: Chinook Impacts & Overharvest in the Willapa Bay

Dear Kirt,

Once again we are looking at a failure by WDFW and Kirt Hughes for in season management on the Willapa Bay. The facts are know posted with the numbers and the Commercial Harvest continues! This is not acceptable any more and I would like some answers of why this is allowed to continue and when will it end.

They just posted the Willapa landings after inquiries this weekend about why they weren't posted. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

The first attached PDF is what the web site shows. As of Sept. 22nd, the nets have landed and sold to buyers 13,551 hatchery Chinook.

The second PDF is the FRAM cover page. It shows WDFW had anticipated 8,047 net impacts and 3,015 Rec impacts (Marine & FW combined) for a season total for both user groups of 13,512. The commercial nets at this point are 5,504 over the predicted net impact at this point exceed and exceed the entire anticipated impact of both Rec and net seasons in the FRAM for the entire year and we still have a way to go.

I look forward to your response in these matters.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/13 08:44 PM

GDITMMM!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/13 10:35 AM

Received this in a E mail. Anyone know the details of the incident listed below? As it was dismissed I would think it was a thin charge or something else and I know little.

Yesterday we went to Tokeland & pulled my camper home for the season. We stopped in the Raymond dairy Queen for lunch.
I picked up a copy of the Sept 26th Pacific County Press & on the "Police Beat" section, Frank M. Blake Jr. 58, Tokeland, failure to report commercial fish harvest/delivery, failure to record catch on receiving ticket; avoiding wildlife check station/inspection, failed to record catch on fish receiving ticket, dismissed. Why dismissed, unless WDFW agent did not show, or the judge was a brother-in-law?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/13 12:05 PM

Now this is about as good as it gets. These are E mail threads with first post bottom so read with that in mind. Now I am retired but if I had told my boss NO when asked to something my butt would have been in a sling. I think maybe Mr. Warren has a bit more than a little personnel problem with some of his staff.

From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW);
Subject: RE: Chum
Date: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:05:00 AM



No!

-----Original Message----- From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:50 AM To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: FW: Chum

Can you develop a draft


From: ----------
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:24 AM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW) Cc: Scott, Jim B (DFW) Subject: Chum

Mr. Warren,

After reviewing the Grays Harbor advisory meeting last night, ( March 6, 2013 ) I found the information provided to well short of what is needed to address Chum harvest for Grays Harbor as a whole or the Chehalis Basin. As a member of the Grays Harbor Advisory Group I am formally requesting to be provided the following information.

1. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Humptulips River.

2. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Chehalis River.

3. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Satsop River.

D---



Second E mail:

From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW);
Subject: RE: Chum
Date: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:07:00 AM



Allow me to rephrase that. I formally object to your request, but will draft a response.

-----Original Message----- From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:50 AM To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: FW: Chum

Can you develop a draft

From: D-----
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:24 AM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW) Cc: Scott, Jim B (DFW) Subject: Chum

Mr. Warren,

After reviewing the Grays Harbor advisory meeting last night, ( March 6, 2013 ) I found the information provided to well short of what is needed to address Chum harvest for Grays Harbor as a whole or the Chehalis Basin. As a member of the Grays Harbor Advisory Group I am formally requesting to be provided the following information.

1. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Humptulips River.

2. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Chehalis River.

3. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Satsop River.

Dave

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/13 05:25 PM


ROUND TWO:

On September 26, 2013, the second petition was filed objecting to the commercial gill net seasons set this year by WDFW. The second petition challenges the season set for Grays Harbor and the petitioners write up along with the court documents can be viewed here. http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process I will continue to update and provide additional information in the coming days.
Posted by: the machinist

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/13 05:33 PM

One thing you may not be aware of is that a few years ago Ron Warren got promoted / transferred ? to Olympia & Kirt took over his R6 Fish Program Manager position. (By the way, Ron's wife works for the Personell Board in Olympia). Then when a personell cut was implimented because of funding cuts, Ron stepped back into his old position at R6, so Kirt then was slid back a notch.

Maybe there is some antimosity between the two?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/13 12:32 PM

You got RW up & down / left - right about half right & Penny retired.

This is a bit of an eye opener but to understand what is going on in the E mail one needs to get the lay of the land at that time. At the Montesano NOF public input meeting Ron Warren was bounced rather hard on the APA process http://www.ora.wa.gov/regulatory/rulemaking.asp and how he was representing it as one thing when it was really another. Now the sad part about that? In 2010 Lori Pruess notified Ron, Kirt Hughes, and Barbara McClellan that they could not alter the CR process without a redo. There is a set of internal guidelines that staff are supposed to follow also. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/

Now that Ron Warren could have forgotten the Email from Preuss in 2010, OK maybe but ain't noway nohow Kirt & Barbara did as they are the District 17 ( GH & Willapa ) staff who fill out the forms many times each year. So they set there in Montesano knowing full well RW was putting out pure BS at the Montesano meeting. So fast forward to the March 29th NOF meeting in Olympia and prior to the meeting the gentleman that got into it with RW at the Montesano NOF concerning the misrepresentation of the legal side of the WAC process & NOF in general sends RW the E mail in the thread.

To the heart of the matter. First RW has no intention of responding at this point? When would he respond then? After everything is done? ( that is the normal WDF&W approach ) Second up is the fact that R -6 Fish Program manager is asking the WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison & Administrative Regulations Coordinator for talking points? What the h--- are we paying the District 17 staff for anyway? To do needlepoint? Third just look at the CC list in RW's E mail. Now that RW would want to make others aware of the difficulties he was encountering in the NOF / CR 102 process strikes me as a rather straight forward approach. Again the question, where and earth are District 17 staff at? Mars? To even start to do the CR 102 for the Commercial WAC they have to know what RW is looking for to present as talking points.

Now to Lori's response which I will highlight but as always read the E-mail thread bottom up. I cannot imagine her surprise when she received that request as it in all likelihood " made her day".




From: Preuss, Lori (DFW)
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW);
Subject: RE: My position
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:56:00 PM



Hi, Ron. I really am not the appropriate person to ask for speaking points. I have never attended a NOF meeting or a NOF public hearing. Shouldn't your own staff be able to tell you what goes on at NOF public hearings and give you speaking points? Shouldn’t they know how a rule change should be presented to the public? I'm confused.


Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045 WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov 360.902.2930
Fax 360.902.2155

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this office by telephone at 360.902.2930, and return this message to the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife immediately.



-----Original Message----- From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:21 PM To: Preuss, Lori (DFW)
Cc: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Scharpf, Mike M (DFW); Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW); Frymire, Bill (ATG); Long, John A (DFW); Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW); Pattillo, Patrick (DFW); Scott, Jim B (DFW); Culver, Michele K (DFW)
Subject: FW: My position

Lori, at least at this point in the process I don't plan on replying to Mr. Hamilton, but was hoping that you could provide me with some speaking points in case this comes up at tomorrow's meeting.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:20 PM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Subject: My position

Ron- As a courtesy, I offer the following comments.

I've never attended a NOF meeting in Olympia before but I've listened to dozens who have. I find their description of past meetings very disturbing. Slide show presentations called "proposals" without any language of a proposed WAC change being made available. This puts the "horse behind the cart". A written proposal is typically laid out for a proposed change in a rule or law, then a slide show helps the viewer understand the effect of the expressed language.

Then, they describe how all present are denied any ability to express an opinion on the slide show presentation broken down individually to match the two separate WACs (rec & commercial). Worst, they describe how all present are pressured to vote on a proposal that has never been expressed in writing and again, both the unpublished proposals are somehow combined into one. In this type process, it can hardly be consider public input on a proposal as no one has ever seen a proposal and a slide show can not be substituted for disclosure of the expressed language of a proposal.

Finally, they describe extreme pressure from WDFW leaving them with the impression all present have to "vote" (not certain how this works as this is not a legislative body with any authority to pass law). Having to vote and combining rec and commercial seasons together denies anyone in attendance the ability to comment in favor or opposition of either WAC independently so no public input is provided on either one as well.

I find these comments similar to those coming from observers in the GH Harbor Advisory Group. So, from beginning to end, the 2013 and previous NOF processes do not conform with state law and procedures used in public input processes.


In closing, it is my position that WDFW has confirmed between 400-500 citizens are now "on the record" opposing the proposed commercial fishing seasons in Grays Harbor and Willapa during the WAC process underway and NOF process as well. Any "vote" held Friday in the NOF process will have to recognize those who have already voted no. One can not be required to be present in the room to participate in a public process. Therefore, unless all those on the record in opposition attend and reverse their position, no consensus can be reached regarding commercial seasons and selective fishing for nets in Grays Harbor and

Willapa unless that consensus rejects a selective fishing commercial net season in both estuaries.

Respectfully,
Tim
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/13 05:50 PM

PM requested I put up a example of R-6 District 17 staff being told that problems existed in the WAC CR 102 process. So I dug up this one and I will highlight Lori's feed back.


From: Sent: To:
Cc:
Subject :


Preuss, Lori (DFW)
Tuesday , April 26, 2011 12:28 PM
Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Mcclellan , Barbara A (DFW) Ashbrook , Charmane E (DFW); Warren, Ron R (DFW) RE: WACS for OTS



Yes. I will send the WACs back to you when I get them from OTS, and you can make the changes then. I don't know if you're aware of Puget Sound Harvesters Association's (PSHA's) complaints about Jeromy changing his proposed rules weeks after he filed his CR-102, but you need to hope no one complains about you making substantial changes to your rules so late in the game. The version of the WACs filed with the CR-102s is supposed to reflect the rules as you intend them to be, not a best-guestimate. It is possible that the fallout from PSHA's complaints will cause people to finally pay attention to this. Just a head's up.


Lori Preuss,WSBA #33045
WDFW Criminal Justice liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator Lori.preuss@dfw.wa .gov
360.902.2930
Fax 360.902.2155


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this office by telephone at 360.902.2930, and return this message to the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife immediately .



From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:00 AM
To: Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW); Preuss, Lori (DFW)
Subject: RE: WACs for OTS
Importance: High

Lori -
I need to make a couple changes to what we sent on Friday. Is that still doable?


From: Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW) Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 2:51 PM To: Preuss,Lori (DFW)
Cc: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Subject: WACs for OTS

Lori, Attached are the 3 WACs where changes have been made in track changes from the CR-102 version that was filed in April and need to be sent to OTS for formatting. They are WACs 22-22-020, 220-40-027, and 220- 36-023.

Please send these to OTS to be formatted and send back to me when you get them back from OTS. When I get the formatted versions back from you, I will make sure to get them to John for the website because our hearing is set for May 10 and we are scheduled to meet with the Director on May 12.

I know you are on furlough today but our furlough was moved to Monday, the 25th. So I wanted to get these to you today so you will have it first thing Monday morning .

Thanks. Barbara
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/13 08:32 PM

For those who've never watched the Chehalis Fling video and witnessed selective fishing (catch and release) with a net, I've been provided a remarkable report created by unknown WDFW staff on the behavior of the commercial fishers during a "tangle net" fishery installed in Willapa Bay in 2004. Lists problems with gillnetters by name and details how they are avoiding WDFW observers, not using the recovery boxes when out of sight of observers, offensive verbal commentaries, seals are hammering the fish in the nets and on and on and on. YOU GOTTA READ THIS THING! https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yMW1vbEtKUTM3UHM/edit?usp=drive_web

It is a few pages long but if you ever had doubts about what happens when WDF&W staff attempt to monitor the Non Treaty commercial fishery this should end that thought. The first day out this season is " test " Tangle net fishery I might add.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/13 08:59 AM


Requested to post the paper so here goes.


2004 Willapa Bay Tangle-net Fishery

This is a brief narrative of a portion of the 2004 Willapa Bay Tangle net fishery from observations @ Tokeland, WA. Started narrative the second day of the fishery, to record what appeared to be fishery that would be discussed at length sometime in the future, wanting to set down actual occurrences while fresh in my memory. Statements below can be corroborated by Steve Larsson, Steve Wargo, or Suzan Neari ng, Tokeland observers during this fishery. Allan Hollingsworth did not go out (called me the night before and said not worth it, he caught too few fish that day-Thursday@2 l coho and 4 or 5 Chinook vs. 60+ coho and 6 Chinook on Wednesday. Arthor Swanson in South Bend also contacted me after I left a message, saying he was also not going out. Didn 't want to tear up his Col. River net. I had called him because he was the only fishermen going out from South Bend, and I was going to place Steve Wargo on his vessel. Early Friday morning, Larry Christiansen (vessel Kristina) pulled out and headed north, towards Grays Harbor , his net real covered with a tight fitting wrap or tarp.

Friday, Oct 151-Andy Mitby and Eric were the only boats to go out and fish. They left the docks during midmorning. When first observed after launching the support boat, they were all the way west to near the deadline at the rock jetty and fished fairly far apart for the most part. Neither could get most fish in prior to getting robbed by a seal, which started to show up at both boat locations after the first drift. They both caught a few fish (approx 8 and 6 coho and a few chum, (pespectively) before giving up in disgust.

While observing the fishery Steve Larsson and I were impressed with the number of chinook and coho that were imaged on the fish finder offshore at the 65 foot (10 fathom ) line-they were thick from top to bottom of water column at this depth, and many coho were evident in the areas closer to shore (15 to 25 feet of depth)

Of all the boats signed up for the fishery in Tokeland, only Andy or Eric Mitby ever fished the first day. In Nahcotta, only Gary Walters and one other boat went out for a brief time. Only a few salmon caught, Gary Walters shocked the observer by systematically whacking every spiny dogfish in the net against the side of the boat prior to their release (information I past onto Dan Klump when I contacted him that evening). Other than these general recollections, I do not want to try to record further occurrences during first day of fishery from memory, but it was similar to what I observed that occurred on Saturday, the next day of the fishery (at least at my location in Tokeland).

On Saturday, Oct 2, 2004 I was supervising the observer crew assigned to sample the tangle net fishery. Steve Larsson and I arrived at Tokeland Launch at approx 5:15 AM. Suzan Nearing already there, Steve Wargo pulled in right behind us. Talked for a few moments, then settled back and waited for fishermen to show up, as we have since the first day of the fishery. At least twice before full daylight, vehicles drove close enough to observe that we were in fact there waiting, and then turned around and left the area. During the day, checked on several people going to and from their vessels, but were told they were not going out, but would pull out later in the day, getting ready for the Grays Harbor fishery. Viking(?) did pull out later in the day. The Kimberley pulled out, then was re-launched in the afternoon

At approximately mid morning, Andy Mitby came by and asked if he went out, would he have to take an observer. I told him yes, and he informed me it "then was not worth it to go". He told me that " you know that without an observer, he would do much better, but with an observer, it was just not worth it to go out. ...you understand ." He then left. He came back a short time later, with his crewman, and said he was going out. And he then requested that Steve Wargo was who he wanted on his boat. As he was making preparations to go out, I sent Steve to the dock and he got aboard. The Brothers Three then left the dock. I waited approximately 25 minutes, then Steve Larson and I launched the support boat, and went out to observe the Brothers Three in action. As we got within sight of the boat, they were finishing a drift. In the last 100 feet of net, I observed a large Chinook in the net, tail up. Andy Mitby expertly extricated the fish from the net, which was still very vigorous, and slipped it back into the water. A nice job .

When I came around to view the other side of the boat , I could see that the fish box was flowing with water, ready to receive any distressed Chinook (none were in the box) . They shut the pump down and motored back northwest along the beach for another set. They were just above marker 15. However, during the next 2 full sets (both fairly short
duration soaks) and a short partial set (also short soak), the pump was NOT on at any time. The box had no water flowing through it while the net was set out or retrieved during any subsequent sets. This was while Andy knew I was observing him from Jess than 200 meters, with binoculars.

During one set, Andy untied from the net, and motored along its length to the midway point, trying to beat a seal to several fish in the web. Later he came back towards the seaward end and retied , after also losing a race to at least one fish at that end . Steve Wargo motioned me over at this time. We cruised up to within a short distance of the fish and Steve asked me what should be done with a CHINOOK that had it's head bitten of by a seal that was in the boat. I told him that it must be put back into the water. At this Andy became somewhat agitated, and said that he thought that was wastage . I told him that the WAC stated all Chinook must be released . He obviously did not like the answer I gave him . I asked him what he wanted me to do. He said that he thought he should be able to keep the fish, that it was wastage (which was against the law) to put it back . I told him he might consider it wastage, but others would not.

We then motored some distance away, and Andy reset. I observed Andy to then put into the water two fish that appeared to be partial fish, as he was getting ready to pull his set. After finishing with this brief set (losing some more coho to seals), he motored out to me on his way back in and continued the discussion of the "wasted" salmon. When he again commented that he thought it was wastage, that he thought he should be allowed to keep the fish. He said since he had a State observer on board, and that I also saw the fish, it was obvious that he was not trying to "work the system" and was being completely honest. He just thought it was wrong to put the fish back. I told him that a seal started on it, and if put back, a seal would finish it, that the fish would not go to waste . He was not impressed by my logic.

Shortly thereafter, he returned to the dock, done for the day. He told me over his shoulder while motoring away that he would be out tomorrow. Andy was the only one to fish the second day of the fishery. Eric Mitby had a ballgame practice with his son, or some other conflict, so he did not go out.

Although this second day is the day I started this narrative (the Oct 1st events in top paragraphs were drawn from memory) upon Dan Klump's strong suggestion , it was obvious to myself, and the other observers, throughout the preceding discussions with Andy, Eric Mitby and others at the parking lot that they believed the tangle net is a failure, as far a fishing in Tokeland anyway. Andy told me the day before, that it is too rough usually to fish a tangle net in the area he was fishing, that fish drop out too easily, and that there were too many seals around to allow any sort of reasonable fishing effort (my wording for his thoughts) . Several times they admitted to their observers that there "were a lot of fish out here", and that they could have done great without an observer onboard and use of a tangle net. It was very obvious that fishermen were waiting to see if we would leave, and then they would go out, without observers .

Andy Mitby admitted as much several times to Steve Wargo,. He could not believe we would wait around for the full 12 hours, just to observe one boat (he and/or Eric or anyone else) for the full period of the fishery. When he asked Steve if Enforcement would also be around , and was told yes, he was incredulous. "You mean they would come out just to check on only one (my) boat out there?" Steve told him yes, and Steve said he seemed disappointed at that prospect.

Additionally, while talking with Suzan Nearing about her observations the day before , she told me that although Andy had set the live box up, checked its operation and primed the pump before taking of from the dock, at no time was the pump and live box operating while he had made his sets the day before. I told her that was a violation of the WAC for this fishery, and she was very sorry that she had not read through all the information I had supplied her with the night before. She said that Andy told her he "didn't need his pump on, because he was not getting any fish in the boat." Andy and Eric lost numerous fish to seals the first day of the fishery (and Andy lost "a lot"today-Saturday-as well), and coho were observed to also drop out of the net prior to coming on board. Andy also had a seal almost take a nice chinook out of his hands as he was carefully releasing it out of the net. This infuriated Andy. Eric and Andy said they could not understand why they were not allowed to use gear like in Grays Harbor fishery, with a damn observer. That these tangle nets just didn't work here, and there were way to many seals to effectively fish this gear. When I asked if a larger number of boats out fishing would have helped keep the seals off the nets somewhat, they would not answer me. This is an important point. The fishermen DID successfully do this during the regular season fishery. During the regular season, after morning checks of fish at Nelson Crab, I observed boats from the area near the western boundary, and near "Pamper Beach" (Buoy 15) near Nelson Crab using the "multiple boat tactics" during the regular season. Boats would be taking turns lining up for a drift. With others waiting their tum, there was enough traffic and movement that the seals stayed way from the nets to a large extent. So why didn't they use the same tactics now?

Similarly, many of the comments from observers stationed in Nahcotta showed that many did not want to participate in the fishery, because "that would prove that the State was right, so were not going to do it, they are just screwing with us again, they don't give us anything." Also, that these net were very expensive, and they were not going to rip them up for only a few fish. Speaking to a sampler prior to finding out who they were, one fishermen said they would have gone out, damn the regulations, but the damn State had observers at the Harbor, and they could get out without being observed. Mnay fishermen at both ports were unhappy with this fishery even being set up, and didn't appreciate Bob Lake or whomever it was that pushed it through.

Contacted Dan Klump and explained situation, asked if Enforcement would be available Sunday, but he said no. However, that they would try to get someone to patrol fishery at Tokeland (my suggestion) for Monday, when samplers would probably be gone. I expressed my desire to have Enforcement make this a top priority, due to the likelihood of illegal activity in the absence of observers. I asked him to launch at Tokeland, and make their presence very obvious. He said he would work to get someone out there for Monday.

Sunday Oct 3rd. The same pattern of the last few days-slow vehicle prowls in early AM to check on our presence, and then no netters going near the docks, except to work on
their boats for Grays Harbor, (or the next Willapa Bay opener), or to check on equipment repairs. Discussions with several fishermen-not worth it to go out, too many seals, net rules B.S., etc. etc. etc. Stayed until 5:45 PM. Everyone asked us at every opportunity if we would be there Monday. I said yes. It was obvious to myself (and the observers) that at least some portion of the fleet was waiting for us to leave early, and they would then go out. When questioned about Enforcement, I told them that Enforcement did not clear
their plans with me, but I assumed they could be around at any time the fishery was open.

Upon returning to the office, I left messages with Dan Klump, & Sgt. Rhoden about the need to patrol Tokeland on Monday, due to possible absence of observers (into overtime pay due to 3 days at +12 hour days). Called Ron Warren, explained situation, and got verbal authority authorizing overtime for observers IF they felt comfortable doing this without my presence for backup. But he did not want people to feel they were putting themselves at risk, or for undue verbal abuse.

Contacted Steve Wargo, who said he would sample Tokeland on MOnday. Left messages for Suzie Nearing to also have her repeat tomorrow, but had received no answer as of
9:15 PM. Contacted Rannele Reber, but she and Freider Mack were schedules to work for Wendy Beegley tomorrow. Contacted alternate observer Kim Andersen, but she also was to work for Wendy on Monday. However, she was willing to go, and would contact Wendy to ask permission to go to Tokeland. Kim called back at AM, said she could (not) go. I then contacted Ron Warren again to tell him of my efforts, and that Steve Wargo was willing to sample alone if needed. I left for home at 10:15 PM.

Monday Oct 4th, I received a cell phone call from Suzan Nearing at 7:20 AM while on my way to the Montesano office. She apologized for not getting back to me sooner. She had turned off her cell phone the night before, thinking we were done with the observer project. She said she was willing to go out to Tokeland to sample boats, even though it was after 5 AM . I said that I thought it might be helpful if she did that, she might catch a late entry.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/13 09:41 AM

OK numbers are up on the WDF&W website for Commercials so far Willapa & GH. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html Early in the morning so the calculator might have missed a number but I do not think so here is what I got. Willapa Coho harvest total this time last year 14,583 / this year 5189. Same time last year GH QIN Coho total 5060 & this year 1688. For the QIN numbers they were impacted by the flood and word is on the incoming yesterday they got fish but we will have to wait and see what the total is when they post next week.

Now this is scary as in the Willapa floods did not effect NT Nets catch that is around 35% of last years. Now the QIN is 33% ( give or take a fish ) and if GH follows the Willapa pattern at all the fish are in deep crap with the combined tribal & commercial catch.

So much for Kirt Hughes sworn statement on Willapa submitted to the court that he could do a in season adjustment if he thought a problem developed. I guess the question becomes just what does he call a problem? When the escapement number reaches zero?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/13/13 11:08 AM

Was asked if in my PDR documents I have not released some. Yup! There were a couple that were hysterically funny to be sure but if the documents were personal interactions between staff, internal personnel administration, or a oops moment I have not put them forward. I have no problem with confronting R-6 District 17 staff on their actions and policies but I stop right there. Our efforts at FTC are about the fish and local communities not the occasional personal differences that any group of people working together will have.

To business. Now this one is good. If you read the paper below it sounds OK but what is wrong? Tangle net moralities in Grays Harbor are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more than what is represented. How do I know? The local communities volunteers attempted use tangle nets to capture Chinook and ABANDONED that method due to high moralities. If Chinook and Chum survived the initial encounter the majority would not survive to spawn. Females in particular took a hard hit in survival numbers and this is utilizing specially designed platform boats, revival transport tubes, floating recovery netpens. Not dragging them over the bow ripping them from the net and hurl the captured fish over the side of the boat.

What is written by R-6 District 17 staff below is not even close to reality. My favorite is moderate differences between Columbia Spring Chinook river conditions and those that exist in Grays Harbor in the fall fishery. Lord what planet does whoever wrote this live on? The most appalling thing? This unadulterated piece of utter BS and fabrication was for the Commission.

Commission Speaking Points
Grays Harbor Management
April 12, 2013

Tangle Nets and Mortality
o Commercial advisors have proposed the use of tangle net gear for fall commercial salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor this year.
o The applicability of tangle nets and associated release mortality rate is based on recommendations of the U.S. v Oregon Technical Advisory Committee for use in Columbia River commercial net fisheries requiring the release of unmarked Chinook. Their recommendation of 14.7% was adopted through the Columbia River Compact process.
o There is a significant reduction in the mortality rate resulting in a shift from 6” maximum gill net with 45% release mortality, as used in previous years, to this year’s proposal to use 4-1/4” tangle net and the documented 14.7% mortality resulting from this gear type.
o Moderate differences in environmental conditions exist between Columbia River spring Chinook and Grays Harbor fall Chinook fisheries. We have considered these differences and find them similar enough for the application of tangle nets and the associated mortality rate.
o However, the uncertainty surrounding the environmental conditions and the first time use of tangle nets in Grays Harbor cause us to take a more conservative approach in Grays Harbor by applying a buffer to the release mortality rate and increase it to 25.0%.

Accuracy of Predicted Fishery Mortality
o Given low abundance of natural origin fall Chinook returning to the Chehalis River in recent years, limited harvest opportunity has been available in both marine area and freshwater sport fisheries. At the same time WDFW managed commercial fisheries have been developed for more abundant coho returns while requiring Chinook release in commercial catch areas 2A and 2D.
o It is worth mentioning that the fishery planning model used to estimate fishing related impacts has as well as the run reconstruction the model is bases on have been redeveloped for use in 2013. The new models incorporate stock specific allocation of harvest based on coded wire tag sampling that is specific to the commercial catch management area where the fish were caught. Therefore the productiveness for modeling the outcome of historic fisheries has been evaluated to test the accuracy of the new model. Doing so removed potential biases associated with historic models that did not appropriately allocate catch by stock origin. Evaluating performance using post-season runsizes removes biases of forecasting error.




Now take a quick read of this e mail thread and wella you have the scientific rational for the mortality they put in the Commission paper. As always read the e mail thread bottom up.

From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
To: la
cc: ac Warren, Ron R (DFW); Scharpf, Mike M (DFW); Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW);
Subject: FW: 2013 gh season
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:44:00 AM

B –
I got a bounce back on the address in the message from A---. I have also included Mike in this thread.
-Kirt

From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:42 AM
To: 'a'; Warren, Ron R (DFW) Cc: B; Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW) Subject: RE: 2013 gh season


A--- –
Speaking only to the application of 25% release mortality, there was an additional 10.3% added as a buffer. The is nothing scientific about the 10% it is simple a buffer intended as a precautionary approach in bridging uncertainties in the physiology on fish and the environmental conditions they are encountering at time of capture. Specifically we note the difference between spring Chinook in the Columbia River and fall Chinook stocks passing through the Grays Harbor estuary and differences in characteristic of the water including temperature and salinity.

I certainly apologize for not making contact with folks as previously developed schedules were being modified as a result of the change in mortality rate.

-Kirt

From: a-------
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:31 AM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Cc: B; Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW)
Subject: 2013 gh season



Ron,

When we left our last meeting we had an agreement on the

recreational and commercial GH seasons. If things were to change we were to be called and asked about what changes may occur.
In your new proposal we trade thirteen days with regular nets for two with tangle nets. If the Humptulips is tier 4 tier 4 and we have no days in that area we have not met any criteria from the tier system in that area. Who was notified about these changes when they took place at PFMC? The state numbers are 14.7% mortality rate on Chinook in tangle nets. We will be assessed 25%. Where did this rate come from?


Failing to see why we had any advisory group meetings, A---



Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/13 07:42 PM

I posted the bit below ( high-lighted ) in the other thread by mistake so catching up. That said I was asked what is the importance of the WK 41 On Board Observer reports. Well it is about the mortality or number of adult Chinook that will not survive the contact & release from the NT Commercial nets. If you recall first WDF&W R-6 D-17 went with 14.7% and that did not fly so on to 25% in the last model. If you look at the report 67% of the adults were OK ( vigorous ) and 33% either dead or on their way to being dead. Now this is the immediate ( or close to ) mortality. In the best scenario in the Columbia it was 1% to 3% immediate mortality followed by another 13.7% that did not survive to spawn. Some studies have it as a much higher % moralities on the post release survival. Bottom line is the mortality is somewhere 47.7% and 70% of the released Grays Harbor Chinook are goners. Now this is the best as the Chehalis is not the Columbia and Chehalis Fall Chinook are not the same as Columbia Springers. This is important because if the actual impacts are put into the model it means less time for the NT nets. So the NT days based on a 25% figure pretty much are and continues to be pure bs as a lot of people have been saying. It is called " cookin the books"



The link is to WDF&W website for commercial. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html Now as I am NEVER shy about kicking the cra- out District 17 staff I must put this out also. When you get to the website scroll to GH Non Indian and look for the Weekly Observer Summary and hit the WK 41 link ( it is a link ) and it is the encounter ratio Onboard Observer report for Chinook, Coho & Chum. Now I can tell you they did not do this without prodding. That said it was requested and without any fanfare Mr. Warren, Kirt Hughes and staff got it done.

So on this issue I sincerely thank R-6 D-17 staff for the change and effort.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/13 07:12 PM


NEXT UP!


WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
October 17, 2013
Contact: Ron Warren, (360) 249-1201
Public meetings scheduled to discuss
Grays Harbor salmon management
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has scheduled eight public meetings this fall and winter to discuss and develop a new draft policy for managing salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor.
The public meetings are part of a nearly five-month process to develop the new draft policy specifically for Grays Harbor salmon management. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, is scheduled to consider adopting the draft policy in mid-February.
Salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor are currently managed under a framework that was initially developed in 2007, in conjunction with the commission's North of Falcon policy, said Ron Warren, regional fish program manager for WDFW.
"We would like to further refine the management of Grays Harbor salmon fisheries to help ensure we can meet spawning goals for wild salmon returning to the basin, as well as give anglers and commercial fishers a clearer picture of what fishing opportunities they can expect each year," Warren said.
The public meetings include three workshops and five Grays Harbor Advisory Committee meetings. The advisory committee discussions are open to the public, and those in attendance will have an opportunity to comment at the end of each meeting.
The public meetings are scheduled for:
• Oct. 21 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Oct. 28 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Nov. 1 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
• Nov. 13 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Nov. 18 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Nov. 26 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
• Jan. 13 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Jan. 15 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
WDFW fishery managers are scheduled to brief the Fish and Wildlife Commission on the development of the draft policy during the commission's November meeting in Olympia.
Warren said WDFW will develop a range of policy options that will be discussed during the December commission meeting in Olympia. The commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the draft policy options during its January meeting in Olympia.
The commission is scheduled to make a final decision at its February meeting in Olympia.
Throughout the process, WDFW will periodically update its website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/ with more information on the development of the draft policy.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW News Releases & Weekender mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html
[i][/i]
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/13 07:46 PM

At last!
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/13 10:08 PM

Could this be some acknowledgment that all those damn sporties screaming at them about the messed up process might have some merit after all?

God, I hope so!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/13 10:55 PM

Well the process has some major problems......too many of the personnel in the Region 6 office, have a finger on the scale in favor of NT gill netters.......just funny how changes took/take place after the "Dog and Pony Show" call NOF(North of Falcon) was suppose to have ended.

Shame on you Phil Anderson, Ron Warren, Curt Hughes and Barbara McClellan.......Change the rules of the game, AFTER the game was over, heads should roll....time for the Commission to step up to the plate in Region 6.

Really....why do the NT netters deserve to have a season at all?????? QIN has a commercial right to net area 2A, 2C, and 2D. Time for the NT netters to hang up thier nets in the Chehalis/Humptulips area.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/13 09:54 PM

Hey folks I am on the run but I think this needs to be said.... bluntly. The meeting schedule above and citizen participation is critical. Now if this process goes forward with the same cast of characters and folks do not take the time to participate then I can guarantee many will not like the outcome. From legal actions, PDR request, to a website the many hundreds of hours put in it has been about getting a fair shake for the fish, inland communities, and sport fishers. So if you do not take the time to participate then do not whine at the outcome, whatever it is. Not trying to be rude ( might have achieved that though ) but rather saying it as it is. As a close friend told me it is " put up or shut up time. "
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/13 12:39 AM

Rivrguy:

I'll make as many meetings as I can, but I imagine most of us won't be able to make more than a few. Would you say the public meetings in Montesano would be the most critical for sport fishers to attend?

Thanks one more time for all your hard work.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/13 08:49 AM


I honestly do not know which is the most important meeting. I will have a better idea after Monday night's meeting as just what they say in the press vs what they can / will do can be very different.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/13 04:07 PM

Just one more invitation to interested folks to attend tonight's meeting at 6PM.... Region 6 HQ, just south of the Devonshire exit in Montesano.

Public may listen in on the deliberations from 6-8 (no public comment permitted in order to allow the advisory group to conduct business uninterrupted) Be respectful and abide by this rule no matter how tempting it may be to interject an inquiry or opinion. To be sure, there will be a question/answer session immediately following. You can speak your piece then.

See you there!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/13 03:20 PM



Below is the WDF&W Region 6 District 17 schedule for the review and modification of the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ). So in plain English how does this effect everyone? Well in very blunt terms the GHMP is about who catches what fish (in-river sport / bay sport /commercial ), where they catch the fish, and how ( fishing rod or net ). After completing this process ( outlined below ) the WDF&W Commission will adopt policy guidelines WDF&W Region 6 District 17 will then follow in the allocation of harvest and management for escapement ( spawners ) in the future.

It is pretty much a given that most folks cannot make all these meetings so which one you might ask? November 1 at Montesano City Hall ( high lighted in Red below ) would be my first choice. It is a citizens opportunity to speak their mind and it is important. Yeah right another " dog & pony show " is the likely response most will have to this concept. The difference this time is that the WDF&W Commission will have the GHMP on their agenda for the next four months monitoring this process prior to adopting " policy guidelines " in February.

So bottom line is that it is that time. If you want the Salmon resources in Grays Harbor and the Chehalis Basin managed in a reasonable manner citizen participation is more important than ever. As harsh as it sounds you snooze you will loose in this process.



WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
October 17, 2013
Contact: Ron Warren, (360) 249-1201
Public meetings scheduled to discuss
Grays Harbor salmon management
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has scheduled eight public meetings this fall and winter to discuss and develop a new draft policy for managing salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor.
The public meetings are part of a nearly five-month process to develop the new draft policy specifically for Grays Harbor salmon management. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, is scheduled to consider adopting the draft policy in mid-February.
Salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor are currently managed under a framework that was initially developed in 2007, in conjunction with the commission's North of Falcon policy, said Ron Warren, regional fish program manager for WDFW.
"We would like to further refine the management of Grays Harbor salmon fisheries to help ensure we can meet spawning goals for wild salmon returning to the basin, as well as give anglers and commercial fishers a clearer picture of what fishing opportunities they can expect each year," Warren said.
The public meetings include three workshops and five Grays Harbor Advisory Committee meetings. The advisory committee discussions are open to the public, and those in attendance will have an opportunity to comment at the end of each meeting.
The public meetings are scheduled for:
• Oct. 21 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Oct. 28 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Nov. 1 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
• Nov. 13 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Nov. 18 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Nov. 26 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
• Jan. 13 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Jan. 15 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
WDFW fishery managers are scheduled to brief the Fish and Wildlife Commission on the development of the draft policy during the commission's November meeting in Olympia.
Warren said WDFW will develop a range of policy options that will be discussed during the December commission meeting in Olympia. The commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the draft policy options during its January meeting in Olympia.
The commission is scheduled to make a final decision at its February meeting in Olympia.
Throughout the process, WDFW will periodically update its website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/ with more information on the development of the draft policy.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW News Releases & Weekender mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html
Posted by: Slab

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/13 05:59 PM

Well how did the meeting go last night? Anyone
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/13 06:27 PM

I was given a three ring binder ( as an Adviser ) and Jim Scott & Ron Warren outlined the process. Some insight was gained when everyone was asked what was their single biggest bitch. So it was a warm up / ground rules thing and about ZERO hard info outside of the coming process. Again the Nov. 1 meeting is the first major foray into the general public for input. The Adviser meetings do have time for those who attend to speak and if you have the time one should attend. The fact that the Commission is engaged is important and not to be overlooked in the mayhem. So the answer to SH's question is " hi & how are you and here is what is about to happen ".
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/13 11:22 PM

I am not one of the chosen few.......so I got no 3 ring binder. I always get a few "jabs in".......I call it like I see it......told them that it looked like the beginning of another "Dog and Pony show".....time tells all, major problems in the Chehalis/Humptulips basins........Not many gill netters left......100's of hours are spent in meetings....trying to justify a "cowboy gill net season" for fewer than 20 netters.

Gill netters have a common saying "who will feed the general population if we don't net??????? Hate to have to tell them again but QIN can do the job quite well.

1. I did request that NO NT gill nets above the 101 Bridge.....reason more banks anglers now, don't need to be fishing in muddy water from gill net boats run up river.

2. Hit them, again, with the Wynoochee mitigation that hasn't been spent.....2.4 million......monies to be used for Coho and SH. Told them if they can't get the job done, 23+ years, let the QIN take the lead.

Actually I said something about WDFW sitting around with their finger up their ass and not getting things done.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/13 11:27 PM

DW did the best job of telling 'em how he REALLY felt.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/13 03:13 PM

Interesting read. The tables breaking out the dollar amount by user groups are available if anyone wants them. This is for hatchery production but in the case of Grays Harbor the values would cross into the natural origin harvest and with Coho at 5 or 6 to 1 W / H. Lot of Rec $$$$.


TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (FINAL)


April 28, 2009


Memo to: From:

Andy Appleby, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Tom Wegge , TCW Economics


RE: Economic Analysis of WDFW 's Hatchery 2020 Plans


The Hatchery Scientific Review group (HSRG) retained TCW Economics to conduct an economic assessment of the State's Draft Hatchery Action Implementation Plans (Hatchery 2020 Plans). This memorandum summarizes the final results of the economic assessment , and describes the methods, including data sources , used to conduct the assessment.

Accompanying this memorandum is an excel workbook that includes the data used to analyze WDFW's 120 salmon and steelhead hatchery programs, and the economic impact estimates for each program.

Results

As described in more detail below, the analysis of economic impacts focuses on measuring the expected effects of each program on generating local personal income from affected commercial and sport fisheries in different economic regions of the state. The estimates are considered minimum contributions due to the methods used to estimate freshwater sport catch, including lower than optimum levels of sampling in some marine commercial fisheries.

State-operated hatcheries for salmon and steelhead evaluated in this analysis are located in watersheds in the Puget Sound region, Coastal region, and Lower Columbia River region. The commercial and sport fisheries where hatchery-produced salmon and steelhead are harvested also occur in these three regions, as well as in more distant fisher ies located outside of state waters (e.g., southeast Alaska , British Columbia, and Oregon coast). For this analysis, however, only effects associated with the harvest in Washington State waters were evaluated .

Puget Sound Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Puget Sound region is shown by watershed in Table 1. Local personal income generated from Puget Sound hatchery production is estimated at $11.4 million annually in commercial fisheries and $18.4 million in sport fisheries.



TCW Economics
Econom ic Consulting for Natural Resou rce Managemen t and Land Use Plan n ing 2756 9111 Avenue Sacramento, CA 9581 8 916/45 1-3372 fax: 916/451-1920 e-mail : twegge@tcweco n .com

For hatchery produced fish that are harvested in commercial fisheries, the Puget Sound marine and freshwater net fisheries account for $10.9 million, or about 96 percent of the total personal income generated . Hatchery production of chum accounts for about 53 percent of the total personal income generated and hatchery production of Chinook accounts for about 38 percent.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $11.4 million of the total $18.4 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity in freshwater areas of the Puget Sound region. Puget Sound marine sport fisheries account for about $6.5 million and ocean sport fisheries account for about $627,000 in local personal income. Hatchery produced coho caught in both marine and freshwater sport fisheries generate about $7.8 million annually , steelhead sport fisheries generate about $6.7 million, and Chinook sport fisheries generate about $3.9 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Snohomish watershed contribute about $5.1 million annually in local personal income in the Puget Sound region and hatchery programs in the Payullup/White watershed contribute about $3.4 million annually.

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Puget Sound region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 532 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

Coastal Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Coastal region is shown by watershed in Table 2. Local personal income from coastal hatchery production is estimated at $1.5 million annually in commercial fisheries and $7.6 million in sport fisheries. Almost all of the local personal income generated by the harvest from coastal hatchery programs occurs in the State's coastal economic region.

For hatchery produced fish harvested in commercial fisheries, coastal net fisheries account for 97 percent of the total personal income generated . Hatchery coho production accounts for $1.0 million of the $1.5 million in annual personal income. Although not reported in Table 2, it is estimated that more than 80 percent of the local personal income is captured in the Westport area, which is the primary port associated with catch area 2.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $6.8 million of the total $7.6 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity in coastal freshwaters . Ocean sport fisheries account for about $821,000 and Puget Sound marine sport fisheries account for about
$25,000 in local personal income. Hatchery fish caught in steelhead sport fisheries generate about $4.2 million annually , Chinook sport fisheries generate about $876,000, and Coho sport fisheries generate about $2.6 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Wynoochee watershed contribute the most personal income ($1.9 million), followed by hatchery programs in the Solduc/Quillayute and Humptulips watersheds ($1.3 million each).

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Coastal region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 277 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This
number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

Lower Columbia River Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Lower Columbia River region is shown by watershed in Table 3. Local personal income

from Lower Columbia River hatchery production is estimated at $1.5 million annually in commercial fisheries and $27.9 million in sport fisheries.

For hatchery produced fish harvested in commercial fisheries, the Lower Columbia River net fisheries account for about $974,000, or about 67%, of the total personal income generated . Hatchery production of coho accounts for about 53 percent of the annual $1.4 million in personal income generated and Chinook accounts for about 47 percent.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $14.5 million of the total $27.9 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity on the Columbia River mainstem and about $10.5 million is associated with sport fishing in terminal areas (tributary fisheries) of the Lower Columbia River . Ocean sport fisheries account for about $2.8 million and Puget Sound marine sport fisheries account for about $74,000 in local personal income. Hatchery fish caught in steelhead sport fisheries generate about $13.7 million annually , Chinook sport fisheries generate about $3.7 million, and coho sport fisheries generate about $10.5 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Cowlitz River watershed contribute the most personal income at $14.8 million annually , distantly followed by hatchery programs in the Lewis River watershed ($5.7 million) and Kalama River hatchery programs ($2.8 million) .

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Lower Columbia River region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 1,108 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/13 04:19 PM



Reposting this bit as this Friday is the first public meeting and I urge anyone who can to attend.



Below is the WDF&W Region 6 District 17 schedule for the review and modification of the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ). So in plain English how does this effect everyone? Well in very blunt terms the GHMP is about who catches what fish (in-river sport / bay sport /commercial ), where they catch the fish, and how ( fishing rod or net ). After completing this process ( outlined below ) the WDF&W Commission will adopt policy guidelines WDF&W Region 6 District 17 will then follow in the allocation of harvest and management for escapement ( spawners ) in the future.

It is pretty much a given that most folks cannot make all these meetings so which one you might ask? November 1 at Montesano City Hall ( high lighted in Red below ) would be my first choice. It is a citizens opportunity to speak their mind and it is important. Yeah right another " dog & pony show " is the likely response most will have to this concept. The difference this time is that the WDF&W Commission will have the GHMP on their agenda for the next four months monitoring this process prior to adopting " policy guidelines " in February.

So bottom line is that it is that time. If you want the Salmon resources in Grays Harbor and the Chehalis Basin managed in a reasonable manner citizen participation is more important than ever. As harsh as it sounds you snooze you will loose in this process.



WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
October 17, 2013
Contact: Ron Warren, (360) 249-1201
Public meetings scheduled to discuss
Grays Harbor salmon management
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has scheduled eight public meetings this fall and winter to discuss and develop a new draft policy for managing salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor.
The public meetings are part of a nearly five-month process to develop the new draft policy specifically for Grays Harbor salmon management. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, is scheduled to consider adopting the draft policy in mid-February.
Salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor are currently managed under a framework that was initially developed in 2007, in conjunction with the commission's North of Falcon policy, said Ron Warren, regional fish program manager for WDFW.
"We would like to further refine the management of Grays Harbor salmon fisheries to help ensure we can meet spawning goals for wild salmon returning to the basin, as well as give anglers and commercial fishers a clearer picture of what fishing opportunities they can expect each year," Warren said.
The public meetings include three workshops and five Grays Harbor Advisory Committee meetings. The advisory committee discussions are open to the public, and those in attendance will have an opportunity to comment at the end of each meeting.
The public meetings are scheduled for:
• Oct. 21 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Oct. 28 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Nov. 1 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
• Nov. 13 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Nov. 18 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Nov. 26 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
• Jan. 13 - Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Jan. 15 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
WDFW fishery managers are scheduled to brief the Fish and Wildlife Commission on the development of the draft policy during the commission's November meeting in Olympia.
Warren said WDFW will develop a range of policy options that will be discussed during the December commission meeting in Olympia. The commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the draft policy options during its January meeting in Olympia.
The commission is scheduled to make a final decision at its February meeting in Olympia.
Throughout the process, WDFW will periodically update its website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/ with more information on the development of the draft policy.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW News Releases & Weekender mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/ [/i][i]
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/31/13 11:42 AM


Bump!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/13 07:05 PM


A bump so all are aware of this process.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/13 10:42 AM



Well this bit is interesting to say the least. I believe it is relevant in the current discussion of the sacrificing of the resource to maintain the antiquated commercial fisheries.




TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (FINAL)


April 28, 2009


Memo to: From:

Andy Appleby, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Tom Wegge , TCW Economics


RE: Economic Analysis of WDFW 's Hatchery 2020 Plans


The Hatchery Scientific Review group (HSRG) retained TCW Economics to conduct an economic assessment of the State's Draft Hatchery Action Implementation Plans (Hatchery 2020 Plans). This memorandum summarizes the final results of the economic assessment , and describes the methods, including data sources , used to conduct the assessment.

Accompanying this memorandum is an excel workbook that includes the data used to analyze WDFW's 120 salmon and steelhead hatchery programs, and the economic impact estimates for each program.

Results

As described in more detail below, the analysis of economic impacts focuses on measuring the expected effects of each program on generating local personal income from affected commercial and sport fisheries in different economic regions of the state. The estimates are considered minimum contributions due to the methods used to estimate freshwater sport catch, including lower than optimum levels of sampling in some marine commercial fisheries.

State-operated hatcheries for salmon and steelhead evaluated in this analysis are located in watersheds in the Puget Sound region, Coastal region, and Lower Columbia River region. The commercial and sport fisheries where hatchery-produced salmon and steelhead are harvested also occur in these three regions, as well as in more distant fisher ies located outside of state waters (e.g., southeast Alaska , British Columbia, and Oregon coast). For this analysis, however, only effects associated with the harvest in Washington State waters were evaluated .

Puget Sound Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Puget Sound region is shown by watershed in Table 1. Local personal income generated from Puget Sound hatchery production is estimated at $11.4 million annually in commercial fisheries and $18.4 million in sport fisheries.



TCW Economics
Econom ic Consulting for Natural Resou rce Managemen t and Land Use Plan n ing 2756 9111 Avenue Sacramento, CA 9581 8 916/45 1-3372 fax: 916/451-1920 e-mail : twegge@tcweco n .com

For hatchery produced fish that are harvested in commercial fisheries, the Puget Sound marine and freshwater net fisheries account for $10.9 million, or about 96 percent of the total personal income generated . Hatchery production of chum accounts for about 53 percent of the total personal income generated and hatchery production of Chinook accounts for about 38 percent.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $11.4 million of the total $18.4 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity in freshwater areas of the Puget Sound region. Puget Sound marine sport fisheries account for about $6.5 million and ocean sport fisheries account for about $627,000 in local personal income. Hatchery produced coho caught in both marine and freshwater sport fisheries generate about $7.8 million annually , steelhead sport fisheries generate about $6.7 million, and Chinook sport fisheries generate about $3.9 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Snohomish watershed contribute about $5.1 million annually in local personal income in the Puget Sound region and hatchery programs in the Payullup/White watershed contribute about $3.4 million annually.

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Puget Sound region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 532 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

Coastal Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Coastal region is shown by watershed in Table 2. Local personal income from coastal hatchery production is estimated at $1.5 million annually in commercial fisheries and $7.6 million in sport fisheries. Almost all of the local personal income generated by the harvest from coastal hatchery programs occurs in the State's coastal economic region.

For hatchery produced fish harvested in commercial fisheries, coastal net fisheries account for 97 percent of the total personal income generated . Hatchery coho production accounts for $1.0 million of the $1.5 million in annual personal income. Although not reported in Table 2, it is estimated that more than 80 percent of the local personal income is captured in the Westport area, which is the primary port associated with catch area 2.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $6.8 million of the total $7.6 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity in coastal freshwaters . Ocean sport fisheries account for about $821,000 and Puget Sound marine sport fisher ies account for about
$25,000 in local personal income. Hatchery fish caught in steelhead sport fisheries generate about $4.2 million annually , Chinook sport fisheries generate about $876,000, and coho sport fisheries generate about $2.6 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Wynoochee watershed contribute the most personal income ($1.9 million), followed by hatchery programs in the Solduc/Quillayute and Humptulips watersheds ($1.3 million each).

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Coastal region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 277 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This
number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

Lower Columbia River Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Lower Columbia River region is shown by watershed in Table 3. Local personal income

from Lower Columbia River hatchery production is estimated at $1.5 million annually in commercial fisheries and $27.9 million in sport fisheries.

For hatchery produced fish harvested in commercial fisheries, the Lower Columbia River net fisheries account for about $974,000, or about 67%, of the total personal income generated . Hatchery production of coho accounts for about 53 percent of the annual $1.4 million in personal income generated and Chinook accounts for about 47 percent.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $14.5 million of the total $27.9 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity on the Columbia River mainstem and about $10.5 million is associated with sport fishing in terminal areas (tributary fisheries) of the Lower Columbia River . Ocean sport fisheries account for about $2.8 million and Puget Sound marine sport fisheries account for about $74,000 in local personal income. Hatchery fish caught in steelhead sport fisheries generate about $13.7 million annually , Chinook sport fisheries generate about $3.7 million, and coho sport fisheries generate about $10.5 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Cowlitz River watershed contribute the most personal income at $14.8 million annually , distantly followed by hatchery programs in the Lewis River watershed ($5.7 million) and Kalama River hatchery programs ($2.8 million) .

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Lower Columbia River region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 1,108 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/13 12:45 PM

As the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) is being worked on I thought I would put up this E mail thread to help folks understand WHY it is important to get involved. This thread is about Chum and how Region - 6 District 17 manages the preseason forecast by lumping Chum in one number rather than manage by stock. ( individual streams ) Now if you were to break escapement down further by defining the Wynoochee and Wishkah at say equal to the Satsop, then very rough numbers ( close guess? ) for the mainstem Chehalis for Chum would be 7140. Keeping in mind the 7140 is just a working guess but likely in the ball park, doubts on why the up river Chum stocks are being exterminated by commercial harvest should be gone. Good lord has anyone seen Chum in numbers that are needed above the Satsop?

So one more time. WDF&W Region 6 District 17 staff get away with this because WE blindly accept information provided, do not stay involved, and FAIL TO RECOGNIZE IT IS THE COMMISSION THAT MUST REQUIRE THE NECESSARY REFORMS. The absolute mess the GHMP has become is because the local communities ( especially the inland communities ) have allowed it to happen. You add the fact that the Commission has blindly accepted the dribble out of R-6 D-17 you get what we see.





From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW);
cc: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW); Holt, Curt L (DFW); Herring, Chad J (DFW);
Subject: RE: Chum
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:31:00 PM

Although we do not have the forecast model developed in a manner to specifically forecast at a tributary specific level, we could do that but it will require a LOT of work and tie we do not currently have. That said, not that I recommend doing so, one could roughly allocate the Grays Harbor wide goal and forecast by the relative portions of spawner habitat at the level Dave is requesting. While there might
be some argument for this being acceptable for the goal, there is no basis for doing this with the forecast but I guess we will do it anyway. The complexity of escapement, age composition, and productivity should really be brought to account.

Anyhow, available spawner habitat is approximately 22% in the Humptulips, and 78% in the Chehalis (of total GH habitat 22% is in the Satsop).

Following through on this as a way to split the forecast as David is interested in you get the following.

Goal 2013 Forecast
Humptulips 4,620 6,758
Satsop 4,620 6,758
Chehalis (excluding Satsop) 11,760 17,201



From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:30 AM
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: FW: Chum





From:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:58 AM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Subject: Fwd: Chum

Ron,

Any idea on when your guys will provide the requested info below on Chum?








From:
To: "Ron Warren" <ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov> Cc: "Jim Scott" <scottjbs@dfw.wa.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2013 6:24:28 AM Subject: Chum


Mr. Warren,

After reviewing the Grays Harbor advisory meeting last night,
( March 6, 2013 ) I found the information provided to well short of what is needed to address Chum harvest for Grays Harbor as a whole or the Chehalis Basin. As a member of the Grays Harbor Advisory Group I am formally requesting to be provided the following information.

1. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Humptulips River.

2. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Chehalis River.

3. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Satsop River.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/15/13 01:50 PM

Official GH page on the WDFW website...

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/13 11:50 AM

Here is an interesting bit concerning members of the Grays Harbor Advisers or rather a new member. So the question becomes why the concern about the CCA? Another e mail thread addressed that as to not having two CCA members as Advisers and Kirt Hughes was even sending out a sheet that he wanted your views on harvest / conservation / any affiliations prompting one individual to ask if we were going back to the 50's and Tailgunner JOE! Now compare this concern with six or more members are from the Gillnetters Association with two members from the same family. I will find some additional information on the Advisory Group but I thought this is relevant.

So no confusion exist I am on the Advisory Group ( the newbie ) and this Rec / Commercial bit is a load of crap. In my view WDF&W has created a Adviser Group that DOES NOT IN ANYWAY REFLECT THE CITIZENS OF GRAYS HARBOR & THE CHEHALIS BASIN.

From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: RE: GH Advisory Committee... new members?
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:03:00 AM



My only hesitation is that since the inception of the AdHoc committee there has been the creation of a different element that will enter the committee if we open positions. This element is CCA.


Ron Warren
Region 6 Fish Program 48 Devonshire Road
Montesano, WA 98563
360-249-1201 Office
360-249-1229 Fax
ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov


From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:09 AM
To:
Cc: JC ; Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Subject: Re: GH Advisory Committee... new members?



--------
Thanks for the conversation last night. I will speak with Ron about soliciting new members for the GH group; he is at Pacific Salmon Commission meetings this week so it may be a few days before we are able to put something together.
Kirt Hughes


From: ---------
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Cc: ----------
Sent: Mon Jan 11 23:53:28 2010
Subject: GH Advisory Committee... new members?
Kirt

With the recent passing of Mike Munsell, the recreational representation on our committee is down one more body. With the loss of Andy Matthews, and the chronic lack of participation from the folks from the I-5 corridor, it seems appropriate to infuse some new blood from the sportfishing community.

Allow me to introduce John --------- , a local GH resident, avid fisherman in local waters, and currently Govt Relations Committee (GRC) liaison between the local chapter of the CCA and the State GRC.
He has a keen interest in the GH fisheries and wants to learn more about the key GH issues. Mild mannered, soft spoken, a good listener, and a critical thinker… he would definitely be an asset to our group.

If we could arrange for a face to face introduction before we convene as a committee next month, that would be great.

Thanks, -------
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/13 11:59 AM

Sure makes it look like Advisory Groups are created to tell the Department what it wants to hear. And then claim that what they do has the support of the Stakeholders.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/13 05:03 PM

Another reason to state the case to the WDFW Commission since there is a lack of available desired species of Chinook and Coho.

Yet WDFW "managers" are still in an 1800's mindset???
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/13 05:10 PM

Just found out Ron Warren is going to Oly as an Deputy Assistant Director for Intergovernmental Salmon Management. More to come.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/22/13 01:21 PM


Yee Haw the rumor mill is alive and well! Anyone hear the one about Mr. Anderson????
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/13 08:27 AM

Double post but covering bases so ....

Couple of items. This link is to the FTC library and two documents regarding the Grays Harbor Management plan redo. One is mine which I have made public and the other is a complete break down of the policy guidelines and recommended changes by the East County guys which is titled Commission Policy Edits. I urge you to read through it completely as the policy guidelines approved by the Commission will determine the fisheries in Grays Harbor & the Chehalis Basin in coming years.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0...aDJvWjFiaUVoNGc

Second item is a reminder of the next Public Input meeting for the Grays Harbor Management Plan Tuesday the 26th, 6:00 PM at Montesano City Hall. I urge all to attend and speak your mind on the status of the Grays Harbor & the Chehalis Basin Salmon Management, or lack of depending on your views!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/29/13 02:06 PM

I was asked to post how the Commission sets out the "sideboards" for NOF so here is 2012. Formatting is gone with the C&P but it is fairly easy to follow. Now go to the bottom and read the delegation of authority SLOWLY and think about what it means in relation to what we see with Salmon harvest tribal & non tribal.

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
North of Falcon, Policy C-3608
Adopted Feb. 4, 2011
Page 1 of 3
FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
POLICY DECISION
POLICY TITLE: 2011-2012 North of Falcon POLICY NUMBER: C-3608
Supersedes: C-3608, 2009-2010 Effective Date: February 4, 2011
Termination Date: December 31, 2012
See Also: Policy C-3001 Approved by: ___________________________Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, 02/04/2011
North of Falcon Policy
This Policy will guide Department staff in considering conservation, allocation, in-season
management, and monitoring issues associated with the annual, salmon fishery planning process
known as “North of Falcon”. When considering management issues, Department staff will ensure
that decisions are made consistent with the Department’s statutory authority, U.S. v. Washington,
U.S. v. Oregon, the Endangered Species Act, the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management
Plan, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Framework Salmon
Management Plan, pertinent state/tribal agreements, and the applicable Fish and Wildlife
Commission policies.
The Department will implement this Policy consistent with the purposes and intended outcomes
described in the 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Planning Project including:
• WDFW shall manage salmon and steelhead to recovery and sustainability in a way that is
science-based, well-documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable.
• Fisheries are managed to meet or exceed ESA, recovery, and conservation goals; and harvest
management measures protect and promote the long-term well-being of the commercial and
recreational fisheries.
Fishery Management
General
• On a statewide basis, fishing opportunities will be provided when they can be directed at
healthy wild and hatchery stocks.
• Selective fishing methods and gears that maximize fishing opportunity and minimize
impacts on depressed stocks will be utilized to the fullest extent possible within legal
constraints of implementation and budgetary limits associated with required sampling,
monitoring and enforcement programs.
• When assessed from a statewide perspective, fishing directed at chinook, coho, pink,
sockeye, or chum salmon will not be exclusively reserved for either sport or commercial
users.
• When managing sport fisheries, meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be
distributed equitably across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers,
including retention and catch and release fisheries.
• The Department will seek non-treaty fishing access to unutilized portions of treaty
harvest allocations through the implementation of pre-season agreements, taking into
consideration changes in abundance, fishery conflicts, and factors that may influence
attainment of spawning escapement objectives.
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
North of Falcon, Policy C-3608
Adopted Feb. 4, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Sockeye, Chum, and Pink Salmon
• For fisheries directed at Fraser River origin chum, pink, and sockeye stocks, the majority of
harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
• For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound origin chum stocks, the majority of
harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
• For fisheries directed at Lake Washington sockeye, the first 200,000 non-treaty harvest
will be provided to recreational fishers. If the allowable non-treaty harvest is greater than
200,000, commercial harvest directed at this stock may be considered.
• For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound origin pink salmon, seasons will be
established that provide meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial
fisheries while minimizing gear and other fishery conflicts.
Chinook and Coho Salmon
• The Puget Sound harvest management objectives for chinook and coho stocks, in
priority order, are to (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities, and (2)
identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest. When managing sport
fisheries in this region, recreational opportunities will be distributed equitably across
fishing areas, considering factors such as the: uniqueness of each area, the availability
of opportunities for various species in each area throughout the season, desire to
provide high levels of total recreational opportunity, and biological impacts.
• Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the
recreational and commercial fisheries.
• Columbia River harvest management regimes shall be developed in cooperation with
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives. Commercial and recreational
fishing opportunity will be scheduled to optimize the non-treaty harvest of chinook and
coho and to provide a balanced opportunity to each fleet. When developing recreational
and commercial fishing options, the Department shall consider fair and reasonable catch
opportunity, stability and duration of fisheries, as well as sharing of the conservation
responsibility.
• Willapa Bay harvest management shall be consistent with Willapa Bay Framework
management objectives. The following general intent shall apply: Willapa Bay harvest
management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and
commercial fisheries.
• Pacific Ocean harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fishery Management
Council’s Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide
for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers.
In-Season Management
• When in-season management actions are taken, they will be implemented in a manner
that is consistent with pre-season conservation and harvest management objectives,
and the fishery intent developed through the North of Falcon process.
Monitoring, Sampling and Enforcement
• Monitoring, sampling and enforcement programs will be provided to account for species
and population impacts of all fisheries and to ensure compliance with state regulations.
• Fishery participants will be required to comply with fishery monitoring and evaluation
programs designed to account for species and population impacts.
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
North of Falcon, Policy C-3608
Adopted Feb. 4, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Gear and Fishery Conflicts
• Recreational and commercial fisheries shall be structured to minimize gear and other
fishery conflicts. Unanticipated fishery interaction issues identified in-season, including
conflicts with fisheries directed at other species, shall be resolved by involving the
appropriate sport and commercial representatives in a dispute resolution process
managed by Department staff.
Incidental Mortalities
• The Department will manage fisheries to minimize mortalities on non-target species
(e.g. rockfish, sea birds, etc.). Management regimes will include strategies to limit
seabird mortalities consistent with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Communications
• The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements for effective public
involvement during the North of Falcon planning process and annual salmon fishery
implementation, incorporating the following intents:
– include North of Falcon participants as observers during appropriate state/tribal
discussions of fishery issues.
– maintain a record of all decisions made during the North of Falcon process.
– use a variety of tools to effectively communicate with the public, receiving input on
pre-season planning or in-season fishery issues, and making available the record of
decisions; such tools will include use of recreational and commercial advisory groups,
public workshops addressing key issues, the WDFW North of Falcon Web site, and inseason
tele-conferencing.
Other Species
• The Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policy on Lower Columbia Sturgeon Management
(POL-C3001) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River and
coastal sturgeon fisheries and related incidental impacts. Management of Willapa Bay
sturgeon fisheries will be further guided by Willapa Bay Framework management
objectives.
Delegation of Authority
The Fish and Wildlife Commission delegates the authority to the Director to make harvest
agreements with Northwest treaty tribes and other governmental agencies, and adopt permanent
and emergency regulations resulting from the agreements made during the annual North of
Falcon process.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/13 12:35 PM

Double up post but it is rather important for everyone one to know that the draft for the Policy Guidelines for the GH Management Plan is out at least partway to the Advisers. So if you want it real soon rather than wait for it to get up on FTC website or WDF&W's PM me your E mail address and I will send it to you. Oh almost forgot 4 / 3 commercial days ( three net free days a week ) appears to be in it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/13 01:06 PM

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/12/agenda_dec0613.html

OK now it is up on WDF&W's website in the commission agenda for the Dec 7 meeting. A summary and the draft Policy Guidelines so take a look.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/13 01:04 PM

So how did the December Commission meeting go? It was interesting to say the least with cause for optimism that change may be coming and yet the huge potential for more of the same. The potential exist for the many options could be cobbled together in a manner that is smoke and mirrors. The Power Point presentation utilized is not up on WDF&W's website yet but as soon as it is someone will post a link I am sure.

So now what? Well everyone should direct there comments directly to the Commission and here is the address. commission@dfw.wa.gov Below are my comments to the commissioners on two issues that I feel strongly about. It is your right so if your involved or following this process be involved and get your views to the Commission.



Commissioners,

Attached are the issues I intended to testify on at Saturdays Commission meeting but a printer failure left me with only two copies so I have attached comments to this E mail. I apologize for my failure to submit the issues correctly and I will attempt to make sure that does not happen again. In addition two issues really stood out as being misrepresented at the 12/07/13 Commission meeting.

1. The issue of the Quinault Indian Nation ( QIN ) being responsible for the failure to make escapement really stands out. While I disagree with the manner that the QIN is setting it’s seasons on the fall Salmon harvest, they are within the boundaries of the court mandated fisheries. They are allowed up to 50% of the harvestable Salmon that cross the bar and within in that narrow guideline the QIN is not violating the court mandates. It was WDF&W in recent years that implemented the separation of the Humptulips and Chehalis Basins ( a action that I support ) and to the best of my knowledge the QIN did not sign on to or recognize it as altering their court mandated harvest methods.

In April 2013 Region 6 ( R6 ) District 17 ( D17 ) staff had the QIN proposed seasons and when the State’s fisheries were modeled with the QIN they went well into escapement. D17 refused to provide to the public the seasons fully modeled but when we finally got the QIN seasons modeled with the States season it showed a rather large deficit on the Chehalis side Chinook but a rather large number of Humptulips Chinook available for harvest but not utilized. So did Region 6 District 17 staff have options this past year? Yes they most certainly did. By moving Non Treaty Commercials to the Humptulips in the timing normally utilized the QIN impacts could have been substantially offset. Rather than take that approach R17 instead attempted to stack the Non Treaty nets right on top of the QIN Chehalis effort. Commissioners there was no way no how the combined state and QIN fisheries allowed for Chehalis Chinook in the model to make escapement but rather than alter their approach R6 D17 staff simply went forward and claimed they did not have agreement. Since then D6 R17 have steadfastly refused to make public what / when / why they did not have agreement with the QIN.

Having broodstocked with QIN fishers and as the project manager for the Chehalis Tribal fishers in the Chehalis Chinook Broodstocking effort some years back I came to understand and appreciate how deep the distrust of WDF&W was and frankly in recent years it has become much worse. So who is at fault? Both! The litany of disrespect both parties have shown each other has reached a point that most of us involved in advocacy in the Chehalis Basin find well past being even close to acceptable. Commissioners to be blunt the Commission needs to put an end to this conduct, at least on WDF&W’s side, then hopefully the QIN will follow. In conversations with retired agency staff one individual described current R6 D17efforts to work with the QIN on fisheries issues as similar to a fireman “ trying to put out a house fire with a flame thrower”.

2. The second issue is when Director Anderson discussed directed fisheries vs incidental. Frankly Commissioners this issue is one of the most misrepresented, distorted, abused practice I have ever seen in fisheries management by both the QIN and WDF&W. On the States side 2012 is a great example of complete and total disregard for honesty by D17 staff. Through the entire APA process & North of Falcon no Chum retention was put forth by the D17 staff but when the WAC came out Chum retention for the final day of the NT Nets season. I immediately contacted R17 staff and was told that the retention was allowed as the 5% escapement impact had yet to be reached for Chum and they were incidentally caught in a directed Coho harvest. This resulted in far more incidental Chum being harvested than targeted Coho for that set and harvesting into the Chum escapement. Try as we can myself and others struggle to understand the violation of the APA process front to back coupled with the utilization of the terms directed and incidental to continually violate the intent & goals of the current Grays Harbor Management Plan. Frankly many see this manipulation continuing in the revamped GH Management Plan without Commission intervention establishing solid definitions & guidelines on terminologies and methodologies.

On the QIN’s side a example is in December QIN begins what is commonly known as their early Steelhead fishery. Again the QIN has court mandated rights and in the 70’s & 80’s the former Department of Game utilized plants of December returning Chambers Creek lineage Steelhead to reduce harvest on the Native Wild Steelhead. Right / wrong / whatever the unintended consequences was that the QIN fishers harvested substantial numbers of Late Native Coho stocks as incidental catch. Fast forward to the present and the December returning Steelhead plants are gone, Late Coho stocks are in trouble and declining in number, and QIN fishers still maintain the December / January Steelhead fishery. This fishery is targeting planted a Steelhead stock that is no longer planted and few natural origin Steelhead returning adults exist but continues the practice of harvesting a Late Native Coho run that is in decline as incidental catch in a Steelhead fishery not modeled in the Salmon fisheries model.

Commissioners I truly appreciate your efforts to address the Grays Harbor issues but this abuse of the terms directed and incidental harvest must be addressed. This issue is particularly difficult as the WDF&W Region 6 District 17 staff, past & present, are every bit as guilty of manipulation for expanded commercial catch / sales as the QIN! Again it is my view that the Commission and the Commission alone can require WDF&W staff to reform this practice as I can guarantee that present WDF&W staff or the QIN can or will not address the issue without direct Commission input.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/13 04:35 PM

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/12/agenda_dec0613.html

The link is to the WDF&W website page for the GH Management Plan redo. The Power Point presentation is at the 9:00 AM point Saturday in the meeting to view. You will find the economic statement rather revealing.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/13 06:32 PM

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/12/dec0613_14_policy_proposal.pdf

Draft policy for Grays Harbor salmon management.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/10/13 12:00 PM

The link is to a review of the policy guidelines by the East County guys. I would C&P it in but maintaining the cross out formatting makes that bit out, so you will have to do the link bit then open up Commission Policy Edits. Lot of conversation on the fuzzing up of the language so it is a interesting read.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0...aDJvWjFiaUVoNGc
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/13/13 06:14 PM

Having my e mail go up in flames with questions concerning the GH Management process that I simply could not give a definitive answer to I asked the question of WDF&W staff:

About the GHMP redo schedule. Several folks have asked me a question I do not have the answer to so………….. The January Commission meeting is to do what? The Commission moved the so called policy sideboards to public comment for 30 days so is the January meeting going to be where you present the completed GHMC draft redo? The Commission meeting February is to adopt the completed redo of GHMP or just the policy guidelines? Just what exactly is the timeline & schedule and just what is the document that the public will to see? The completed GHMP or policy guidelines to review and comment on?


Which resulted in this response:

I can not always predict what will happen at a Commission meeting, but here is my sense of what is likely to happen at the January FWC meeting:

1) Staff will summarize comments on the draft policy that were received at the December Commission meeting and during the 30-day public comment period.
2) The public will have the opportunity to provide comments on the draft policy.
3) Staff will propose enhancements to the draft policy to address the public comments that were received during the December Commission meeting or in the 30-day public comment period.
4) Commissioners will propose enhancements to the draft policy to address public comments received up to that time.
5) The Commission will agree upon any enhancements or options they would like included in the draft Policy.
6) If there are substantive changes or options identified for consideration, the Commission may request that the Policy be put out for a second 30-day public comment period.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/13 04:07 PM


The question of how Mr. Anderson got his authority to unilaterally change seasons or add them is in the paragraph below.

Delegation of Authority
The Commission delegates the authority to the Director, through the North of Falcon
stakeholder consultation process, to set seasons for recreational and WDFW-managed
commercial fisheries in Grays Harbor, to adopt permanent and emergency regulations
to implement these fisheries, and to make harvest agreements with treaty tribes and
other government agencies.


Now just how & what Mr. Anderson is expected to do is in the performance agreement below.


WASHING TON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Fish and Wildlife Commission and
Director Philip Anderson
Performance Agreement - July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014

The Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) and Director Philip M. Anderson (Director), agree to work together and respect their unique roles and responsibilities. The Executive Performance Elements (Attachment A) will be the primary tool used to evaluate the Director's key competencies.

The Priority Actions (Attachment B) represent the key indicators of the Director's performance that reflect the Commission's general expectations. The priorities listed therein are selected from the draft 2013-15 Strategic Plan. These actions are identified as the Commission's highest level performance outcomes and will be reflected, as appropriate down through the Departments accountability system (e.g., program operational plans and individual staff evaluations).

The Commission and the Director agree to review and update the list of Priority Actions as the need arises in response to budget reductions or significant changes in management direction.

Part I: Roles and Responsibilities
It is recognized that together the Commission and the Director comprise the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Commission is responsible for the policy governance of the Department within the parameters established by the State Legislature and serves as the public trustee of the state's fish and wildlife resources.

The Director is supervised by the Commission and is responsibl e for hiring agency staff and managing the Department in a manner that is consistent with statutory requirements established by the State Legislature, state and federal law, and with the policies adopted by the Fish and Wild life Commission.

The Commission will act as a body, speaking with a unified voice and acknowledges that the strength of the body is derived from the diversity of viewpoints brought together through its decision-making process. The Chair of the Commission is responsible for ensuring that the Commission accomplishes its responsibilities.

Commission committees will be used primarily to gather, discuss, and analyze information relative to policy issues or rules that are anticipated to come before the full Commission. Committees are intended to function as a forum that allows for more informal discussions between commissioners and/or with staff. The Director will be copied on E-mail communications between committee chairs and the committee's lead staff support person. Infmmation and data requests made by a committee that requires a significant staff workload will be presented as part of the committee's report to the full Commission and considered through the Commission's "Blue Sheet" process. Committees do not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Commission.




Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
Director's Performance Agreement Page I

Commission 's "Blue Sheet" process. Committees do not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Commission.
The Commission and the Director agree to be mutually supportive, maintain a positive working relationship, and conduct their relationship based on mutual respect while acting in a manner that is consistent with the following principles:

• The Commission and Director will work together as a team in fulfilling the Department's responsibilities of preserving and •protecting the state's fish and wildlife resources and providing fish and wildlife related activities for the citizens of Washington.
• The Commission and the Director commit to maintaining a strong working relationship founded in open and candid communication.
• The Commission will focus its attention on policy matters and setting clear performance outcomes for the Director, leaving the Director sufficient flexibility to be agile and utilize his creativity in adapting to changing circumstances.
• Individual Commissioners will communicate their concerns relative to policy matters with the Director 's Office . Ifdirect communication by a commissioner with staff a member regarding substantive issues is needed such communication will be coordinated with the Director 's Office.

Part II: Communication Actions and Strategies
• The Director's Office will provide a report at each regular Commission meeting that • includes updates on current events and emerging issues, and budget and administrative matters .
• The Director's Office will provide the Commission with periodic progress reports on the items contained in the Priority Actions listed in Attachment B.
• The Director and the Chair of the Commission will communicate regularly to ensure that the Commission and the Director's Office actions and activities are supportive of each other and aligned with Commission policy direction and the success of the Department.

Part III: Performance Evaluation Process
• The Commission will conduct an evaluation of the Director's performance of his responsibilities during an executive session of the full Commission.
• The Director's evaluation will be based on the Executive Performance Elements contained in Attachment A and the Priority Actions contained in Attachment B.





Date Dat(r 7


Washin gton Fish and Wildlife Commission
Director's Performan ce Agreement Page 2


Executive Conduct

Overall Conduct
The Director must assure that no organizational practices, activities, decisions, or circumstances are allowed that are unlawful, imprudent, or in violation of commonly accepted business and professional ethics and practices.

Work Ethic
The Director must act as a role model for staff. The Director is expected to be personally accountable for the accomplishments and shortcomings of the agency. The Director is expected to assume di rect responsibility for all aspects of agency leadership.

Strategic and Visionary Leadership
The Director must demonstrate strategic and visionary leadership. The Director is expected to assess and decide the best way to achieve substantial cost savings, while preserving critical functions and increasing agency efficiency. He must lay the foundation for a stronger and more effective and respected agency, by directing the strategic elimination oflower priority activities and the consolidation of effort and energy in higher priority programs.

Problem Solving
The Director should make progress in resolving longstanding problems. The Director is expected to be energetic and creative in looking for innovative means to address priority issues and conflicts among constituent groups. He must actively seek out new ideas and methods that may be brought to bear to advance the agency's mission.

Conservation Ethic
The Director must be motivated by a strong conserYation ethic: a determination to place the highest priori ty on the long-term interests of the resources and their habitat. The interests of the public and specific user-groups are important , but they cannot supersede the welfare of the fish and wildlife populations we are charged with managing. The Director must establish a record of makin g decisions that will lead to the recover y of depleted resources.

Performance and Accountability
The Director must keep the workforce motivated to pursue excellence. The Director is expected to set high standards for performance and foster a climate in which all employees strive to meet those standards. He is also expected to see that supervisors provide regular positive reinforcement to recognize excellence. He must demonstrate expertise in management techniques that effectively hold employees accountable.

Resource Management Expertise

Scientific Rigor
The Director must work closely with the scientific community in building a defensible scientific basis for resource management. He is expected to have a working understanding of scientific analyses and quantitative methods used to study fish and wildlife population dynamics as well as the health and productivity of habitats.



Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
Director's Performance Agreement Attachment Page I


Integrated Resource Management
The most effective approach to species management considers the full range of factors affecting ecosystem services including predator-prey dynamics, habitat conditions, and socio-economic values. The Director should pursue this approach to maximize effectiveness of service delivery.

Enhance Recreational Opportunities
Within the capability of the land and other resources , enhancement of wildlife related recreational opportunities is among the highest priorities for the agency. A dedicated effort should be made to explore options for enhancing and expanding recreational opportunities.

Maintain the Stability and Economic Well Being of the Commercial Fishing Industry
A dedicated effort should be made to assess, monitor , and enhance the stability and economic well being of the commercial fishing industry.

Collaboration and Communication Competencies

Strengthen and Modernize Communications
Agency communications are a "mission-critical" function that must keep pace with contemporary times. Implementation of a clearly articulated agency communication strategy is a high priority.

Enhance Tribal Relationships
Washington is home to Indian Tribes that in many cases have overlapping authorities and jurisdictions relative to the management of fish and wildlife resources. The Director is expected to maintain and enhance the Department' s working relationships with the tribes and seek to manage resources consistent with joint management plans where appropriate.

Working with Stakeholders
The Director is expected to have a personal manner that works well with constituents from all backgrounds. He must approach his authorities and responsibilities with humility and open­ mindedness. He is expected to display an attitude that inspires others to join in collaborative processes, because they are confident of being treated fairly. He is expected to maintain a profe ssional demeanor.

Expand Opportunities with Environmental and Non-Traditional Constituents
Recreationists who do not hunt or fish, but appreciate wildlife, are important constituents for the agency. Surveys have shown that these "non-traditional" stakeholders represent a significant portion of the public in Washington State. Ways to establish new relationships with these constituents and enlist their support should be found.


Washington Fish and Wildl ife Commission
Director's Performance Agreement Attachm ent Page 2

Goal 1: Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife
Aqencv Strategy Deliverable for 2013-15 Program Implement Wolf Conservation and 1. Attempt to radio-mark at least one wolf from each confirmed wolf pack. Wildlife Management Plan to recover wolves while 2. Provide technical assistance and pursue cost-share agreements with livestock Wildlife addressing wolf-livestock and wolf - operators to avoid and minimize wolf -livestock conflicts.
ungulate conflicts. 3. Monitor ungulate populations to determine potential wolf impacts. Wildlife Implement actions to reduce risks to 4. Complete planned hatchery repairs and improvements to enhance fish production. CAMP native salmon and steelhead from 5. Implement improved broodstock management for hatchery programs consistent Fish operating hatcheries. with the goal of achieving the HSRG broodstock standards for all hatchery
programs by 2015.
6. Evaluate alternative hatchery production options to provide increased fishing Fish opportunities for recreational and commercial fishers.
Improve effectiveness of HPA Program to 7. Approved culvert water crossing and marine bank protection hydraulic projects Habitat protect fish life. show compliance and effectiveness.
Ensure impacts to native fish from 8. Provide a report on at-risk stocks of wild steelhead , limiting factors, recommended Fish fisheries are consistent with conservation management actions, and implementation of the Statewide Steelhead
goals. Management Plan.
9. Evaluate alternative approaches and develop an improved approach for the Fish management of Puget Sound Chinook under the Endangered Species Act.
10. Complete by December 1, 2013 annual fishery management plans for coastal Fish steelhead that meet conservation and catch-sharing objectives.
11. Enhance the effectivenes s of Zone 6 commerci al fisheries rules by working with the Enforcement tribes and ODFW to implement concurrent regulations for the Zone 6 fishery. and Fish
12. Develop with the Quinault Tribe a consistent fishery management approach for Fish Grays Harbor Chinook and coho salmon.
Increase WDFW leadership and 13. Lead monitoring efforts and secure BPA funding to conduct restoration activities Habitat participation in conducting restoration on DFW lands and to coordinate restoration and monitoring throughout the basin.
activities in the Columbia Basin.
Correct fish passage barriers on county 14.Identify and prioritize county and city owned fish passage barriers for correction. Habitat and city lands and implement provisions Implement monitoring of all road crossings on WDFW lands to ensure continued
from U.S. v. Washington case. compliance with the court injunction.
Establish PHS as the agency's primary tool 15. Update PHS data and management recommendations. Develop cross program Habitat that identifies habitats and species to process to prioritize habitats and species in PHS.
protect.


Goal 1: Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife (continued)
Agency Strateqy Deliverable for 2013-15 Program
Establish desired ecological conditions on WDFW Wildlife Area s and evaluate their status using ecological integrity
assessments . 16.Implement pilot program to use citizen science volunteers to conduct ecological monitoring at four wildlife areas. Wildlife
Prepare for future conditions that will
result from climate change. 17.Adaptation strategies to climate change are developed for the future sustainabili ty
of Washington 's priority habitats and species. Habitat
Enhance laws and regulations to improve the implementation of aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention sta ndards to
prevent the spread of AIS in Washington. 18. Prepare a legislative package for the 2014 session that will improve enforceability of AIS laws and rules, reduce risks of AIS, and provide for enhanced penalties and fees. Fish and Enforcement

Goal 2: Provide sustainable fishina. huntinQ, and other wildlife-related recreational and commercial experiences
Aqency Strateqy Deliverable for 2013-15 Program
Advance implementation of mark selective fisheries through focusing on alternative commercial fishing gear in the Lower Columbia River. 19. Create an industry advisory board and complete other steps necessary to implement an ex perimental fishery with alternative mark-selective commerci al fishing gear.
20. Test and report on the effectiveness of alternative commercial fishing gear and recommend release mortality rates to use in fishery management. Fish



Fish
Find innovative ways to improve access to public and private lands to enjoy fishing, hunting and other outdoor recreational opportunities. 21. Promote recreational opportunities on WDFW lands based on the Wildlife Program's "recreation identity" initiative.
22. Expand publicity about Puget Sound diving opportunities.
23. Work with Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA) to promote non-consumptive recreation opportunities in WTA's Experience Washington promotions.
24. Complete the Hunt by Reservation System by the fall 2013 hunting seasons .
25. Complete access area projects funded by the Legislature in the capital budget.
26. Provide ADA accessible facilities where appropriate. PA & CR
and Wildlife PA & CR
PA & CR


Wildlife CAMP
Wildlife
Prevent the illegal taking and trafficking of fish and wildlife species. 27. Develop,with other state agencies and the tribes, a strategy to improve the effectiveness of catch accounting in tribal and state managed fisher ies that includes a scoping assessment of the need, feasibility, and cost to implement an electron ic fish ticket system for all commercial fisheries and an electronic, certification tagging system for tracking shellfish. Enforcement and Fish
Improve methodology of estimating status of fish and wildlife populations and harvest modeling. 28. Complete fieldwork and initiate analysis to estimate the abundance of PS rockfish.
29. Develop an improved moose population estimate. Fish


Wildlife


Goal3: Promote a healthy economy, protect community character, maintain an overall high quality of life, and deliver high-quality customer service.
Agency Strategy Deliverable for 2013 -15 Program
Increase recruitment and retention of customers by improving the marketing of fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching
opportunities. 30. Establish a WDFW marketing team to work with the Director to establish agency- wide priorities and adopt strategies and performance measures. PA & CR
Timely and effective measures are
provided in response to wildlife-related conflicts. 31. Transition certain problem wildlife responsibilities from Enforcement to Wildlife Prograrri in FY14. Wildlife
Increase WDFW outreach to key stakeholders and the public to improve citizen engagement and participation in the Department's decision-making processes. 32. Improve the effectiveness and transparency of the North of Falcon process by providing a web page for public comment and the posting of fishery performance information (including treaty-non-treaty sharing of impacts).
33. Engage stakeholders and the public in the development and completion of an enhanced Grays Harbor sal mon and sturgeon management framework.
34. Conduct targeted outreach to recreational organizations rega rding the results of
HPA and fish passage proqram improvements. Fish and PA & CR

Fish



Habitat
Promote the value and economic benefits of WDFW -managed programs by expanding communication with local community and business leaders. 35. Develop new and enhanced partnerships with recreation advocates and business associations to promote the economic, environmental and community benefits of WDFW programs.
36. Meet with local and regional economic development councils,tourism bureaus and chambers of commerce to share information and identify opportunities for collaboration.
37. Publicize the economic and job impacts of WDFW outsou rcing of construction work
to local contractors around the state. PA & CR



PA & CR



PA & CR
Goal 4: BuHd an effective and efficient organization by supporting our workforce,. improving business processes, and investing in technolOQv.
Agency Strategy Deliverable for 2013-15
Increase workforce satisfaction and productivity by investing in a comprehensive agency training program and career development process. 38. Develop a Department training and career development program that improves employee knowledge,skills,and abilities and supports succession within the Department. All Programs
Improve agency processes by creating a Lean culture. 39. Develop a long-range plan to create a culture of continuous improvement (Lean) within the Department and implement priority process improvement projects during the biennium. Lean Office
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/27/13 05:08 PM


It is good to see more and more folks pushing for change. Atta boy for Duane & Joe for the effort to get more folks involved.




Anglers protest Grays Harbor gill netting


December 26, 2013

KXRO Newsradio



Anglers are asking the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission to ban commercial gill netting in Grays Harbor and are trying to get at least 300 people to the January 11 commission meeting in Olympia.

“Failure to meet escapement needs, 7 or 8 out of the 12 past years on different rivers in the basin . . . Not acceptable!” said Duane Inglin, one of the event’s organizers. “It’s also not in line with what the commission recognizes as a successful management strategy.”

Their plan is to “Let the commission know that it is no longer acceptable for WDFW to spend 250,000.00 to 300,000.00 per year on over-seeing a commercial fishery for 20 to 30 commercial fishermen. Spend that money on hatchery production and reform. Boost the numbers in the basin, providing more opportunity for the thousands of sports fishers who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, in that region. “

According to organizers, the January 11th meeting will be the last time to speak in front of the commission prior to their February 14th vote on the Grays Harbor Management Plan.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/28/13 03:39 PM

It’s probably buried in this thread somewhere, but why does the tribes get 50% and another 8%?

How is that consistent with the Boldt decision?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/28/13 05:06 PM

50% treaty share. 50% NON-treaty share.

The 8% is allocated to the Chehalis tribe for a third of the salmon production above Oakville.

FYI they are NOT a treaty tribe. Their allocation comes out of the NON-treaty half.
Posted by: yummysalmon

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/13 10:13 PM

Hi I am a bit new here. I was just wanting to share my book with everyone. It is FREE on Amazon right now and it is about How to Smoke Salmon. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00H7JHQGI. I also made the movie Smokin' Fish that is on PBS right now. Please enjoy and let me know if there is somewhere else I should post this. Thanks. Cory Mann
Posted by: geljockey

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/30/13 02:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Just found out Ron Warren is going to Oly as an Deputy Assistant Director for Intergovernmental Salmon Management. More to come.


Steve Thiesfeld is the new Region 6 Fish Program manager. He starts on January 1. He was the Puget Sound Salmon manager.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/30/13 02:45 PM

Welcome to the fray, Steve!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/30/13 03:28 PM

mmmmmmm, Steve Thiesfeld.......interesting move on WDFW's part.....I didn't like the options,of personnel, within R6. Guess we'll see which way the wind blows.....very soon.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/30/13 04:46 PM


Anyone know Steve and how he did in his other positions?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/30/13 04:55 PM

Good guy….
Posted by: Jerry Garcia

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/30/13 05:38 PM

I have liked Steve in the small part of NOF that I have been a part of.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/30/13 06:22 PM

Steve could be a good fit.

Now, who is his replacement in PS.

Phone calls to the Dept. without answers to the question.
Posted by: geljockey

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/13 10:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
Steve could be a good fit.

Now, who is his replacement in PS.

Phone calls to the Dept. without answers to the question.


That's because there isn't one. The agency hasn't even announced the job opening.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/13 02:37 PM

Well here is Steve's background courtesy Steve.

Finally, I know folks are curious about my background, so here’s some information that might be helpful:
I grew up in Yakima and spent all of my formative years there. I have Bachelor’s and Master’s in Fisheries from the University of Washington and proudly wear a lot of purple! &#61514;. My first job was in central Oregon for ODFW where I worked for 10 years. I was the assistant district fish biologist in Prineville and then conducted research on kokanee in Lake Billy Chinook. I came back to Washington in 1999 as an Area Habitat Biologist in Port Orchard processing HPAs for marine projects. I then transferred to the fish program and conducted research on bull trout in the White Salmon and Klickitat river basins. In 2002, I waded into the world of salmon management as the Puget Sound Recreational Salmon Fishery Manager. In 2008, commercial management was added to my duties as the Puget Sound Salmon Manager. In addition to managing the Puget Sound commercial and recreational fisheries, I also administer the Puget Sound Recreational Fisheries Enhancement Fund that provides funding for a number of hatchery programs; and I’ve served as both the state technical representative and alternate panel member on the Fraser River Panel. I am an avid outdoorsman and spend most of my free time fishing for steelhead, salmon and halibut; or hunting deer and elk.

I wish you and your families a healthy and happy New Year!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/13 02:52 PM

There ya go!

OMFG! A fish manager with boots-on-the-ground / rod-on-the-water passion for ….. drum roll please…….

FISH!

Happy New Year, Grays Harbor!

Welcome aboard, Steve!
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/13 03:24 PM

Took the words right out of my mouth.

A manager who actually fishes. A lot. thumbs

Certainly a step in the right direction.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/13 03:48 PM

Originally Posted By: geljockey
Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie


Now, who is his replacement in PS.

Phone calls to the Dept. without answers to the question.


That's because there isn't one. The agency hasn't even announced the job opening.
Hard to fathom losing Thiesfeld and Patillo in one fell swoop.

WOW…. that's a gaping canyon of a hole to fill in PS.
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/02/14 01:40 AM

I've known and worked with Steve for a number of years on the PSRFEOC. We will miss him there, but I think he'll do well in Region 6.
Posted by: N W Panhandler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/02/14 02:27 PM

We will most likely miss him in Puget Sound but he has set the agenda well for his replacement, so we at least have a good starting point for his replacement. He will be good for grays harbor.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/02/14 04:56 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
There ya go!

OMFG! A fish manager with boots-on-the-ground / rod-on-the-water passion for ….. drum roll please…….

FISH!

Happy New Year, Grays Harbor!

Welcome aboard, Steve!


+1
Posted by: the machinist

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/04/14 10:00 PM

His first order of business seems to be contacting each of us WDFW advisors in the area & wanting a personal meeting with each to get to know us & where/how we fish the area.

I told him to bring a large notebook as I have a wish list & a gripe list, his comment was "fine, we can get to that later, I but the first order of business is to get to know you all first".

As Dave said, I have known him for years through the NOF process of Puget Sound. Your first impression of him is just a country boy, don't let that fool you. I believe at least he will not lie to us.

And yes he fishes.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/14 02:17 PM

Bit of C&P here but I thought this legal opinion from the AG interesting. I high lighted a couple of key things but look the the legal definition of HOW the WDF&W managed sport fisheries at that time and not much has changed.

1970
Honorable Duane L. Berentson
State Representative, 40th District
P. O. Box 426
Burlington, Washington 98233
Cite as: AGO 1970 No. 15
Dear Sir:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the opinion of this office on a question which
we paraphrase as follows:
May the director of fisheries lawfully close a given area to commercial fishing without also closing it to
sports fishing?
We answer your question in the affirmative subject to the qualification set forth in our analysis below
.
ANALYSIS
The regulatory powers of the director of fisheries are set forth in RCW 75.08.080, as follows:
"The director shall investigate the habits, supply and economic use of, and classify, the food fish and
shellfish in the waters of the state and the offshore waters, and [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] from time to time, make,
adopt, amend, and promulgate rules and regulations as follows:
"(1) Specifying the times when the taking of any or all the various classes of food fish and shellfish is
lawful or prohibited.
"(2) Specifying and defining the areas, places and waters in which the taking and possession of the
various classes of food fish and shellfish is lawful or prohibited.
"(3) Specifying and defining the types and sizes of gear, appliances, or other means that may be lawfully
used in taking the various classes of food fish and shellfish, and specifying the times, places, and manner in
which it shall be lawful to possess or use the same.
"(4) Regulating the possession, disposal, and sale of food fish and shellfish within the state, whether
acquired within or without the state, and specifying the times when the possession, disposal, or sale of the
various species of food fish or shellfish is prohibited.
"(5) Regulating the prevention and suppression of all infectious, contagious, dangerous, and
communicable diseases and pests affecting food fish and shellfish.
"(6) The fixing of the size, sex, numbers, and amounts of the various classes of food fish and shellfish
that may be taken, possessed, sold, or disposed of.
"(7) Regulating the landing of the various classes of food fish and shellfish or parts thereof within the
state.
"(8) Regulating the destruction of predatory seals and sea lions and other predators destructive of food
fish or shellfish, and specifying the proof of the destruction of the same that shall be required.
[[Orig. Op. Page 3]]
"(9) Specifying the statistical and biological reports that shall be required from licensed or nonlicensed
fishermen, dealers, boathouses, handlers, or processors of food fish and shellfish.
"(10) Specifying which species of marine and freshwater life are food fish and shellfish.
"(11) Classifying the species of food fish and shellfish or parts thereof that may be used for purposes
other than human consumption.
"(12) Promulgating such other rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
this title and the purposes and duties of the department.
"Subdivisions (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7), shall not apply to licensed oyster farms or oysters produced
thereon."
By its enactment of subsections (1)-(4), (6), (9) and (12) of this statute, the legislature has clearly
granted to the director the authority, in regulating the taking of food fish and shellfish, to specify seasons, areas,
gear, maximum catch and possession limits and allowable sales and disposition of catch, and to require certain
statistical reports for various segments of the state fishery. However, sound management of the total fishery
resource has necessitated the enactment of different regulations for sports fishing (angling) than for commercial
fishing.
Basically, the sports fisheries are managed so as to allow large numbers of fishermen each to take a
limited number of fish. Lawful gear for angling is defined in RCW 75.04.100 as one pole, held in hand, to
which not more than two single hooks may be attached. Under WAC 220-56-063 and 220-56-066, most rivers,
streams and ocean areas are open to angling. Spawning areas and areas below dams and racks are closed to
angling, and other areas can and have been closed when such closures were necessary for proper
escapement. Possession and bag limits for angling vary for different areas. For the coastal fishery the limit is
three salmon of not less than 20 inches in length, as provided for in WAC 220-56-013. No license is required
for angling, but [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] sports catches must be recorded upon salmon punch cards which are
returned to the department of fisheries. See, WAC 220-56-023. Fish taken by angling are for personal use only
and may not be sold commercially.
On the other hand, the commercial fisheries are managed to allow for proper escapement and maximum
commercial take. The legislature has established license requirements for all segments of the commercial
fishery, and has defined lawful gear under the various licenses. See, chapter 75.28 RCW. Areas open to
commercial fishing are set by statute (chapter 75.18 RCW) and permanent regulations (WAC 220-47-010
through 220-47-070) promulgated thereunder. Data for the commercial fisheries is collected continuously by
the department of fisheries, and additional closures and regulations are frequently made by emergency
regulation to preserve necessary escapement as mandated by fishery data and recommendations of the
international salmon fishery commission.
The Washington supreme court has consistently upheld the authority of the director of fisheries to
prohibit the use of certain specified gear in a given area while leaving the same area open for the use of other
gear. Thus, inBarker v. State Fish Commission, 88 Wash. 73, 152 Pac. 537 (1915), the court upheld a
regulation which effectively closed Puget Sound to gill net fishing while leaving the Sound open to purse seine
net fishing. And inVail v. Seaborg, 120 Wash. 126, 207 Pac. 15 (1922), the court upheld a regulation which
closed Puget Sound to commercial gear while leaving it open to hook and line fishing. Subsequently,
inMcMillan v. Sims, 132 Wash. 265, 231 Pac. 943 (1925), the court upheld a regulation closing Skagit Bay to
commercial fishing while allowing the area to remain open to hook and line fishing.
The court has specifically rejected the contention that opening specified areas only to certain gear or
types of fishing violates the equal protection and the privilege and immunity clauses of the federal and state
Constitutions, respectively.1/ See,State v. Tice, 69 Wash. 403, 125 Pac. 168 (1912); Barker v. State Fish
Commission, supra; and Frach v. Schoettler, 46 Wn.2d 281, 280 P.2d 1038 (1955). In theBarker case, in
denying the allegations that a [[Orig. Op. Page 5]] prohibition against gill nets was discriminatory, the court
stated at pp. 76-77:
"It seems plain to us that this is not a discrimination between, or a classification of, persons; but only a
discrimination as to appliances which may be used; and that as to each class of such appliances, every person
may use them under exactly the same conditions and restrictions. There is no suggestion in the law that gill
nets may not be used as the law prescribes by all persons, or that purse and drag seines may not be used as the
law prescribes by all persons. There is plainly no discrimination touching any characteristic or quality attaching
to the person of appellants or any other person.
"It has become the settled law of this state, in harmony with the rule prevailing in other states, that the
classification of territory in game and fish laws preventing hunting or fishing in a portion of the state and
permitting it elsewhere in the state is not a discrimination between, or a classification of, persons in violation of
the state or Federal constitutional guaranties here invoked. Hayes v. Territory, 2 Wash. Terr. 286, 5 Pac. 927;
State v. Tice, 69 Wash. 403, 125 Pac. 168, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 469;Cawsey v. Brickey, 82 Wash. 653, 144 Pac.
938. Among the numerous decisions of other states so holding we note: Portland Fish Co. v. Benson, 56 Ore.
147, 108 Pac. 122; Bittenhaus v. Johnston, 92 Wis. 588, 66 N.W. 805, 32 L.R.A. 380.
"Classification of methods of taking fish, making certain methods lawful and other methods unlawful,
has been held not to discriminate between persons in violation of any constitutional right. State v. Lewis, 134
Ind. 250, 33 N.E. 1024, 20 L.R.A. 52; State v. Mrozinski, 59 Minn. 465, 61 N.W. 560, 27 L.R.A. 76."
The conclusion to be drawn from these cases in terms of the question which you have posed, is that the
director of [[Orig. Op. Page 6]] fisheries has the authority to close a given area to commercial fishing without
also closing it to sports fishing where his action is taken for the purposes of conservation, protection and proper
management of the state's fisheries. Furthermore, we should add that we view this conclusion as being fully
consistent with that which was reached in AGO 59-60 No. 127, which you have referred to in your request. In
that 1959 opinion to a previous director of fisheries, we advised that the director could not close an area to
commercial fishing for the sole purpose of establishing an area for sports fishing pointing out there, as we have
here, that the underlying requirement which the director must meet in promulgating regulations is that his
action must be reasonable in terms of his responsibility for the management and conservation of the fishery
resource. The problem, in the case considered in this prior opinion, was that no conservation or management
goals were involved; instead, the proposed closure would have been made to keep commercial boats out of a
given area solely for the purpose of promoting sports fishing in that area, and thus (we concluded) would have
been arbitrary and capricious.
We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
SLADE GORTON
Attorney General
WILLIAM LEMKE
Assistant Attorney General
*** FOOTNOTES ***
1/United States Constitution, Amendment 14 and Washington Constitution, Article I, § 12.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/14 02:24 PM

More on the C&P bit but it is the fact that the AG said the NT buy back boats were a no go to use in Washington if sold to a tribal fisher as they are commercial. Kinda interesting how WDF&W staff forget things.

October 8, 1975
Honorable Donald W. Moos
Director, Department of Fisheries
Room 115, General Administration Building
Olympia, Washington
98504 Cite as: AGLO
1975 No. 87
Dear Sir:
This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question which
we paraphrase as follows:
If the department of fisheries purchases commercial fishing vessels under chapter
183, Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., may the department then sell those vessels to Indians
residing in this state for their use in commercial fishing activities in Washington waters?
We answer this question in the negative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.


ANALYSIS
Chapter 183, Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., which was passed by the legislature last
June, authorizes the state department of fisheries to purchase commercial fishing vessels and
appurtenant gear from the private owners thereof under certain specified
circumstances. See, § 4, which reads, in full, as follows:
"The department is authorized to purchase commercial fishing vessels and
appurtenant gear, and the appropriate current commercial fishing licenses and delivery
permits issued by the state of Washington if the vessel, licensee or permit holder:
"(1) Was licensed to fish or deliver fish during 1974 within the case area; and
"(2) Was substantially restricted in its fishing season in 1974 by the department as a
result of compliance with United States of America et al v. State of Washington et al., Civil
No. 9213, United States District Court for Western District of Washington,
February [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] 12, 1974.
"The department shall not purchase any vessel without also purchasing all
appropriate current Washington commercial fishing licenses and delivery permits issued to
such vessel or its owner: PROVIDED, That the department is authorized to purchase
current licenses and delivery permits in the absence of the purchase of a vessel."
The underlying basis for such purchases of commercial fishing vessels and gear is
spelled out in § 2 of the act as follows:
"The legislature finds that the protection, welfare, and economic well-being of the
commercial fishing industry is important to the people of this state. There presently exists
an overabundance of commercial fishing gear in our state waters which causes great
pressure on the fishing resources. This results in great economic waste to the state and
prohibits conservation and harvesting programs from achieving their goals. This adverse
sitation has been compounded by the recent federal court decision, United States of America
et al. v. State of Washington et al., Civil No. 9213, United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, February 12, 1974. As a result, large numbers of
commercial fishermen face personal economic hardship and the state commercial fishing
industry is confronted with economic difficulty. The public welfare requires that the state
have the authority to purchase commercial fishing vessels, licenses, gear, and permits
offered for sale, as appropriate, in a manner which will provide relief to the individual vessel
owner,and which will effect a reduction in the amount of commercial fishing gear in use in
the state so as to insure increased economic opportunity for those persons in the industry and
to insure that sound scientific conservation and harvesting programs can be carried out. It is
the intention of the legislature to provide relief to commercial fishermen adversely affected
by the current economic situation in the state fishery and to preserve this valuable state
industry and these natural resources." (Emphasis supplied.)
[[Orig. Op. Page 3]] Consistent with this declaration of policy to remove surplus
commercial fishing vessels and gear from use for that purpose, § 6 of the act, upon which
our answer to your question depends, then provides that:
"The department may arrange for the insurance and storage and for the resale or
other disposition of all vessels and gear purchased pursuant to this 1975 amendatory
act. Such vessels shall not be used by any owner or operator as a fishing vessel other than as
a vessel used for angling or other personal use in waters within the state of Washington, nor
shall such vessels be used by any owner or operator to deliver fish within the boundaries of
the state of Washington. The department shall require that the purchasers or other users of
vessels resold or otherwise disposed of by the department execute any and all suitable
instruments to insure compliance with the requirements of this section. The director may
commence suit or be sued on any such instrument in any state court of record or United
States district court having jurisdiction."
This section of the act, as you will readily note, expressly permits the department,
among other things, to ". . . arrange for the . . . resale . . . of all vessels and gear purchased
pursuant to . . ." the act. Any vessels so disposed of by the department, however, can only
be legally used by the purchasers thereof, within the waters of the state of Washington, for
". . . angling or other personal use. . ."; conversely, the vessels ". . . shall not be used by an
owner or operator as a fishing vessel . . . " other than in the foregoing manner.
Section 7 of the act then adds sanctions to this prohibition by providing for criminal
penalties as follows:
"Any person violating any of the provisions of this 1975 amendatory act, or of any of
the rules or regulations of the director made pursuant thereto, or who aids or abets or assists
in the violation thereof, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and upon a conviction
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than thirty days or more than one
year, or by a fine of not [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] less than twenty-five dollars or more than one
thousand dollars, or both. Upon conviction of any person of a violation of any provision of
this 1975 amendatory act, or rule or regulation of the director, the judge or justice of the
peace may, in addition to the penalty imposed by law, provide for the forfeiture of the vessel
and licenses and/or permits to the state of Washington."
Based upon the foregoing, it will be seen that while the department of fisheries may
sell any of the vessels in question to Indians residing in this state, they will be subject to the
same restrictions as apply to any other purchasers and thus will be barred from using the
vessels for fishing in any other manner than by what is referred to in § 6, supra, as
angling. In effect, all purchasers, be they Indian or non-Indian, will be barred from using
the vessels in Washington waters for the basic purchase for which they are designed - i.e.,
commercial fishing with normal commercial fishing gear. Thus, we answer your question,
as paraphrased, in the negative.
We trust that the foregoing will be of some assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
SLADE GORTON
Attorney General
EDWARD B. MACKIE
Deputy Attorney General
OFFICES AND OFFICERS - STATE - DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES - AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF
FISHERIES TO CLOSE AN AREA TO COMMERCIAL FISHING WITHOUT ALSO CLOSING TO
SPORTS FISHING
The director of fisheries may lawfully close a given area to commercial fishing without also closing it to sports
fishing where his action is taken for the purposes of conservation and for the protection and proper management
of the state's fisheries.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
June 25, 1970
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/09/14 04:35 PM

Hijacked and C&P this as Saturday is the day for everyone to let the commission know how they feel about the GHMP redo!


This Saturday at 9:00 am the Fisheries Commission will hear a report and take public input concerning the Grays Harbor Management Plan. Directions and the agenda are in the web site below (note that this is at the Comfort Inn and not WDFW):
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/01/agenda_jan1014.html

The Draft plan can be found at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/12/dec0613_14_policy_proposal.pdf

This is a good meeting to attend to show recreational support for the direction of fishing in Grays Harbor. At our meeting Tuesday night we discussed some potential issues that could be worth your effort to comment about. These were: 1)Accountability for meeting escapement, 2) Economic loss resulting from commercial fishing, 3) No need for three commercial fishing groups in Grays Harbor, and 4) Modeling efforts to harvest the last theoretical fish. There are many others, your input is important for the future direction of Grays Harbor fisheries.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/14 10:47 AM

A little reminder there is a Adviser meeting tonight folks at 6 PM Region 6 Office in Montesano on the GHMP redo. Now the public can not participate but there is 1 hour set aside at the end for public comment.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/14/14 03:14 PM

It is last call for the Grays Harbor Management Plan redo! The Commission added / made substantial changes to the draft plan presented by WDF&W and they should be up on the WDF&W website soon but the current draft is available at the link below. Otherwise guys the final public meeting to look & question the document is this coming Wednesday highlighted below.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/


January 13, 2014
Grays Harbor Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; WDFW’s Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
January 15, 2014
WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 6-8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano.
WDFW fishery managers briefed the Fish and Wildlife Commission on the development of the draft policy during the commission’s November meeting in Olympia.
WDFW will develop a range of policy options that will be discussed during the December commission meeting in Olympia. The commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the draft policy options during its January meeting in Olympia.
The commission is scheduled to make a final decision at its February meeting in Olympia.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/14 07:22 PM


GHMP & IT IS SHOW TIME!


OK guys here is the link for the GHMP draft redo for review. So take a look and let us see what everyone thinks.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/draft_grays_harbor_salmon_management_1-16-14.pdf

Here is the WDF&W e mail flyer:

Commission seeks comments on revised
draft policy for Grays Harbor fisheries
OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is seeking public comments on a revised draft policy to improve salmon management in Grays Harbor.
The revised draft policy includes new provisions recently proposed by the commission to conserve wild salmon runs, clarify catch allocation, and reduce conflicts between sport and commercial fishers in the harbor.
The commission, a citizen panel that sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), added the new provisions during a public meeting attended by more than 150 fishers Jan. 10-11 in Tumwater.
Ron Warren, deputy assistant director of WDFW's Fish Program, thanked the commission for adding provisions he said would provide the department with clear direction for setting future seasons for non-tribal salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor.
"We need to focus on conserving and restoring the salmon runs in the Grays Harbor Basin," Warren said.
The revised policy, scheduled for a vote by the commission at a meeting Feb. 7-8, is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/ .
Written comments on the revised draft policy may be submitted through Jan. 31 via email to commission@dfw.wa.gov or by mail to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091.
Commissioner Rolland Schmitten, who spoke in favor of the amendments, noted that fisheries in southeast Alaska and Canada intercept nearly half of all fall chinook salmon returning to the Chehalis River, which flows into Grays Harbor.
"Our challenge is that there are simply not enough salmon to meet the expectations of all stakeholders," Schmitten said.
In other business, the commission modified fishing rules for two rivers on opposite sides of the Cascade Range:
• Naselle River: Fishing from a floating device equipped with an internal combustion motor was prohibited year round from the Highway 4 Bridge upstream to the Crown mainline (Salme) Bridge. The commission's action was based on a citizens' petition.
• San Poil River: The daily limit for walleye was raised from eight fish to 16 fish to address an overpopulation of walleye in this tributary to Lake Roosevelt.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/14 01:34 PM

These comments to the Commission on the GHMP are authored by another individual ( who hangs out around here ) and a great example of just plain zeroing in on making sure the new plan can not be manipulated as the present one. Damn good job if I say so myself.



Draft Recommendation 5 states:

“ WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin shall have the following impact limits:

Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: impact rate of less than 0.8% on Chehalis fall Chinook.

Area 2C: impact rate of less than 1.2% on Humptulips fall Chinook.”

This recommendation appears to be over specified or at least can be interpreted in several ways. It is important to understand that all areas contain both Chehalis fall Chinook and Humptulips fall Chinook, especially area 2C. As an example this recommendation could mean that when fishing in 2C the harvest will be capped at 1.2% Humptulips Chinook plus 0.2% of the comingled Chehalis Chinook. Then the 2A/2D fishery could still include another 0.8% of the Chehalis Chinook run plus another .02% of the Humptulips run. The actual numbers would be determined by using coded wire tag data in each area. This recommendation could also mean that all fish caught in 2C are Humptulips fall Chinook capped at 1.2% of the Humptulips run. This would also overharvest the Chehalis fall Chinook.

I would recommend the following modification to recommendation 5.

“ WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin shall have the following impact limits:

Areas 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D combined shall have an impact rate of less than 0.8% on Chehalis fall Chinook and less than 1.2% on Humptulips fall Chinook.”
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/14 07:44 PM

Hey all I have not been able to post a update on the legal challenge to the 2013 season but it was settled out of court. So read through it and you will see it ends up addressing several key issues of the Grays Harbor Management Plan redo. I will do a second post with the talking points ( press release more / less ) shortly.



SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Hamilton, et al. v. Wash. Dep’t of Fish and Wildlife, Thurston Cnty. Sup. Ct. No. 13-2-01741-2
Hamilton, et al. v. Wash. Dep’t of Fish and Wildlife, Thurston Cnty. Sup. Ct. No. 13-2-02050-2

This Agreement is entered into on the date of last signature below by and between Tim Hamilton, Arthur Holman, and Ronald Schweitzer (Petitioners) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department).

RECITALS

Petitioners filed the above-referenced lawsuits challenging rules promulgated by the Department setting salmon fishing seasons for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, respectively, for 2013.

Petitioners and the Department both desire to facilitate enhanced communication between the Department and recreational fishers. We both want to ensure a strong technical foundation for salmon fishery management in both commercial and recreational fisheries in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, and we want to improve the integration of the North of Falcon fishery planning and APA rule processes.

Petitioners and the Department seek to settle these matters and resolve all claims between them related to the subject of the above-referenced matters.

AGREEMENT

Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

1) Petitioners agree to dismiss with prejudice the above-referenced lawsuits, without costs or attorney fees to either party. Such dismissal shall occur within 10 days of execution of this Agreement.

2) The Director will request the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to give him direction to initiate the development of a Willapa Bay Fishery Management Policy (Policy) after the Grays harbor Policy and the 2014 North of Falcon process has been completed. The Department will target having the new Willapa Bay policy process completed by February of 2015 and implemented through the 2015 North of Falcon process. In addition, following the adoption of the Policy, the Willapa Bay Management Plan will be revised in a manner consistent with the Policy.

3) The Department will establish a dedicated account and deposit $15,000 in such account to be used solely for procuring the consulting services of independent fishery scientists for tasks described herein. The initial task of the independent fishery scientists will be to review existing scientific studies and recommend appropriate release mortality rates for use by the Department to predict the mortality of fish released from state managed commercial gillnets in Grays Harbor (see 5a below).
a. The independent fisheries scientists engaged pursuant to this paragraph shall be jointly selected by the parties and the scientists’ scope of work shall be jointly developed by the parties.
b. The parties acknowledge that time is of the essence in engaging the scientists pursuant to this chapter and shall make best efforts to select and approve the scientists and the scope of work no later than February 14, 2014. If the scientific review and recommendations regarding release mortalities cannot be completed by March 14, 2014, as contemplated by the parties, then the work will and any recommendations will be completed by February 1, 2015 and used in the 2015 and subsequent preseason planning processes.

c. Additional tasks that will be considered and implemented by agreement of the parties utilizing any remaining funds from this account include the development of: 1) a Grays Harbor web page with a clear presentation of key information (i.e., catches, spawners, basis of spawner goals); 2) improved preseason predictions of salmon abundance; and 3) inseason estimates or indicators of salmon abundance.

4) The Department will provide $15,000 to a nonprofit organization established by Petitioners to enhance communication and build cooperation between the Department and recreational fishers. The Department shall make such payment within 10 days of receiving proof of an appropriate nonprofit organization having been established.

5) The nonprofit organization created by Petitioners shall, at a minimum, complete the following:

a. Assist the Department in the planning, promotion, and implementation of a workshop to ensure that the release mortality rates used for preseason planning of commercial fisheries in Grays Harbor are based on the best available information (Workshop 1 – February 2014). After the conclusion of the workshop, the panel of independent fishery scientists (paid for through the independent account created and funded pursuant to paragraph 3, above) will summarize scientific studies presented at the workshop and provide recommendations on release mortality rates.

b. Assist the Department in the planning, promotion, and implementation of a workshop to review the performance identify improved methods for predicting the catch in Grays Harbor Basin salmon fisheries (Workshop 2 - February 2014). Panelists will present information on the performance of previous catch projections, propose improvements, and solicit additional suggestions to improve preseason catch projections.

c. Assist the Department in the planning, promotion, and implementation of four workshops designed to improve understanding of salmon fishery management in the Grays Harbor Basin (Workshops 3-6). The workshops would occur prior to August, 2014.

d. Provide recommendations and suggestions to the Department on increasing public confidence in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking process for season-setting for Willapa and Grays Harbor.

6) The parties agree to work together to develop messaging and outreach to the public that accurately conveys this Agreement and the public process provided for in the Agreement. The parties shall not communicate about this Agreement or the public process provided for in the Agreement in a manner inconsistent with their jointly developed messaging and outreach plan.

7) The parties agree that they shall meet not less than monthly while the obligations under this Agreement are outstanding to discuss implementation of this Agreement. Each party may designate one or more representatives to attend such meetings and attendance may be by telephone or other electronic means. The parties will strive to cooperatively resolve any disagreements related to this Agreement. In the event either party has a disagreement with the other, that party shall communicate that disagreement during a meeting of the parties. Prior to initiating any legal action to enforce this Agreement, a party shall communicate in writing the subject of the disagreement and give the other party 30 days to respond.

8) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to resolution of the above-entitled matters and the subject matter thereof. Any representations, promises, or statements not set forth in the Agreement are of no force and effect and have not been relied upon.

9) The language of all parts of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the Parties. It has been negotiated by and between attorneys for the Parties and shall not be construed against either side as drafter. If any portion or provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected by such determination and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law, and said illegal, invalid, or unenforceable portion or provision shall be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement.

10) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. Venue for any suit involving a dispute over this Agreement shall be Thurston County.

11) Each party agrees to be responsible for his own attorneys fees and costs associated with the above-referenced lawsuits and this Agreement.


Dated this __ day of January, 2014




TIM HAMILTON


Dated this __ day of January, 2014




ARTHUR HOLMAN


Dated this __ day of January, 2014




RONALD SCHWEITZER


Dated this __ day of January, 2014




______________________, TITLE _______________________
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WIDLIFE
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/14 07:56 PM



OK here are the " Talking Points Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Settlement Agreement " and it gives you a little better read on things outlined in the settlement.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has completed a settlement agreement with Tim Hamilton, Art Holman, and Ron Schweitzer that resolves litigation regarding commercial fishing in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay for the 2013 season. Rather than prolonging litigation, all parties have agreed to build on a shared interest in enhancing communication between the Department and recreational fishers, ensuring a strong technical foundation for salmon fishery management, and improving the integration of the North of Falcon fishery planning and the rules process.
All parties recognize that salmon play an integral role in the commerce, recreation, and cultural identity of the people of the Pacific Northwest. This is particularly true along the Washington coast, where salmon are an economic mainstay for communities, a focal point for tribal life, and an important link between the ocean and interior ecosystems in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.
The Agreement reflects a shared interest in the conservation of salmon in these basins and in building support for the salmon resources among commercial fishers, recreational fishers, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts.
Key elements of the agreement include:
• Ensuring a strong technical foundation for salmon fishery management by enlisting the assistance of independent fishery scientists to review the rates used to project the mortality of salmon released in commercial fisheries.

• Increasing the public’s ability to participate in season setting and fisheries management by developing a web page with Grays Harbor information on fishery catches, spawners, and the basis of spawner escapement goals.

• Initiating a series of workshops to:

o assist the public in understanding how fishery management in Grays Harbor is conducted, seasons are set, and the processes used;
o increase the accuracy and reliability of models used to set fishing seasons; and
o develop in-season indicators of salmon abundance to enable adaptive management.

• Director Anderson will request that the Fish and Wildlife Commission provide him with direction to initiate the development of a Willapa Bay Fishery Management Policy for implementation in the 2015 North of Falcon process. In addition, following adoption of the policy, the Willapa Bay Management Plan will be revised in a manner consistent with the policy.
These elements of the agreement are designed to enhance conservation of the state’s salmon resource, improve public trust, and develop a solid foundation for a long-lasting relationship with all stakeholders.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/14 08:14 PM

Quote:
In addition, following adoption of the policy, the Willapa Bay Management Plan will be revised in a manner consistent with the policy.



Will that include scaling back the month-straight gill net season from mid-Sept to mid-Oct and that fleet taking 80-90% of the total catch?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/14 08:24 PM

Quote:
2) The Director will request the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission to give him direction to initiate the development of a Willapa Bay Fishery Management Policy (Policy) after the Grays harbor Policy and the 2014 North of Falcon process has been completed. The Department will target having the new Willapa Bay policy process completed by February of 2015 and implemented through the 2015 North of Falcon process. In addition, following the adoption of the Policy, the Willapa Bay Management Plan will be revised in a manner consistent with the Policy.


It says what it says and the outcome will depend upon what the Commission feels is correct. That said it means a Willapa redo with aoutcome not defined before hand.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/14 12:14 PM

Just a reminder, the deadline for submitting comments to the fish and wildlife commission is Jan. 31, following is the page I sent in, just a quick note saying how you feel about certain points in the report is all that is needed, public support for closing comm. gillnet fishing was really strong, following up with an equally strong amount of submitted comments is also vital. Commissioners, my name is Robert Rao and I live in Elma. I have spoken before you twice in the last two months and have attended numerous Gray’s Harbor Salmon Management meetings. I appreciate the hours you have put in on this subject hearing many points from the public and the W.D.F.W. staff. My points are as follows;
The last lines of the general policy statement “In implementing the policy guidelines, the Department will work with the tribes in a manner that is consistent with U.S. v. Washington and other applicable state and federal laws and agreements “ I believe the state has an obligation legally and morally to defend the 50% percent rights of the citizens of the state by being proactive in monitoring tribal catches throughout the state, not just in Gray’s Harbor. A quicker and more reliable catch record system is needed. I also believe that closing area 2A in the Chehalis River if not this year but next year would have two important results. Public testimony by non-native commercial fishermen to this issue has stated that the tribe WILL NOT fish that area on the same days as commercial gillnetters. This means that a 4 days in and 3 days out will not be considered by the tribe in this area which means ALL of Gray’s Harbor will not have 4 days in and 3 days out by all gillnetters. The river is also very narrow in this area and numerous gillnets will defeat recovery actions taken. This also will be a negotiation point when dealing with the Quinalt tribe as it will show them that the state is serious about recovery efforts and is willing to compromise. There should be a total ban on commercial. gillnets in areas designated as freshwater to remain consistent with policies adopted for the Columbia River and Puget Sound. I believe the residents of our state have overwhelmingly shown their support for this direction as demonstrated in the sheer volume of public testimony shown.
I also feel that more input to the Pacific Salmon Commission is needed as to the serious state of the runs in Gray’s Harbor. If a more valid scientific study is needed instead of current means of measuring run size then those studies should be implemented
.Alaska harvests of our fish are esp. damaging, the state of Alaska stocks should be an example of how NOT to manage a resource.
My third point concerns the language for the 4 days in and 3 days out. The language allows for changing the intent of 4 days in and 3 days out by saying “when possible”. As I have pointed out above we understand the state cannot promise the tribes will fish that way but to insure transparency of the process we need to know that the 4 days in and 3 days out means just that when talking about non-tribal gill-netters. Otherwise people may feel that a last minute ”back door deal” may occur again.
My last point has to do with determining chum runs by lumping them all together in Gray’s Harbor. The scientific absurdity of this should be apparent to all. With these runs missing escapement as many years as they have (although we don’t have the data to show how really bad it is!) it is obvious that changes in scientific data collecting are needed. Thank you for reading and hearing our concerns.
Robert Rao
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/14 12:36 PM

It's Grays Harbor, not Grey's Harbor.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/14 12:59 PM

A number of folks have been trying to understand the legal action and settlement. Well I am sure not going to try and explain it but you can view the write up by the East County guys who filed the legal action here. http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process The documents and supporting papers are all available for viewing and while it is a bit of a dry read ( as all legal documents are ) it is rather interesting.

The thing that takes a bit to understand is the legal action was on the 2013 season and season setting process. Our legal system does not exactly move along at lightning speed so it simply takes a bit to wind your way through the process and that is how you end up with a challenge to the 2013 seasons in 2014.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/31/14 06:48 PM



The Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) redo is getting closer and it looks promising, maybe. That said it is not a done deal until "the fat lady sings" so to speak and everyone needs to stay involved. I imagine all have read or listened to that spiel a hundred times before but it is true. Then comes the question on just how can WDF&W manage the Salmon resource in a manner that simply discriminates and denies harvest opportunity to the inland communities and recreational fishers in general?

At first look one might think this is something new but it is not. It is simply the manner that terminal harvest impacts (inside Grays Harbor & rivers that empty into it ) have always been allocated. That WDF&W has always viewed the recreational fisher differently than commercial fishers is absolutely true but finding way to allow the average citizen to grasp how deeply ingrained in WDF&W this philosophy is can be a bit difficult.

So after going through the FTC library I will use the two paragraphs below which are taken directly from a opinion by then Washington State Attorney General Slade Gorton to then WDF Director Don Moos in 1975 which addressed the commercial buy backs. While the entire document is only somewhat relevant today it is one of the few times I have found the management philosophy of WDF&W clearly defined by a impartial 3rd party. So take a look at the highlighted sentences defining the intent of the recreational and commercial management by WDF&W.

Basically, the sports fisheries are managed so as to allow large numbers of fishermen each to take a limited number of fish. Lawful gear for angling is defined in RCW 75.04.100 as one pole, held in hand, to which not more than two single hooks may be attached. Under WAC 220-56-063 and 220-56-066, most rivers, streams and ocean areas are open to angling. Spawning areas and areas below dams and racks are closed to angling, and other areas can and have been closed when such closures were necessary for proper
escapement. Possession and bag limits for angling vary for different areas. For the coastal fishery the limit is three salmon of not less than 20 inches in length, as provided for in WAC 220-56-013. No license is required for angling, but [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] sports catches must be recorded upon salmon punch cards which are returned to the department of fisheries. See, WAC 220-56-023. Fish taken by angling are for personal use only and may not be sold commercially.

On the other hand, the commercial fisheries are managed to allow for proper escapement and maximum commercial take. The legislature has established license requirements for all segments of the commercial fishery, and has defined lawful gear under the various licenses. See, chapter 75.28 RCW. Areas open to commercial fishing are set by statute (chapter 75.18 RCW) and permanent regulations (WAC 220-47-010 through 220-47-070) promulgated thereunder. Data for the commercial fisheries is collected continuously by the department of fisheries, and additional closures and regulations are frequently made by emergency regulation to preserve necessary escapement as mandated by fishery data and recommendations of the international salmon fishery commission.

Boiled down to the very basic issues the GHMP redo is not just about what is fair for all citizens but changing the historical bias ingrained within WDF&W. No small chore to be sure and it will not happen unless we all stay involved. The progress made in the past few months is not due to FTC or any single person or group but rather because the inland communities & recreational fishers did not just object but went with " oh hell no we are NOT doing that again. "

So stay involved folks and attend the Commission meeting Meeting Link A close friend of mine said " it ain't no time to go to sleep at the wheel" and I think he captured where we are!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/07/14 12:27 PM

Last call for the Commission meeting tomorrow http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/02/agenda_feb0714.html and the GHMP policy guidelines are to be adopted. That said the weather forecast is well past bad to just ugly to this http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/olympia-wa/98501/daily-weather-forecast/331418?day=2 After getting nailed by the blizzard yesterday in a massive pile up and on I-5 & 2 1/2 hours in a 16 mile back up going to the Sportsman Show in Portland I urge all to be careful.

If you can make it do so but do not put yourself at risk as the Commission is going to make its decision regardless.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/07/14 08:50 PM

I do agree with rivrguy about being careful, but the forecast for Oly is now only 50% chance of less than a half inch tonight, and 30% chance of less than a half inch Saturday so nothing major.

Here's my source: http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php...65#.UvWMwoWa-oQ

There has been no snow here so far, just dry and cold. See you tomorrow...
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/08/14 08:38 AM

We'll be there!
Bob and Melanie
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/08/14 09:37 AM

a quick update. There is a light dusting of snow in Oly, enough to make the street in front of my house white. Currently not snowing. I would guess it is about 1/4 inch.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/08/14 03:30 PM




The LONG and winding road has finally led to a BIG win for the fish and for the rec community in Grays Harbor.

Key conservation provisions of the GHMP unanimously passed by the commission today:

1) Secured a 3 consecutive days/wk net-free escapement window

2) Must meet escapement goals for each stock at least 3 out of the 5 previous years in order to have directed fishing on that stock. Else manage for a NT impact of 5%.

3) Affirmed that Hump and Chehalis sub-basins shall be managed as distinct and separate drainages

4) Chehalis fall kings are allocated 0.8% to the state nets at low abundance to 5.8% at high abundance on a linear sliding scale between run sizes of 18K to 25K. For clarity, the comm share slides from about 2% up to 27% of the total state share.

5) Humptulips fall kings will fall under similar provisions starting at 1.2% at the low end and 5.6% (memory may be a bit shaky on that upper number)

A HUGE step forward in improving the management of Grays Harbor.

I'll post the official link to the policy when its up on the web.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/08/14 03:41 PM

Chair Wecker's closing comments included a commitment on the record to better determine release mortalities in both the comm and rec fisheries… about this policy being a new beginning to push the agency forward in implementing fisheries that improve our ability to selectively release depressed NON-target stocks unharmed.

Very comforting to hear.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/09/14 02:51 AM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
a quick update. There is a light dusting of snow in Oly, enough to make the street in front of my house white. Currently not snowing. I would guess it is about 1/4 inch.


Good thing the meeting was this morning, there's been about 5" in the last 6 hours. Looks like it's stopped now.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/09/14 01:27 PM

I think Doc about captured what was adopted yesterday and until it is posted nothing much to add on the verbiage. The thing is is this another leg of the journey that more or less is coming together in four stages. So the first steps have been taken so what is next one might ask? The harvest model & mortalities which Chair Wecker addressed Saturday.


Quote:
Chair Wecker's closing comments included a commitment on the record to better determine release mortalities in both the comm and rec fisheries… about this policy being a new beginning to push the agency forward in implementing fisheries that improve our ability to selectively release depressed NON-target stocks unharmed.


This issue is being addressed almost daily as agency staff and the litigants work to finalize the time line as part of the settlement of the legal action taken by three East County citizens that was settled out of court. The entire settlement can be viewed here http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process but the points below are the most relevant at the moment.

a. Assist the Department in the planning, promotion, and implementation of a workshop to ensure that the release mortality rates used for preseason planning of commercial fisheries in Grays Harbor are based on the best available information (Workshop 1 -February 2014). After the conclusion of the workshop, the panel of independent fishery scientists (paid for through the independent account created and funded pursuant to paragraph 3, above) will summarize scientific studies presented at the workshop and provide recommendations on release mortality rates.

b. Assist the Department in the planning, promotion, and implementation of a workshop to review the performance identify improved methods for predicting the catch in Grays Harbor Basin salmon fisheries (Workshop 2 - February 2014). Panelists will present information on the performance of previous catch projections, propose improvements, and solicit additional suggestions to improve preseason catch projections.

c. Assist the Department in the planning, promotion, and implementation of four workshops designed to improve understanding of salmon fishery management in the Grays Harbor Basin (Workshops 3-6). The workshops would occur prior to August, 2014.

The third leg of the GHMP reform effort will revolve around incorporating the policy guidelines adopted into the verbiage & Tiers in the GHMP. One more time we all need to stay engaged and track this process as the agency has a real habit of taking a clear statement and giving it the " fuzzy wuzzy " treatment.

The final element will be when the 2014 NOF process goes forward to set seasons for 2014 based upon the reformed GHMP. I & others have gotten the infamous crystal ball out to look into the future and guess what, we do not have a clue. When everything outlined in this post ( and previous post ) are completed the fall salmon seasons are going to be different than in the past to be sure. Moving toward harvest management that places the fish and conservation first is not going to be painless for any of the users.

It is the price all will pay for the abuses by WDF&W in the past.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/14 11:37 AM


This is a article from the Montesano Vidette that provides additional information on the upcoming process that will be the bases for developing accuracy in the harvest model. It is part of the out of court settlement between WDF&W and the East County guys that sued over the 2013 settlement.


By Steven Friederich
Vidette Editor

OLYMPIA — The state Department of Fish & Wildlife has settled a lawsuit with three recreational fishing advocates from Grays Harbor, promising to demystify the regulatory process that governs the way fishing rules are made and enforced on the Twin Harbors.
Tim Hamilton of McCleary joined with Art Holman of Aberdeen and Ron Schweitzer of Elma to file the lawsuit last fall, alleging that state agency officials are allowing commercial gillnetters open season and unfettered access to gobble up salmon to the destruction of fish runs.

They had sought injunctions to shut down the commercial gillnetting season on Willapa Harbor and on Grays Harbor. The judge denied the injunctions, but said the lawsuit could continue.
The biggest win for the advocates is that the state Department of Fish & Wildlife will hire independent fishery scientists to see how often salmon are escaping the gill nets and actually making it upriver to spawn.

Recreational fishing advocates have said for years that commercial gillnetters, who who flank the river with 13 to 19 nets for several days at a time, are preventing a good number of fish from getting up the river to spawn or be caught by recreational fishermen, who pay annual fees to go fishing. Commercial gill nets are granted in excess of 80 percent of the salmon available for harvest each year. The gillnetters are only supposed to catch Coho salmon, but they often catch chum and Chinook, as well, which are supposed to be released back into the wild. But, records provided by Hamilton to back up his claim, that most of those salmon that are thrown back out into the Harbor end up dead and the state agency rarely meets its “escapement” goals in either the Willapa or Grays Harbor of salmon actually heading back upriver.

Meantime, the association for the gillnetters say they provide valuable jobs for the commercial fishing industry and help spur on the economy. The independent scientists, who will be chosen by both state Fish & Wildlife officials and a non-profit group created the three plaintiffs and “the scientists’ scope of work shall be jointly developed by the parties,” the settlement states. No one is accusing the Indian tribes, who also use gillnets, of doing anything wrong. The tribes are protected by special treaty.

The settlement calls on the state placing $15,000 into a special fund to pay for the independent review, as well as $15,000 to go to the new non-profit group, which Hamilton says is called Twin Harbor Fish & Wildlife Advocacy. “What we’ve done is set it up for an outside review, to look over what we’ve been saying all along,” Hamilton said. “We’re encouraged because the new rules being looked at makes sure that the salmon come first. Fish & Wildlife is moving forward with policy saying you will ensure we are getting enough of those fish back so the species survives for the future.”

The dispute the scientists will look at is how many salmon are really making it upriver and how many are just dying at the mouth of the river and are actually just surviving on paper, not in reality.
The settlement states that Fish & Wildlife will create a dedicated website “with a clear presentation of key information,” including catches, spawners and basis of spawner goals and the state agency will improve its pre-season salmon prediction and its in-season indicators on if the salmon are surviving. The non-profit group will work with the state Department of Fish & Wildlife to conduct town hall meetings around the Twin Harbors to better explain its rules and provide recommendations on the mortality of salmon.

“What I want to be able to do is go out and hold a minimum of four local meetings to teach the population on how these seasons are set and the fisheries are managed so they understand the processes and how it all works,” Hamilton said. In addition, the settlement calls for a better management plan to be developed for Willapa Harbor, mirroring the process that will take place for Grays Harbor. The Grays Harbor fisheries watchdog website set up by the Hamilton brothers Tim and Dave, shall continue to exist. Nicknamed Fishileaks, the website is at http://fishingthechehalis.net and has become a go-to-resource for those on the Harbor trying to make sense of the rule-making process being undertaken by the state Fish & Wildlife Commission.

“Rather than prolonging litigation, all parties have agreed to build on a shared interest in enhancing communication between the Department and recreational fishers, ensuring a strong technical foundation for salmon fishery management, and improving the integration of the North of Falcon fishery planning and the rules process,” a joint statement from all of the parties said.

“All parties recognize that salmon play an integral role in the commerce, recreation, and cultural identity of the people of the Pacific Northwest,” the statement adds. “This is particularly true along the Washington coast, where salmon are an economic mainstay for communities, a focal point for tribal life, and an important link between the ocean and interior ecosystems in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. The Agreement reflects a shared interest in the conservation of salmon in these basins and in building support for the salmon resources among commercial fishers, recreational fishers, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts.”
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/14 12:53 PM

Anybody have any idea how the release mortality studies will be conducted? Seems like something that would be really difficult to measure accurately. Maybe they'll start with a mutually-developed set of assumptions about relative fish condition at the time of release? Maybe they will somehow tag gillnet-caught fish that are released to see how many end up in another net? Survey the river bottom for marked carcasses when the fishery is completed? How about the rec side? That seems to be the most challenging of all.

These are interesting, exciting, times. Cool stuff!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/14 03:05 PM

Radio or acoustic tagging to demonstrate progressive inland movement up the system.

Extremely expensive and labor intensive.

AK just spent 700K on the Kintama project for UCI.

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/877234/WAYWARD_salmon.html#Post877234
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/14 04:49 PM

Knowledge costs money. If "you" don't want to invest in the studies as they cost toomuch then don't do selective fisheries and live with the consequences.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/14 08:46 PM

Commit and spend the money now for many yeas of happy returns.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/14 05:34 PM

The policy guidelines and the Power point presentation from the Commission meeting are out. If you want a copy e mail and I will send it. If you wait it will make up on the WDF&W website .... soon I think.



AND NOF FOR 2014

2014 North of Falcon schedule is now on the web: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/ . Dates are listed below. There will also be 2 workshops to attend, dates to be determined.


2014 North of Falcon
Public Meeting Schedule
March 3
2014 Salmon Forecasts and Fishing Opportunities:
• 9 a.m.-3 p.m., Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E. Olympia.
• WDFW presents Puget Sound, coastal Washington and Columbia River salmon abundance forecasts. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2014 are discussed.
March 8-13
Pacific Fishery Management Council:
• DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Sacramento, 2001 Point West Way
Sacramento, CA.
• The PFMC adopts a range of ocean fishery options, including catch quotas for sport and commercial fisheries.
March 14
Grays Harbor Salmon Advisory Group Meeting:
• 6 p.m.-9 p.m. WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Public discussion of Grays Harbor salmon forecasts and fishing opportunities.
March 17
Columbia River Fisheries Discussion:
• 10 a.m.-4 p.m. Vancouver Water Resources Education Center, 4600 SE Columbia Way, Vancouver, Wash.
• Public discussion of management objectives and preliminary options for Columbia River fall commercial and sport fisheries.
March 19
First North of Falcon Meeting:
• 9 a.m.-3 p.m., Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E. Olympia.
• Discussion of management objectives and preliminary fishery proposals for Puget Sound, coastal Washington and Columbia River area sport and commercial fisheries.
Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion:
• 6 p.m.-8 p.m. Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main Street, Montesano.
• Public discussion of Grays Harbor salmon forecasts and fishing opportunities.
March 20
Puget Sound Recreational Fisheries Discussion:
• 6 p.m.-8 p.m., Trinity Methodist Church, 100 South Blake Ave., Sequim
• Discussion of local salmon fisheries.
March 21
Willapa Bay Salmon Advisory Group Meeting:
• 6 p.m.-9 p.m. WDFW's Montesano office, 48 Devonshire Road.
• Public discussion of Willapa Bay salmon forecasts and fishing opportunities.
March 24
Public Hearing on Ocean Salmon Management Options:
• 7 p.m., Chateau Westport, 710 W. Hancock, Westport.
• Public hearing, sponsored by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, to receive comments on the proposed ocean salmon fishery management options adopted by the council during its March meeting.
March 25
Willapa Bay Fisheries Discussion:
• 6 p.m.-8 p.m. Raymond Elks Lodge, 326 Third Street, Raymond.
• Public discussion of Willapa Bay salmon forecasts and fishing opportunities.
March 27
Pre-season Columbia Basin salmon forecasts and fishery outlook:
• 6 p.m.-8 p.m., Benton PUD, 2721 W. 10th Ave. Kennewick.
• Public discussion of potential recreational and commercial salmon fisheries statewide.
April 1
North of Falcon Meeting:
• 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Embassy Suites Hotel, 20610 44th Ave. West, Lynnwood.
• Public meeting to present results of state-tribal negotiations and analyses of preliminary fishery proposals. With public participation, preferred options are developed for Puget Sound and Columbia River area sport and commercial fisheries.
April 3
North of Falcon Meeting – Columbia River & Ocean discussion:
• 9 a.m.-2 p.m., Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E., Olympia.
• Public meeting to present results of state-tribal negotiations and analyses of Ocean and Columbia River fisheries proposals. With public participation, preferred seasons are developed for Ocean and Columbia River area sport and commercial fisheries.
April 4
Final Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay Fisheries Discussion:
• 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E., Olympia.
• Public meeting to reach final agreement on sport and commercial salmon seasons for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay.
April 5-10
Final Pacific Fishery Management Council:
• Hilton Vancouver Washington, 301 W. Sixth Street, Vancouver, WA.
• PFMC adopts final ocean fisheries regulations and state-tribal fishing plans are finalized for all inside area commercial and sport salmon fisheries.

Posted by: Jerry Garcia

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/14 11:09 PM

No Mill Creek meeting?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/14 10:22 AM

There was a thread on that earlier. Maybe we just need to trust R4.
Posted by: cohoangler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/14 03:58 PM

A side note: The results of the study that estimates pre-spawn mortality of C&R fish (both commercial and recreational) has implications far beyond Grays Harbor. The potential to change how mark-selective fisheries are implemented on the Columbia Rv is huge. The Tribes have complained at length about the lack of reliable estimates of C&R release mortalities on the Columbia (recreational only, of course). This study might provide a glimpse of how close the actual release moralities are to the estimates used in the catch-balancing calculations. So, after many years of complaining, the Tribes might get want they've been asking for.

But, given that the study will also include gill net release mortality estimates, the Tribes might not like the results.....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/14 04:13 PM

Why? They don't release anything from a net. If the mortality rates go up on released fish, they get to kill more. As the rates go up the non-Indians fish less, leaving them more time on the river alone. A win-win.
Posted by: cohoangler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/13/14 10:56 AM

Carcass - Not sure I understand your question......

As I understand it, the study that WDFW is doing will look at the survival rates of fish that are caught in gill nets, and subsequently released. (Ditto for recreationally caught fish.) I realize the Tribes don't intentionally release anything caught from their gill nets, but they recognize there is unaccounted losses from fish that drop out, or get thru the nets. But nobody has done a study to determine the survival rate of these fish. Presumably, the study on Gray's Harbor will provide some indication of the C&R survival of fish that encounter gillnets.

I realize it's the C&R survival rate from recreationally caught fish that the Tribes are most interested in.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/13/14 12:52 PM

Way back when a drop-out rate of 3% of the landed catch was applied to all (I and NI) gillnet fisheries. I don't know if that is still the case. At one time there was a push to include seal removals. Tribes were not in favor of this because set nets appeared to have more seal losss than drift nets (NI could only use drifts).

Some of the tribes are pushing for a 100% mortality rate on C&R steelhead.

I agree that we need significantly more work on survival post-release. We need to look at how the C&R experiance affects not only survival to spawning but spawning itself. Do they swim as far upstream, do the bury their eggs as deep, are the eggs as viable, does a steelhead successfully become a repeat spawner? This, and more, needs to be looked at.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/13/14 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Jerry Garcia
No Mill Creek meeting?


No meeting for commercial fishermen also?
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/13/14 06:46 PM

". . . Some of the tribes are pushing for a 100% mortality rate on C&R steelhead. . . "

Couldn't help but notice this. OK, that's just stupid. Mainly because I know of one tribal steelhead broodstock program that over 4 years experienced a 2% incidental mortality rate, and most would agree that the stresses of broodstocking (tubing, tank truck transport, raceway holding, and handling) exceeds that of CNR fishing.

Sg
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/13/14 07:50 PM

May be stupid but that's the push.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/14 07:14 PM


NEXT UP:

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
February 18, 2014
Contact: Ron Warren, (360) 902-2799
Public meeting on salmon forecast
kicks off season-setting process
OLYMPIA - Anglers, commercial fishers and others interested in Washington state salmon fisheries can get a preview of this year's salmon returns and potential fishing seasons during a public meeting here March 3.
Kicking off the annual salmon season-setting process, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will present initial forecasts - compiled by state and tribal biologists - of 2014 salmon returns.
The meeting is scheduled from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street S.E., in Olympia.
Those attending the meeting will have an opportunity to talk to fishery managers about the pre-season forecasts and participate in work sessions focusing on possible salmon fisheries and conservation issues.
WDFW has also scheduled additional public meetings focusing on regional salmon issues through early April. This series of meetings - involving representatives from federal, state and tribal governments and recreational and commercial fishing industries - is known as the North of Falcon process.
A meeting schedule and more information about the salmon season-setting process for Puget Sound, the Columbia River and the Washington coast is available on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/ .
The North of Falcon process is held in conjunction with public meetings conducted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), responsible for establishing fishing seasons in ocean water three to 200 miles off the Pacific coast.
Final adoption of the 2014 salmon fisheries is scheduled for April 10 at the PFMC meeting in Vancouver, Wash.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/14 05:03 PM


I thought I would put up the new policy guidelines for those who hate links. You loose formatting going from a PDF to Word to PP but it is somewhat readable.


Commission Policy Documents
<< Commission Policy Documents Index

POLICY DECISION
POLICY TITLE: Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management POLICY NUMBER: POL-C3621
Supercedes: N/A Effective Date March 1, 2014
Termination Date December 31, 2023
See Also: C-3608, C-3619 Approved by: /s/ Miranda Wecker
Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair
DOWNLOAD: Signed copy of POL-C3621 (PDF)

Purpose
The objective of this policy is to advance the conservation and restoration of wild salmon. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state, provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences and a fair distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Grays Harbor Basin, and improve the technical rigor of fishery management. Enhanced transparency and information sharing are needed to restore and maintain public trust and support for management of Grays Harbor salmon fisheries.
Definition and Intent
This policy sets a general management direction and provides guidance for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) management of all Pacific salmon returning to the Grays Harbor Basin. The Grays Harbor Basin is defined as Grays Harbor and its freshwater tributaries.
General Policy Statement
This policy provides a cohesive set of principles and guidance to promote the conservation of wild salmon and steelhead and improve the Department's management of salmon in the Grays Harbor Basin. The Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) recognizes that management decisions must be informed by fishery monitoring (biological and economic), and that innovation and adaptive management will be necessary to achieve the stated purpose of this policy. By improving communication, information sharing, and transparency, the Department shall promote improved public support for management of Grays Harbor salmon fisheries.
State commercial and recreational fisheries will need to increasingly focus on the harvest of abundant hatchery fish. Mark-selective fisheries are a tool that permits the harvest of abundant hatchery fish while reducing impacts on wild stocks needing protection. As a general policy, the Department shall implement mark-selective salmon fisheries, unless the wild populations substantially affected by the fishery are meeting spawner (e.g., escapement goal) and broodstock management objectives. In addition, the Department may consider other management approaches provided they are as or more effective than a mark-selective fishery in achieving spawner and broodstock management objectives.
Fishery and hatchery management measures should be implemented as part of an "all-H" strategy that integrates hatchery, harvest, and habitat systems. Although the policy focuses on fishery management, this policy in no way diminishes the significance of habitat protection and restoration.
In implementing the policy guidelines, the Department will work with the tribes in a manner that is consistent with U.S. v. Washington and other applicable state and federal laws and agreements.
Guiding Principles
The Department will apply the following principles in the management of salmon in the Grays Harbor Basin:
1. Promote the conservation and restoration of salmon and steelhead by working with our partners (including Regional Fishery Enhancement Groups and Lead Entities) to protect and restore habitat productivity, implementing hatchery reform, and managing fisheries consistent with conservation objectives.
2. Meet the terms of U.S. v. Washington and other federal court orders and promote a strong relationship with the Quinault Indian Nation. Spawning escapement goals, fisheries, and artificial production objectives will be developed and jointly agreed with the Quinault Indian Nation. The Department shall seek agreement with the Quinault Indian Nation to manage fisheries with the intent of meeting the Chinook and coho salmon spawner goals for the Humptulips River and the Chinook and coho spawner goals for the Chehalis River. Agreements between the Department and the Quinault Indian Nation related to salmon in the Grays Harbor Basin shall be made available to the public through the agency web site.
3. The Department will work through the Pacific Salmon Commission to promote the conservation of Grays Harbor salmon and, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, pursue the implementation of fishery management actions necessary to achieve agreed conservation objectives.
4. Within the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) process, the Department will support management measures that promote the attainment of Grays Harbor conservation objectives consistent with the Council's Salmon Fishery Management Plan.
5. In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, seek to enhance the overall economic well-being and stability of Grays Harbor Basin fisheries.
6. When establishing fishery seasons, the Department shall consider the anticipated impact of both Quinault Indian Nation and nontreaty fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin.
7. In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, fishing opportunities will be fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of WDFW-managed fishers.
8. Recreational and WFDW-managed commercial fisheries shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur. If the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week.
9. Monitoring, sampling, and enforcement programs will adequately account for species and population impacts (landed catch and incidental fishing mortality) of all recreational and WDFW-managed commercial fisheries and ensure compliance with state regulations.
10. If it becomes apparent that a scheduled fishery will exceed its preseason catch expectation, and the overage will put at risk the attainment of conservation objectives, the Department shall implement inseason management actions that are projected to enhance the effectiveness of fishery management relative to the attainment of the conservation objectives and impact sharing in the preseason fishery plan.
11. Salmon management will be well documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable. The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements in the transparency of fishery management and for effective public involvement. These shall include: a) clearly describing management objectives in a document available to the public prior to the initiation of the preseason planning process; b) enhancing opportunities for public engagement during the preseason fishery planning process; c) communicating inseason information and management actions to advisors and the public; d) seeking Quinault Indian Nation support for the inclusion of observers in co-management meetings; and e) striving to improve communication with the public regarding co-management issues that are under discussion.
12. The Department shall seek to improve fishery management and technical tools through improved fishery monitoring, the development of new tools, and rigorous assessment of fishery models and parameters.
13. The Department shall explore and pursue options to increase hatchery production in the Grays Harbor Basin in a manner consistent with the Hatchery and Fishery Reform policy (C-3619). These shall include:
a. The Department shall work with the public and parties to the Wynoochee Settlement Agreement with the goal of submitting to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by September 30, 2014 the Wynoochee Dam mitigation plan and initiate spending of the mitigation funds in an expeditious manner thereafter.
b. The Department shall seek restoration of hatchery funding cut in the Grays Harbor Basin since the 2007-2009 biennium.
14. When a mark-selective fishery occurs, the mark-selective fishery shall be implemented, monitored, and enforced in a manner designed to achieve the anticipated conservation benefits.
Fishery and Species-Specific Guidance
Subject to the provisions of the Adaptive Management section, the following fishery-and species-specific sections describe the presumptive path for achieving conservation objectives and a fair sharing of harvestable fish.
Spring Chinook Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage spring Chinook salmon fisheries consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:
1. Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving escapement goals for wild spring Chinook. In no case, shall WDFW-managed fisheries result in an impact of more than 5% of the return when the natural-origin adult return exceeds the spawner objective by less than 10%.
2. Prioritize freshwater recreational fisheries, with an objective of opening freshwater areas no later than May 1.
Fall Chinook Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage fall Chinook salmon fisheries consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:
1. Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving escapement goals for wild and hatchery Chinook. In no case, shall WDFW-managed fisheries result in an impact of more than 5% of the return when the natural-origin adult return exceeds the spawner objective by less than 10%.
2. The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:
a. achieve spawner goals;
b. provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and
c. limit commercial fishery impacts to the incidental harvest of fall Chinook during fisheries directed at other species.
3. The following guidelines describe the anticipated sharing of fishery impacts in the Grays Harbor Basin between WDFW-managed commercial, marine recreational, and freshwater recreational fisheries. Variation from these guidelines may occur if it will result in fisheries that more closely achieve the stated purpose of this policy.
a. WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin shall have the following impact limits:
&#61607; Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook when the impact of the recreational fishery is equal to or greater than 4.2%. The impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery may be less than 0.8% when conservation concerns for natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook result in a less than 4.2% impact rate in the recreational fishery.
&#61607; When the terminal run of natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook reaches an abundance of 18,793, the impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall linearly increase from 0.8% to a maximum of 5.8% at a terminal run of 25,000 natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook.
&#61607; Area 2C: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 1.2% on natural-origin Humptulips fall Chinook when the impact of the recreational fishery is equal to or greater than 3.8%. The impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery may be less than 1.2% when conservation concerns for Humptulips natural-origin fall Chinook result in a less than 3.8% impact rate in the recreational fishery.
&#61607; When the terminal run of natural-origin Humptulips fall Chinook reaches an abundance of 3,779, the impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall linearly increase from 1.2% to a maximum of 5.4% at a run of 4,070 natural-origin Humptulips fall Chinook.
b. Chehalis Fall Chinook. Fisheries shall be developed with the intent of achieving the following sharing of impacts within the recreational fishing sector:
Run Size % to Freshwater % to Area 2-2
Small 1 73% 27%
Large 52% 48%
c.
d. Humptulips Fall Chinook. Fisheries shall be developed with the intent of achieving the following sharing of impacts within the recreational fishing sector:
Run Size % to Freshwater % to Area 2-2
Small 78% 22%
Large 63% 37%
Chum Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage chum salmon fisheries consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:
1. Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving escapement goals for wild and hatchery chum salmon. In no case, shall WDFW-managed fisheries result in an impact of more than 5% of the return when the natural-origin adult return exceeds the spawner objective by less than 10%.
2. No fisheries directed at chum salmon shall occur unless the adult coho salmon return exceeds spawner objectives, or if coho salmon impacts remain after coho and Chinook salmon fisheries.
3. The following guidelines describe the anticipated sharing of fishery impacts between marine recreational and freshwater recreational fisheries. Variation from these guidelines may occur if it will result in fisheries that more closely achieve the stated purpose of this policy.
a. Fisheries shall be developed with the intent of achieving the following sharing of impacts within the recreational fishing sector:
Run Size % to Freshwater % to Area 2-2
Small >98% &#8804;2%
Large >98% &#8804;2%
Adaptive Management
The Commission recognizes that adaptive management will be essential to achieve the purpose of this policy. Department staff may implement actions to manage adaptively to achieve the objectives of this policy and will coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions. Components of the adaptive management will be shared with the public through the agency web site and will include the following elements:
1. Annual Fishery Management Review. The Department shall annually evaluate fishery management tools and parameters and identify improvements as necessary to accurately predict fishery performance and escapement.

As a component of the annual fishery management review, the Department shall assess if spawner goals were achieved for Chehalis spring Chinook, Chehalis fall Chinook, Humptulips fall Chinook, Chehalis coho, Humptulips coho, and Grays Harbor chum salmon. If the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years (beginning in 2009), the Department shall implement the following measures:
a. The predicted fishery impact for that stock in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Grays Harbor; and
b. If a spawner goal for fall Chinook salmon is not achieved, the Grays Harbor control zone2 off of the mouth of Grays Harbor will be implemented no later than the second Monday in August and continue until the end of September.
2. Inseason Management. The Department shall develop, evaluate, and implement fishery management models, procedures, and management measures that are projected to enhance the effectiveness of fishery management relative to management based on preseason predictions.
3. Spawner Goals. The Department shall review spawner goals to ensure that they reflect the current productivity of salmon. The review shall be initiated with Chinook salmon in 2014.

To promote improved management of chum salmon, the Department shall include in the 2015 annual review an evaluation of options to improve chum salmon stock assessments. The Department shall subsequently initiate in 2015 a review of the spawner goal for chum salmon.
Delegation of Authority
The Commission delegates the authority to the Director, through the North of Falcon stakeholder consultation process, to set seasons for recreational and WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in Grays Harbor, to adopt permanent and emergency regulations to implement these fisheries, and to make harvest agreements with treaty tribes and other government agencies.
________________________________________
1. A small run is defined as a run size less than 110% of the spawner goal. A large run is defined as more than 182% of the spawner goal for fall Chinook salmon and more than 156% of the spawner goal for coho and chum salmon.
2.The Grays Harbor control zone is defined as an area at the entrance to Grays Harbor bounded by a line from the lighthouse 1 mile south of the south jetty to buoy #2 to buoy #3 to the tip of the north jetty to the tip of the exposed end of the south jetty.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/14 09:30 AM

What we have here is a E mail from Fish Program AD Jim Scott outlining coming events in the process to redo the Grays Harbor Management Plan. The final policy guidelines were attached along with two other documents. The policy guidelines are available on WDF&W's website along with having been posted in this thread previously. I or someone will get the other two documents up a bit later.

It has been a intense effort by WDF&W staff & the East County guys to finish all aspects of the Litigation but it is a done deal. So round two begins. Oh yeah almost forgot, if you want the actual e mail with the attachments hit me with a PM and I will forward it to you.



Grays Harbor Advisory Group Members –

I have several pieces of news that I believe are positive steps toward conserving Grays Harbor salmon and improving fishery management.

Settlement Agreement. The Department signed an agreement on Friday to settle litigation regarding the rules for the 2013 Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay commercial fisheries. As described in the attached summary, rather than prolonging litigation, the parties have agreed to build on a shared interest in enhancing communication between the Department and recreational fishers, ensuring a strong technical foundation for salmon fishery management, and improving the integration of the North of Falcon fishery planning and the rules process. The agreement includes several provisions that are consistent with suggestions we included in our January presentation to the Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC). These include the development of a Grays Harbor web page to clearly and consistently provide information on catches and spawners, and a series of collaborative workshops with stakeholders. I wish to be clear that these workshops will be developed with input from all of you – not just the parties to the settlement agreement – and all members of the public will be encouraged to attend the workshops.

Improvements in Technical Tools. We have discussed extensively during the last three months the draft Grays Harbor policy under consideration by the Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC). Our discussions have necessarily focused on higher level policy guidance and general management direction, but I have also heard you and the public express many technical concerns. Although all of those technical concerns may not be individually addressed in the draft policy, we have attempted to capture them in several of the guiding principles and in the adaptive management section.

For example, Guiding Principle 12 of the draft Grays Harbor Policy states: “The Department shall improve fishery management and technical tools through improved fishery monitoring, the development of new tools and rigorous assessment of fishery models and parameters.”

The 2014 fishery planning season is now quickly approaching, and I want you to be aware of three actions that will address some of the more technical concerns that I have heard from the advisors or the public.

Grays Harbor Planning Model. I have heard on several occasions that the Grays Harbor fishery planning model may have had computational errors in past years (I believe John Campbell may have been the first person that provided me with this information). As a step toward implementing Guiding Principle 12 and addressing this technical concern, I have initiated the contracting process to get an independent review of the model’s computational formulas. I hope to get that contract initiated next week - time is short before we start 2014 fishery planning!

Preseason Catch Projections. A second technical concern that I have heard is that our preseason catch or impact projections do not accurately capture the current fisheries or accurately project fishery impacts. The Area 2-2 recreational fishery is probably the example I hear most frequently. We view this issue as a good topic for the workshops that were discussed above and included in the settlement agreement. We’re targeting a February workshop and will be soliciting your ideas for how to make the workshop successful.

Release Mortality Rates. The release mortality rates used by the Department to project the mortality of Chinook salmon released in commercial fisheries is a third technical concern that I have frequently heard. This is a complex topic and, while the mortality rates for salmon released by recreational fishers have been the topic of multiple scientific reviews, I am not aware that the rates used by the Department for commercial fisheries in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay have had a similar scientific review. Accordingly, we have included in the settlement agreement a process to engage the assistance of independent scientific experts to provide us with recommendations. Again, we will be soliciting your ideas for how to make the workshop successful.

Well – its already noon on Saturday. I’m going to see if I can catch some of this beautiful day. Look forward to talking with you soon.

Jim



Grays Harbor Advisory Group Members –

I would like to thank all of you for your assistance in developing the Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management policy that was adopted by the Fish & Wildlife Commission. I have attached the final policy and it is also available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies.html.

As I mentioned in my previous e-mail, we are working with the Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy nonprofit to conduct two workshops to improve the technical foundation for our fishery management. Here is an update on the current status of these technical workshops.

Preseason Catch Projections. We are convening a technical workgroup to review and improve our methods for predicting salmon catch or impacts in recreational and commercial fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin. The workgroup will include three WDFW staff members, two technical experts from the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy, and 1 position is open for a technical expert from the commercial fishing industry. During the next month, we anticipate that the technical workgroup will meet on at least two occasions to develop recommendations for improvements in our catch and impact predictions. We have scheduled a workshop for March 10, 2PM, Natural Resources Building, Room 172 for the technical workgroup to present their analyses and recommendations. Let me know if you have suggestions for how to help make this workshop successful. Additional information is provided in the attachment.

Release Mortality Rates. We are convening an Independent Fishery Scientist Panel (IFSP) to recommend release mortality rates to use in preseason planning of commercial fisheries in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay (additional information is in the attachment). We are fortunate to have secured the assistance of three great scientists: Lars Mobrand, Alex Wertheimer, and Steve Smith. Each of them has had a distinguished career with important contributions to fishery management. We are looking forward to working with them through the following steps:

February 19 – Background information provided to IFSP. This will include a literature survey of relevant studies, harvest rates and other fishery data, environmental data such as water temperature and salinity, and information on fisher behavior and compliance with rules.

February 26 – Workshop to present a summary of the information to the IFSP, allow the IFSP to ask questions, and provide an opportunity for the public to make comments. The workshop will include technical presentations from WDFW, the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy nonprofit, and a slot is available for a technical expert from the commercial fishing industry. The workshop will occur in the General Administration Building, Auditorium, 2-5pm.

March 14 - IFSP provides draft report for 5-day review period.

March 26 – IFSP provides final report.

Please do not hesitate to contact me or Steve Thiesfeld if you have any questions.

Jim

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/14 12:28 PM


So what we have next is the scope of work for workshops on commercial release mortalities. If you do not like C&P's not much I can do to help you with that as this & the next ( along with a previous post ) are the processes to reform the harvest model.



Scope of Work
Mortality Rates for Salmon Released in Commercial Fisheries in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay
Draft February 19, 2014

Task: The Independent Fishery Scientist Panel (IFSP) shall provide recommendations on the release mortality rates to be used in the preseason planning of commercial salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. In reaching these recommendations, the types of information that the IFSP shall rely upon shall include the following:
• Fishery rules codified in the Washington Administrative Code.
• Reports and publications on release mortality rates in Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and in other locations with similar fisheries.
• Fishery data including encounter rates, harvest rates, and the condition of Chinook salmon released.
• Environmental data including water temperature and salinity.
• Fisher behavior and compliance with rules.

IFSP Report: The IFSP final report will address the following questions and include the rationale for each response:

1) What are the recommended mortality rates for Chinook and chum salmon released in the fisheries described in Table 1 and with fishers complying with the applicable rules and the practices described in the Fish Friendly workshops?

Table 1. Fishery locations, time periods, gear, and WACs for consideration by the IFSP.

Fishery Location Time Period Gear Rules
Grays Harbor (areas 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D) Weeks 40-48 Gillnet, 6 1/2” maximum mesh WAC 220-36-023
Grays Harbor (areas 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D) Weeks 40-48 Tangle net, 4 ¼” maximum mesh WAC 220-36-023
Willapa Bay (areas 2M-2T) Mid-August through mid-September Gillnet, 9” maximum mesh WAC 220-40-021
WAC 220-40-027
Willapa Bay (areas 2M–2T) Mid-September through October 31 Gillnet, 6 ½” maximum mesh WAC 220-40-021
WAC 220-40-021

2) For these same fisheries, what are the recommended mortality rates for Chinook and chum salmon released taking into consideration actual practices in the fisheries?

3) If any mortality rates differed between your responses to questions 2 and 3, what were the major compliance issues that were the source of this difference?


Process:
February 3-4: Identify candidates for Independent Fishery Scientist Panel (IFSP) (Scott, Hamilton).
February 3-14: Solicit information from the commercial fishing industry relevant to the mortality rates for salmon released from commercial fisheries (Scott)
February 3-14: Compile information relevant to the mortality rates for salmon released from commercial fisheries (Scott, Hamilton).
February 5 – 7: Contact candidates for IFSP and determine availability (Scott).
February 10: Select IFSP members (Scott, Hamilton).
February 11-14: Complete contracts for IFSP members (Scott).
February 19: Provide questions, schedule, and information package to IFSP (Scott).
February 26: Conduct workshop with presentations to the IFSP (Scott, Hamilton).
March 14: IFSP provides draft report.
March 19: Comments provided to IFSP (Scott, Hamilton)
March 26: IFSP provides final report.
March 28: IFSP final report posted to Department website.

Workshop Format
1) The workshop will be conducted in Olympia on February 26, General Administration Building, Auditorium, 2PM.
2) The length of the workshop will be approximately 3 hours, with the following format:
• Introduction (10 minutes)
• Technical presentations (20 minutes Department; 20 minutes technical representative from nonprofit organization; 20 minutes technical representative from commercial fishing industry)
• IFSP questions and answers (60 minutes)
• Public comments (30 minutes, 3 minutes maximum per commenter)
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/14 12:33 PM


Final part is the scope of work for the mortalities on the rec side.


Scope of Work
Workshop to Develop Improved Methods for Predicting the Catch of Salmon in Grays Harbor Fisheries
Draft February 11, 2014

Objective: Develop improved methods for preseason predictions of catch in WDFW-managed salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor.

Technical Team: The intent is that the technical team shall work together to complete a joint report that provides recommendations to improve catch projections. The technical team shall be comprised of three members from the WDFW and three at-large members. The commercial fishery industry will be provided the opportunity to fill one of the three at-large positions.

The technical team tasks are to:

1) Quantitatively evaluate the preseason predictions of catch or encounters in the following fisheries:
a. Recreational Fisheries – Chinook
i. Chinook catch or encounters in the Area 2-2 recreational fishery prior to week 40.
ii. Chinook catch or encounters in the Area 2-2 recreational fishery in weeks 40-48.
iii. Chinook catch or encounters in the Chehalis River mainstem recreational fishery.
iv. Chinook catch or encounters in recreational fisheries in each tributary to the Chehalis River.
v. Chinook catch or encounters in the recreational fishery in the Humptulips River.
b. Recreational Fisheries – Coho
i. Coho catch or encounters in the Area 2-2 recreational fishery prior to week 40.
ii. Coho catch or encounters in the Area 2-2 recreational fishery in weeks 40-48.
iii. Coho catch or encounters in the Chehalis River mainstem recreational fishery.
iv. Coho catch or encounters in recreational fisheries in each tributary to the Chehalis River.
v. Coho catch or encounters in the recreational fishery in the Humptulips River.
c. Recreational Fisheries – Chum
i. Chum catch or encounters in the Chehalis River mainstem recreational fishery.
ii. Chum catch or encounters in recreational fisheries in each tributary to the Chehalis River.
iii. Chum catch or encounters in the recreational fishery in the Humptulips River.
d. Commercial Fisheries -- Chinook
i. Chinook catch or encounters in the commercial fishery in areas 2A and 2D in weeks 40-48.
ii. Chinook catch or encounters in the commercial fishery in area 2C in weeks 40-48

e. Commercial Fisheries – Coho
i. Coho catch or encounters in the commercial fishery in areas 2A and 2D in weeks 40-48.
ii. Coho catch or encounters in the commercial fishery in area 2C in weeks 40-48.
f. Commercial Fisheries – Chum
i. Chum catch or encounters in the commercial fishery in areas 2A and 2D in weeks 40-48.
ii. Chum catch or encounters in the commercial fishery in area 2C in weeks 40-48.

2) For a minimum of the 10 fisheries with the worst performance, develop and quantitatively evaluate (using jackknife or bootstrap hindcasting) alternative predictors.

3) Using the results from the hindcasting, recommend methods to predict the catch or encounters for each fishery in 2014.

Process:
February 3-4: Identify members of technical team (Scott, Hamilton).
February 13: Information on predicted and actual catches distributed to technical team (Scott)
February 3-28: Technical team conducts analysis and prepares recommendations. The technical team shall meet together a minimum of two times to complete the assigned tasks.
March 10: Technical team presents analysis and recommendations at public workshop.
March 12: Technical team presentation posted to WDFW webpage.

Workshop Format:
1) The workshop will be conducted in Olympia on March 10, 2014, 2PM, Natural Resources Building, room 172.
2) The length of the workshop will be approximately 1.5 hours, with the following format:
• Introduction (10 minutes)
• Technical Team presentation (50 minutes)
• Technical Team addresses questions from the public (30 minutes)
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/14 07:32 PM

Here's the meeting time and place set for the public meeting with the panel of 3 experts that have been retained to issue a recommendation to WDFW on a commercial selective gillnet mortality for Chinook and Chum in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. There will be a short presentation from Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy (Tim Hamilton) and then WDFW (Jim Scott). A question and answer period will follow. Then, the public in attendance will be allowed the opportunity to speak and offer their comments.

After the public meeting, the members of the panel will issue a report that includes their recommendations on mortality rates for selective fishing with a gillnet in the two coastal estuaries.

The GA Building is located a block off Capitol Way on the edge of the Capitol Campus. The meeting is in the auditorium. Parking is difficult in the immediate area.

Workshop Date, Time, and Location: The workshop will occur on February 26, 2-5PM, in the Auditorium of the General Administration Building in Olympia. Best idea may be to park on P-3 at the Natural Resources Building (WDFW offices) and walk the two or so blocks to the GA Building at 210 11th Ave SW, Olympia, WA 98501.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/14 12:56 PM


This bit is from Steve Thiesfeld ( the Region 6 Fish Program Manager ) and the links have in them information and the Power Point presentation from the final Commission meeting. It is a bit confusing to say the least with the lack of a steady flow of information but doing catch up so read on and more to be posted soon.


Attached is the presentation from Saturday’s Commission meeting http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/02/feb0714_14_presentation.pdf.

I’ve also attached the version of the policy that the commission reviewed on Saturday that is posted on our webpage http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/02/feb0714_14_policy.pdf. I don’t yet have a clean copy of the final.

And finally, the summary sheet http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/02/feb0714_14_summary.pdf.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/14 02:42 PM


Well everyone here is the final part of this attempt to getting information out to everyone. ( for now ) The link is to the FTC website and the East Grays Harbor County guys independent panel of experts that are participating. Links to the submitted analysis / papers are imbedded in the write up. I think this might help those who have not followed events closely to catch up.

http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/14 12:52 PM

Last call for the workshop on the Grays Harbor Commercial Non Treaty net fishery. This is about the gillnet release mortality more commonly know as the " Chehalis Fling " http://fishingthechehalis.net/chehalis-fling and I am told there will be several presentations. So it is part of the harvest model redo so I urge all to make if you can. The location is known for the poor parking so make your plans accordingly.

Workshop Date, Time, and Location: The workshop will occur on February 26, 2-5PM, in the Auditorium of the General Administration Building in Olympia. Best idea may be to park on P-3 at the Natural Resources Building (WDFW offices) and walk the two or so blocks to the GA Building at 210 11th Ave SW, Olympia, WA 98501.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/14 10:03 PM




The Department of Fish & Wildlife has asked the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy ( THFWA ) to assist them with a public notice so I thought this is a good way to help them out. Those interested can access data, files and information that has been presented to the members of the scientific panel studying mortality rates for selective fishing with a gillnet in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor using a special "box" set up for the Panel members. The public can access all the files provided the Panel by WDFW at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/downloads/Settlement%20Workshop%20Materials/

To access the files and presentation made to the Panel from the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy, those documents are also available for viewing and downloading on the fishingthechehalis.net website at http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process

Much of the process that was dictated by the out of court settlement between THFWA and WDF&W on the 2013 seasons has been posted up before in this thread. Now that said it is a lot of dry reading but it is important for those who have a desire to keep pace and comprehend the difference between NOF in the past and the 2014 process. It is substantial and I or someone will post a update on workshop that took place on 2/26 on gillnet mortalities soon.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/14 08:52 PM

The first Adviser meeting is next week so I am getting the word out to everyone. As it was last year the public can set in and observe but not participate. In most cases time at the end of the meeting time is set aside for the public to comment. So it is this simple, it is always best to hit every meeting possible to track any process. Those who do are usually more informed and regarded with a bit more credibility than someone than shows late just to bitch. Not sure it should work that way but it is what it is.

Tuesday March 4th WDF&W Region 6 offices Montesano.
Grays Harbor Advisors from 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm.
Willapa Bay Advisors from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/07/14 12:42 PM

Well next up in the Grays Harbor Management Plan redo is the technical work being done on the harvest model. Important? Yup but most folks have not and will not get into the model functions but it is a critical element in setting seasons so if you can I urge you all to attend.


The technical panel consisting of numerous WDFW staff, two from the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy, and a representative of the commercial fishery have been meeting regularly to correct errors and develop means to improve the reliability and accuracy of the GH fall season harvest model used in setting seasons in the Grays Harbor terminal. In addition, WDFW contracted with a outside consulting firm to go through the model and come up with recommended changes as well.

A results of this effort will be presented in a public workshop on Monday, 3/10/2014 in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building from 2 pm - 5 pm. The public is invited and an opportunity for the public to ask the panel members questions will follow the presentation.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/07/14 02:21 PM

Here is the schedule as of now for the NOF GH with the workshops.



2014 &#8208; North of Falcon (NOF) and Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Advisors Meeting Schedule
Area Date/Location AGENDA

Grays Harbor Advisors (public comment at end)
March 4th
Grays Harbor Advisors from 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm.
Montesano DFW Office Advisory Group function APA Process Review Pre&#8208;season forecasts Management Objectives Meeting Coordination Public Comment

Willapa Bay Advisors (public comment at end)
March 4th
Willapa Bay Advisors from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm.
Montesano DFW Office Advisory Group function APA Process Review Pre&#8208;season forecasts Management Objectives Meeting Coordination Public Comment

Grays Harbor Advisors (public comment at end)
March 14th 6 pm to 9 pm Montesano DFW Office APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Policy Implementation Fishery suggestions Public Comment

Grays Harbor NOF Public Workshop #1
(APA record testimony to immediately follow)
March 19th 6 pm to 8 pm Montesano City Hall
APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Policy Implementation Fishery suggestions

Grays Harbor Testimony For APA record
March 19th 8 pm to 9 pm Montesano City Hall Individuals will be provided up to 3 minutes to go on the record relative to Grays Harbor Rule Making (Fishery Seasons Development)

Willapa Bay Advisors (public comment at end)
March 21st 6 pm to 9 pm Montesano Timberland Library
125 S Main St, Montesano, WA 98563 APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Policy Implementation Fishery suggestions Public Comment

Willapa Bay NOF Public Workshop #1
(APA record testimony to immediately follow)
March 25th 6 pm to 8 pm Raymond Elks
APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Management Plan Implementation Fishery suggestions

Here is the complete GH NOF schedule with the workshops as it stands now.


Willapa Bay Testimony For APA record
March 25thth 8 pm to 9 pm
Raymond Elks Individuals will be provided up to 3 minutes to go on the record relative to Grays Harbor Rule Making (Fishery Seasons Development)

Grays Harbor NOF Public Workshop #2
(APA record testimony to immediately follow)
April 4th 9 am to Noon NRB Room 172 APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Policy Implementation Fishery suggestions Fishery Structure

Grays Harbor Testimony For APA record
April 4th Noon to 1 pm NRB Room 172 Individuals will be provided up to 3 minutes to go on the record relative to Grays Harbor Rule Making (Fishery Seasons Development)

Willapa Bay NOF Public Workshop #2
(APA record testimony to immediately follow)
April 4th 1 pm to 3:30 pm NRB Room 172 APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Management Plan Implementation Fishery suggestions
Fishery Structure

Willapa Bay Testimony For APA record
April 4th 3:30 pm to 4:30 NRB Room 172 Individuals will be provided up to 3 minutes to go on the record relative to Willapa Bay Rule Making (Fishery Seasons Development)



Those who do not understand the APA / WAC process can read up here: http://www.k12.wa.us/profpractices/adminresources/rulesprocess/faq.aspx
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/14 04:08 PM


This hearing got by me as it is not in the schedule so I think a repost is helpful. Now this bit is about the harvest model & the calculations utilized by the Excel spreadsheet. For the past several years Softbite and others have been constantly pointing out errors in the model but frankly folks that thing is a mess and tomorrow is the first time the private consultants review will be made public. A little known fact is WDF&W contracted with a consulting firm to review the model accuracy and the consultants review will become part of the record. It will be a little unusual to watch the process roll out tomorrow. So below is the meeting time and location.

The technical panel consisting of numerous WDFW staff, two from the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy, and a representative of the commercial fishery have been meeting regularly to correct errors and develop means to improve the reliability and accuracy of the GH fall season harvest model used in setting seasons in the Grays Harbor terminal. In addition, WDFW contracted with a outside consulting firm to go through the model and come up with recommended changes as well.

A results of this effort will be presented in a public workshop on Monday, 3/10/2014 in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building from 2 pm - 5 pm. The public is invited and an opportunity for the public to ask the panel members questions will follow the presentation.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/14 03:49 PM

A lot is going on and frankly after the workshop on the harvest model it does not instill confidence. As one non agency panel member said “ do not bet the farm on this as it could be plus or minus 200% “ so this thing is really up in the air as to just what is about to happen let alone anyone have any confidence that the numbers in the model will reflect reality. WDF&W hired and outside consultant, MORI-ko, LLC, to review the harvest model on only 4 subjects and MORI-ko came back with came back with 13 pages of items that were wrong or undocumented ( proofed ) assumptions residing in the model. Now many were addressed by the panel but are little more than Band-Aids on the much larger problem of the lack of accuracy I mentioned previously.


From page 12 of the MORI-ko report:

Consideration should also be given to modifying the Model structure to reflect the gauntlet nature of Grays Harbor Fisheries, where fisheries in outer harbor areas affect run sizes in more inside and river fishing areas. For instance, fisheries in estuarine areas (e.g., 2-2. 2B, 2C, 2D) have no effect on projected catches by freshwater sport fisheries. Instead of projecting impacts using harvest rates on fish remaining after removals by estuarine fisheries, freshwater sort catches are computed using s exploitation rates on the total terminal run size. This formulation contains implicit assumptions regarding independence among fisheries, migration run timing of hatchery and wild components, unspecified environmental conditions, and the ability to control effort to constrain allowable catches to projected levels. The current Model structure is not consistent with this characteristic or the gauntlet-type run reconstruction methods employed by WDFW and QIN in their recent report concerning the escapement goal for Grays Harbor fall chinook.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/14 02:00 PM


This is heads up time as the NOF process gets closer and folks have asked just where are we? Well that is a good question so at this moment here is my take on things.



So the good first.

1. The Commission policies adopted will get three net free days a week. ( hopefully as the QIN can choose to fish more than 4 days )

2. The legal action challenging the 2013 settlement required WDF&W to get real numbers in the model for the Non Treaty Nets so that should, could , may, be done.

3. The APA process that creates the WAC's for harvest will meet legal requirements. Again this comes from the out of court settlement and WDF&W did not address this issue on their own.



Now the bad

1. We will be in 3/5 on the Chehalis for Chinook and the same for Humptulips Coho. 3/5 is if you miss escapement 3 out of 5 years harvest is limited to 5% release mortality only on that stock / speices.

2. WDF&W will continue to have corrupted commercial release data entered into the model as the District 17 staffer whose numbers were pure fantasy is still around and no change here.

3. It has been said the model is accurate to plus or minus 200% at any point such as week in the harvest model. In other words it is dart board time once again and nobody knows where this is going. Considering the fact that if escapement is not made the fish and citizens will pay the piper and WDF&W staff will still get paid and go merrily down the road one should not expect earth shattering change here either.

4. Despite the appearance of public involvement it is pretty much behind closed doors at this minute. WDF&W is working with the lawsuit settlement folks but after that nah, pretty much looks the usual dog & pony show is headed your way. If not for the information I and other citizens made available to the public just about zip has come from WDF&W and unless we see a dramatic change in direction the average citizen will have little input into this fall's salmon seasons.

5. The Humptulips Natural Origin Recruits Coho ( spawning adults ) have not made escapement since 1987 and something has to give. Just what is going to happen? I have no idea but this is a real issue.

6. Will the QIN seasons be in the model as the state seasons are set? Yes the Commission said but ( ah yeah the but thing again ) they did not say it had to be in the model when NOF goes forward so where the QIN season shows up is a real question. Which means those who feel strongly about conservation are not going to have any ability gauge the total season impacts until WDF&W files the CR 102 ( legally setting the season WAC ). Now the law permits you to comment on the legal record then but that is about it. Which means unless you get on the legal record with the intention of hiring a attorney and heading off to court ( take your check book with you ) then your pretty much being shoved to the curb.

7. The issue of the QIN exercising their treaty rights to 50% of the harvestable adults to Grays Harbor as a whole vs the Commission's and WDF&W's desire to manage the Humptulips and Chehalis Basin's separately has not been resolved. If you think back to the 2013 seasons WDF&W had the QIN proposals around April 4th but refused to place them in the model for the public to see until the QIN made their seasons public much later. Heavens folks I dropped the days in the model and made it public before the agency reluctantly did so. Oh almost forgot with the QIN seasons put in the 2013 model it hit minus 1200 for Chinook escapement on the Chehalis which in plain English means WDF&W knew full well when they established the states seasons ( both commercial & rec ) on paper in the model that the Chehalis Chinook would not make escapement. Now the new Commission policy guidelines say you will make escapement so choose your poison as to the notion that Region 6 District 17 staff ah ................... has joyfully endorsed this concept?



All that said I will still urge any who can to attend this coming Fridays Adviser meeting. Why? Well it has been a citizen effort that brought the potential for change in Grays Harbor fisheries by going to the Commission. The Commission agreed and put in place new guidelines. ( thank you Commissioners ) Assistant Director Fish Program Jim Scott has put a lot of effort in Grays Harbor as has the new Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Thiesfeld but that does not mean it has been with any transparency at all. I think this partly due the very tight timeline that the APA process allowed then you have the one constant factor that is always around WDF&W. They really do not care for the public rummaging around ( let alone participate ) the decision making process.

So participate in the process the best you can but do it with eyes wide open knowing that much has changed at the Commission level but that does not necessarily mean that Region 6 or District 17 staff mindset has.


So here are the upcoming dates.

Grays Harbor Advisors (public comment at end)
March 14th 6 pm to 9 pm Montesano DFW Office APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Policy Implementation Fishery suggestions Public Comment

Grays Harbor NOF Public Workshop #1
(APA record testimony to immediately follow)
March 19th 6 pm to 8 pm Montesano City Hall
APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Policy Implementation Fishery suggestions

Grays Harbor Testimony For APA record
March 19th 8 pm to 9 pm Montesano City Hall Individuals will be provided up to 3 minutes to go on the record relative to Grays Harbor Rule Making (Fishery Seasons Development)






Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/14/14 01:10 PM


A bump for a reminder of tonight's Adviser meeting. 3 hours and here is the agenda but all should remember in this meeting public participation / comment is at the end.

Grays Harbor Advisors (public comment at end)
March 14th 6 pm to 9 pm Montesano DFW Office APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Policy Implementation Fishery suggestions Public Comment

Agenda

1. Process
2. Other Mortality Factors (e.g. drop off, hooking mortality, pinniped)
3. Release mortality rates, results from Independent Fishery Science Panel
4. Final Management Objectives
5. Fishery Modeling
6. Tribal Discussion
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/14 01:55 PM

So how did the Adviser meeting go? Interesting to what the he-- is my read so the high points.

1. Ron Warren outlined that the QIN had obtained grants to do a biological assessment for Chinook escapement needs and that PFMC had agreed to the results. Simply put the accumulative escapement goals for Grays Harbor Chinook are to be reduced. Going to mean some real changes for the future harvest allocations for both treaty and non treaty.

2. WDF&W staff hoped to develop harvest options to take to the public but not sure that was accomplished. On the Rec side the Adviser's went right at the harvest model to overlay the new policy guidelines to see what was possible this season. Not so much on the commercial side. They had problems with the guidelines, new selective fishery mortalities rates, and in general staying real as to what was possible in the model.

3. Considerable disagreement emerged over the fact that in Grays Harbor & Willapa a drop out rate has not been utilized for either Rec or Commercial nets ( both QIN or NT Nets ). Agency staff preference was to let it ride and fix it next year. That I and others objected to but some agreed with the staff thoughts. In the end the Commercials came to put the drop out rates in also so the issue is undecided at this moment. One of those you know the impact number is incorrect, lot of effort to fix it ( agency thoughts ) so to fix or not is the question left on the table.

4. Now a real failure. This past year the Adviser meetings were opened to the public for citizens to set in and observe the process and comment at the end. That was a good thing but it left some citizens not familiar to the process ... ah confused? Nah lets tell it like it is ticked off. I think, incorrect, know that it appeared to some non Advisers that a group of Advisers were setting down and dividing up the harvest. Now that criticism was probably valid in the past but not so much presently. All Region 6 was attempting to do is take input to get the new harvest guidelines flushed out with options that the public could review and comment on AND provide additional input on good / bad / otherwise.

That was not communicated properly or reinforced as the meeting progressed resulting in confusion and anger. How WDF&W communicates exactly the process underway to the public needs to be addressed. The old way of doing things is history but if your a citizen not familiar with allocation of harvest and how all public input gathered and it is not clearly defined then confusion followed by anger is pretty much the reaction most folks will have. That is unfortunate and Region 6 staff need to address it sooner than later.


Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/14 03:39 PM

Rivrguy,

Thanks for the update. But to quote my friend eyeFish, GDITMMM!

1. This is so simple I don't know why I didn't think of it before. The solution to harvest always is to lower the escapement goal. I have a suggestion that will save QIN some time and money. Let's adjust the Chehalis chinook escapement to zero - for the QIN. I've gotten used to not fishing for harbor chinook, so I've made my adjustment. WDFW can save a few $$ and stop stocking any hatchery chinook in the Chehalis basin. Then we can watch QIN chinook salmon management in action where they have no federal hatchery $$ as a backstop.

3. So they can't even decide whether to try to fix the problem? Then that is the problem. It's one thing not knowing how best to go about finding the answer. It's quite another to toss around the notion of not even trying to figure out how to find the answer.

I was under the impression that WDFW intended to satisfy the critical terms of your lawsuit. Now it's looking more and more like they're trying to figure out how to dodge it and continue with business as usual.

Sg
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/14 03:41 PM

The key is that we are now officially in the NOF process.

That process is ALL about killing fish…. who gets to kill 'em, where and when they get killed…. typically right down to the last available fish

NOF has nothing to do with conservation. Conservation has already been put in place by policy. At no point in history has the bar for conservation ever been set so high in Grays Harbor. Once the preseason forecasts are plugged into the policy provisions…. escapement to the gravel, tribal agreements/treaties, the 3 out 5 escapement guideline, the 3-day escapement window, and the new commercial ban on directed chinook fisheries…. what (hopefully) emerges on the either end is a finite number of fish left for the fishing industry (rec and comm) to harvest.

To the fullest extent possible, NOF seeks to kill them in a 2014 harvest management plan that sets rec and comm fishing seasons intended to maximally utilize every available paper fish.

I realize that turns a lot of people off. Those folks must accept that if they wanna go fishing, FISH WILL DIE! And if they want the best seasons possible, in terms of time/area/bag, recs MUST assert their claim to the available harvest…. right down to the last fish. There is no shame in that. Rest assured that conservation has already come off the top…. we simply seek to make the best of what's left .

Time to get busy killing some fish.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/14 04:01 PM

I believe Dave missed one rather significant highlight in his last post.

New chinook release mortalities have been assigned. Historic rates applied a 45% mortality for gillnets and 14% mortality for tangle nets. After independent scientific review of the available literature, the new rates are as follows:

65% for chinook mesh (9" gear)… a 44% increase
61% for coho/chum mesh (6" gear)… a 36% increase
30% for tooth/tangle mesh (4" gear)… a 114% increase

The increased rates translate directly to increased chinook impacts for each day on the water. Commercials will burn thru their available proportionately faster with each gear type, which means less fishing days for the season.

BTW it's my understanding the new rates will be applied equally to Willapa Bay.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/14 04:37 PM

Hey THX Doc I was going get it a bit later but you got it!

Quote:
WDFW can save a few $$ and stop stocking any hatchery chinook in the Chehalis basin


SG the Chinook of hatchery origin in the Chehalis come primarily from Satsop Springs operated by the LOCAL community, are as close to 100% broodstock as humanly possible to get and have about ZERO additional impacts added to harvest, be it tribal or Non Tribal, to Natural Origin Recruits. ( NOR ) Prior to the local effort the E. Fork Satsop Chinook had been nearly wiped out for whatever the reason and the effort by folks are pretty much the only reason the Satsop sub basin Chinook have recovered to the levels they have. On the legal SG I think Scott & Thiesfeld are trying ( now the but ) BUT while they might get by me with some BS there is no way they get Tim, Ron, & Art let alone Mr. Joe their attorney.

Say speaking of the science panel it is surprising what rolled out. Besides what Doc said another is the Rec catch they caught that inriver numbers modeled for catch prediction was charged against the total run size. Say the run was 100k then the Bay Rec, QIN, and Non Treaty net take fish 45k so you have 55k remaining that the inriver sport ( and Chehalis Tribal ) fish on. The GH model was developing the inriver impacts off of the 100k rather than 55k remaining which resulted in the modeled impacts to be far greater than they really would be. Plain English the inriver was getting screwed one more time, BIG time. Which is when Doc, I, and others put forth the model inaccuracy of under reporting NT Nets & bay rec and OVER estimating Rec inriver we went on the hunt. Thanks to the panel we have part of the answer now.

Doc is also correct in that the new mortality rates for selective fishing will apply to Willapa. The out of court settlement was for BOTH. Also this was the scientific panel draft as some changes are going appear in the numbers as it is finished and Chum which are a straight non retention gillnet not selective in any manner is going to have a new mortality rate also.
Posted by: treefarmer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/14 11:10 AM

Many thanks to those of you who have taken the time to make a difference.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/14 12:34 PM


The next step in the North of Falcon is the meeting March 19th for public input.

Grays Harbor NOF Public Workshop #1
(APA record testimony to immediately follow)
March 19th 6 pm to 8 pm Montesano City Hall
APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Policy Implementation Fishery suggestions

Grays Harbor Testimony For APA record
March 19th 8 pm to 9 pm Montesano City Hall Individuals will be provided up to 3 minutes to go on the record relative to Grays Harbor Rule Making (Fishery Seasons Development)


So I urge all to attend as this is your opportunity to address the coming salmon seasons. I realize completely that thus far WDF&W has provided little to no information to the public since the Commission adopted the new Grays Harbor Management Plan guidelines. That said folks this is your time coming up to tell them what your thoughts are and get some information on the process of implementing the new GHMP guidelines.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/14 02:54 PM

Maybe there will be some time for the public to comment at this meeting. Know what I mean? bob r
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/14 03:57 PM

Yes I do and I would urge anyone to speak to the fact that WDFW has intentionally allowed the public to remain uninformed as to the progress and the manner in which NOF is going forward. The APA process can / will be confusing to many but it is the legal process that establishes the fishing WAC's. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=34.05 Oh, at the end of the meeting citizens can place comments that will go into the legal record which in the Concise Explanatory Statement ( CES ) which by law WDF&W must respond to.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/14 05:18 PM

Melanie and I sat for over 3 hours listening to the last meeting (other then the "regulars" we were the only public present)and after all that time we were told that we wouldn't get to comment publicly 'till almost 10:00 P.M., and that these meetings sometimes go 'till 11:00 , all I have to say is that the public is treated like S*** at these meetings, they are run like s*** by the state reps(new region 6 manager for one), VERY discouraging to those from the "public"who give up their time (and supper!) to attend these "talkfests", don't quite see what our input has to do with anything that they will "accomplish", BUT WE WILL BE THERE on Wed. Bob R
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/14 11:42 PM

bob r:

I agree.......I see another "dog and pony show"....different pony ring, different music and a different year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/14 11:34 AM

Well here is the next meeting for Willapa and it is the public input portion of the NOF process. Now considering the bomb that WDF&W dropped in scrapping the so called Willapa Management Plan at the Adviser meeting and implementing new objectives it might be a meeting to attend. There is a lot of doubt out in the public as WDF&W outlined commercial cut backs but not the rec. Word is the gillnetters are out recruiting Rep Blake & Senator Hatfield to stop any reform or reduction in commercial net seasons. Several folks are trying to get the agency to put forth a meeting notice and a copy of the new Willapa Objectives for the public to review but so far WDF&W has refused to do so.

Please folks recognize it is not accidental as they are conducting business as usual out of sight no input no nothing. It would appear WDF&W and Region 6 have not learned a damn thing in the past two years. One would think if your going to have a auction ( hidden influence ) on the citizens salmon seasons they would at least let everyone know the starting bid.

Willapa Bay NOF Public Workshop #1
(APA record testimony to immediately follow)
March 25th 6 pm to 8 pm Raymond Elks
APA Process Review Forecast
Management Objectives Management Plan Implementation Fishery suggestions


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/14 07:55 PM

This link is to the final report for the revised commercial net mortalities in Grays Harbor and Willapa Harbor. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3ycDFKTUoxYWdVLVU/edit

The panel review and report was part of the out of court settlement challenging the 2013 seasons.
http://fishingthechehalis.net/nof-process

Interesting reading to say the least.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/14 08:20 PM

Cliff Notes version....

In a nutshell 65/61/30...

Now becomes 62/56/31.

Small mesh gear (6" coho mesh) now carries a 56% chinook mortality ... effectively stretching the limited available gillnet impacts by another 10%. Might buy them another day in GH, almost certainly more in WB.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/14 08:33 PM

Actual practice table 3 at 90% compliance is where those numbers originate. The key is the numbers are off 90% compliance with the rules and add the 3% drop out to the numbers. Read the section on on-board observers and Willapa had .71% per boat trip. That does not appear to have pasted muster with the ISFP so what WDF&W does to get the observer per boat ratio up is going to be interesting to watch.

From ISFP: "To the ISFP, observer presence as implemented in past years is likely not sufficient to affect compliance rate for Fish Friendly techniques by the fishing fleet. "
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/14 10:14 AM

Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Thiesfeld has provided several model options for folks to work with. If you were not on his contact list PM me your e mail address and I will forward it to anyone who wants to take a shot at working with the modeled options.

Little edit: To the question would one understand the model easily, ah no unless your very familiar with Excel. In addition the staff notes on the model identify using the Columbia 45% mortality on commercial release mortality which is not what will used but rather the new mortalities developed by the Independent Scientific Review. Any bio mathematicians out there familiar with fishing models that would like review the model would be great as the more eyes the better.

That said if one has the model I can show anyone interested how to navigate through the thing as it is not shall we say user friendly.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/05/14 12:20 PM

Did not know my e mail could melt, now I do. Here it is down and dirty. Many of us over the past year & half have beat the holy hell out of agency staff for not being forthright and transparent if you like. So The new R 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld took a different track. He was rather frank on the status of negotiations with the QIN but stressed it is a work in progress. He asked that those present not blast things all over the web until the co managers have completed their negotiations.

Bottom line is oh so many have asked that the agency do just that, be transparent. So I ask all to respect that and let the co managers complete their process. Soon enough all can complain / endorse / scream your choice but at the moment all should respect the request and allow the co managers to finish their work.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/14 12:36 PM

Date place and time for the CR102 hearing?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/14 01:14 PM

Unknown date and time at this point. Depends on date they actually file the CR 102. Can't have a hearing for at least 30 days to allow public comment via emails & letters. Currently expected in August around the 8th with adoption by Director following day. I expect the hearings will be in Monte office, but they can hold them in Oly if they want.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/14 09:04 PM


Just a bump for those asking what the status on GH & Willapa is. Previous post has it as to what is the status.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/14 09:05 AM

From the FTC crew, you all enjoy Easter and family as they are most important.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/02/14 02:19 PM

Having managed to get sicker than my dog I have had little time ( or desire ) to track things but this bit below concerns the closure on the Hoh. I asked what was up and the response I received is below. My question was what was up with the Clearwater & Hoh seasons.

From WDF&W:

No changes to Clearwater that I’m aware of. I did a quick glance and didn’t see a change.

We are below escapement on the Hoh for spring chinook and made a decision to close. Data showed we only caught ~ 30 hatchery Chinook a year. Seemed like a pretty low harvest to incur impacts on the wild stock . We talked about that a couple of times at NOF. We are trying to keep the tribes to 6% harvest rate.




From another email response:

Greetings Mr. XXX,

Your interpretation of the new fishing regulations is not in error. For a number of recent years we have been experiencing lower than normal returns of Spring Chinook in the Hoh River (see graph below). This year the run was forecast down yet again. As a result, we chose to limit our impacts on this depressed stock by closing the sport fishery for retention of all Chinook during this time period. That being said, the summer steelhead fishery opens the first Saturday in June, June 7th.

I hope this clarifies the regulations for this season. If you have further questions or concerns, feel free to contact me.

Thank you for your time,
David


David Low
Fishery Biologist
Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
Montesano, WA 98563
360-249-1216
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/07/14 09:46 PM

I was asked to update folks on how the negotiations between WDF&W and the Quinault Nation ( QIN ) are going for the 2014 season. To be honest I do not know all that much more than everyone else does but I did ask a bit back. The response I received is below and is a pretty straight forward assessment. While I could take issue with several of the points regarding the QIN I will leave that for another day. Keep in mind the information below IS NOT my views but another individuals opinion.

I will try my best to lay out the QIN position:
They are upset about the policy because it was developed without them and because we did not go out to them and walk them through it.
Walking them through it didn’t make them feel any better.
They feel like they are now being asked to consider a policy they had no hand in the development of.
They don’t feel that there is a conservation problem in Grays Harbor.
They feel like DFW staff did not push back hard enough that there isn’t a conservation problem in Grays Harbor.
They feel like the recreational anglers are going to come after them next. They specifically pointed out the “Ban Gillnets” sweatshirts that folks wore to the commission meetings.

With regards to this year’s fisheries:
Despite best efforts to point out the low run size of Hump NORs and the fact that we haven’t made the aggregate Chinook escapement goal in the past 2 years, they have not moved off their schedule.
They correctly maintain that all of the agreed-to escapement goals are being met with their original schedule.
They have conveyed that they remain flexible to discuss gear conflict, tides, first starts, etc.
They have conveyed that they don’t feel obligated to help us achieve the policy objectives.
At the last meeting, the issue of 4 calendar days or 96 hours came up. They felt we needed to clarify that. I have asked for that clarification, and it is 4 calendar days. That has really hamstrung us.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/08/14 12:16 AM

Quote:

They feel like the recreational anglers are going to come after them next. They specifically pointed out the “Ban Gillnets” sweatshirts that folks wore to the commission meetings.



Boo [Bleeeeep!] Hoo!
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/08/14 11:39 AM

GH chinook seldom meet escapement, yet QIN doesn't feel there is a conservation problem. Says a lot, right there.

Sg
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/08/14 12:31 PM

Ask the tribe located about 30 miles upstream (the basin's namesake) if they think there is a conservation issue, and I suspect you may get a different answer.... Makes one wonder what thinking goes on at the QIN table. Maybe for them it's simple: "We catch plenty of fish; there must not be an issue."

Low holing does lend a much more optimistic perspective, it seems.

So far, the paraphrased response above more or less looks the way I thought it would.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/11/14 09:48 AM


After running through my e mail I can put forth the following as pretty much right on.

1. WDF&W is still trying to have further conversations regarding the 2014 seasons but the QIN has pretty much put their cards on the table. One must remember that the QIN court mandates require them to manage to 50% harvestable across the bar. Escapements goals are for the basin and the QIN has no responsibility to manage down to the goal of each tributary reaching the escapement goal just the basin and the Humptulips is in the Chehalis Basin or Grays Harbor numbers. My view as to the new management plan excluding QIN participation is BS as the QIN could have participated at the Commission level but CHOSE NOT TO. They would prefer a behind closed door deal with WDF&W with no pier review or public scrutiny. Hell WDF&W has refused to provide the proposed QIN seasons for 2014 so this secrecy bit is both of them not just the QIN.

2. Humptulips hatchery funding that the QIN & WDF&W are working on is still in limbo.

3. Wynoochee Mitigation is still a issue. In 2010 the QIN's Ed Johnstone called BS on a revised plan that WDF&W put together which basically dropped out the additional mitigation production. WDF&W has been claiming that the QIN are holding things up and yes that may be true but Thank God or we would have truly had Region 6 running a muck. Now that the Commission has said the issue must be resolved by September so they need to go at it and get it done but not out of the public eye with WDF&W using some so called Technical Committee as a license to raid the mitigation funds.

4. With the passing of Billy Frank the QIN is pretty much looking inside to tribal functions honoring one of their leaders so not much is going to happen for a couple of weeks or so.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/12/14 12:17 PM

One more update. The Humptulips has a major straying problem with Coho and Natural Origin Coho being overrun by hatchery Coho. It is bad enough that it could impact both Rec & Commercial bay fisheries. ( A/C/D ) For years the local community and agency staff ( in Particular Paul Seidel, Jim Scot, Hal Micheals ) tried to get a intake for Stevens water to reduce straying but Puget Sound had priority. Well in the past Governor's job package the intake was included but not much has been said so I asked for a update and the response is below and this is great news!

" We took bids Wednesday and Quigg Brothers of Hoquiam was the low bid at $1,110,000. This was somewhat higher than the estimate of $950,000, but we’ll be awarding them the contract. We should have the contract executed in 3 weeks, and the contractor can start preparing for construction. Quigg is a good contractor and I’m pleased they got the bid. "
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/12/14 01:31 PM

The new intake is a great idea.

But, coho biology is that they spawn high in a watershed and rear low. Seed from the top down and then be pushed downstream to the desired habitat. From which they smolt. So, it is natural and desireable, from the fish perspective, to bypass the hatchery and push on upstream as far as they can. The solution would be to rack the Hump and filter out the hatchery fish.

Or, alternatively, allow enough wild fish to spawn that they numerically overwhelm the hatchery fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/12/14 02:06 PM


My bad, I was corrected as it was Rep. Blake that got the new Stevens Creek intake in the House Capitol Budget.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/21/14 08:00 PM

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#nof_2014_wb

The agency has filed the CR 102 for the Willapa Commercial seasons. Take a look and more to come as we all look through but I was told that it is based upon a 90% compliance on tangle net & revival boxes for the commercial fleet which is a pure District 17 staff fabrication...period. In other words some good stuff in the 102 but also the same old crowd in Montesano Office helped by Olympia is trying to cook the books again.

Little Edit: Yes I immediately asked Kirt Hughes ( District 17 ) for the final model used as Region 6 Fish Program manager Steve Theisfeld is off for a few days.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/21/14 08:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#nof_2014_wb

The agency has filed the CR 102 for the Willapa Commercial seasons. Take a look and more to come as we all look through but I was told that it is based upon a 90% compliance on tangle net & revival boxes for the commercial fleet which is a pure District 17 staff fabrication...period. In other words some good stuff in the 102 but also the same old crowd in Montesano Office helped by Olympia is trying to cook the books again.


Public hearing is Tues June 24... mark your calendars if you can attend
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/21/14 10:09 PM

Kudos to the agency for proposing the new escapement windows (2 days a week baywide and 3 days a week in 2U (Lower Willapa River main channel below the US Hwy 101 Bridge).
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/22/14 10:53 AM

Trying to keep up so this ..... no I do not know the QIN proposed schedule or the NT Commercial for Grays Harbor. Now Region 6 knows the QIN position to be sure but it is my understanding that communications with the QIN have pretty much ground to a halt and last I know of is around the last PFMC meeting AND R-6 IS NOT SAYIN ANYTHING. So much for transparency but nothing new as WDF&W has always regarded the public with disdain.

Now as GH & Willapa go forward one should remember that R-6 Fish Program top gun is Steve Theisfeld BUT WE HAVE THE SAME CREW MANAGING DISTRICT 17 which is GH & Willapa drainages. So what you are about to see is a exercise that will resemble herding cats! The folks that manage District 17 ( or the current Director ) are not going to accept a conservation driven management plan and will require being dragged kicking & screaming into the modern era.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/22/14 01:45 PM

Update on the Willapa from District 17 Kirt Hughes but I could not get the week calander to come with it.


All – as a follow-up to yesterday’s email below, I wanted to provide the Willapa Bay planning model with resulting output used to evaluate the proposed schedule for Willapa Bay commercial salmon fisheries. As with yesterday’s email, please be aware I have blind copied the Willapa Bay Advisors and others who had provided their email and an interest in Willapa Bay during the 2014 North of Falcon process.


There was substantial deliberation and consideration of input and comment received through the NOF process that went into developing the proposed schedule, below are some of the rational. Please remember that there is still an opportunity for written and verbal testimony from the public on the proposal. The written comment period is open now and comments must be received by June 24th; email and mailing address are included at the very bottom of yesterday’s email below. The public hearing to provide verbal testimony is scheduled for June 24th at the Region 6 Fish and Wildlife Headquarters in Montesano from 10am – noon in the large conference room (48 Devonshire Road in Montesano).


• The proposed schedule is a blend of 4 different models presented to advisors and the public prior to the final advisor meeting and the public meeting on April 4.


• It meets natural origin management objectives for Chinook, coho, and chum, including the reduced 20% harvest rate on Naselle natural origin Chinook.


• This schedule continues to require the release of unmarked Chinook in all fisheries as stated in our management objectives.


• This schedule continues to require the release of chum in all fisheries as stated in our management objectives.


• Provides closures of areas 2M, 2R and 2P through September 15 to protect Naselle natural-origin Chinook as stated in our management objectives.


• Provides a larger closure around North River and Smith Creek to protect natural-origin Chinook in those streams to meet our management objective and some of the extra protection identified by the recreational sector.


• Reserves a small percentage (0.4% of the overall 20%) of the Naselle natural-origin mortality impact for potential new selective gears that might be developed, e.g. beach seines or trap nets.


• Provides a 3.5 day summer fishery as requested by the commercial sector. We propose moving the summer fishery a week early (week beginning August 3) to allow a greater build-up of Chinook in the bay for the recreational sector and reduce the probability of encountering local stocks, including North River/Smith Creek Chinook which were identified by the recreational sector as needing extra protection.


• Provides, to the extent practicable within other constraints, commercial openings are timed to coincide with tides preferred by commercial sector and often less desirable to sport fishers. It also provides a minimum of overlap with potential days of commercial fishing in the Columbia River during the mid- to late-August.


• Except during the summer fishery (prior to August 15, specifically August 7 at 6PM), keeps area 2T closed until September 16th as requested by the recreational sector.


• Except during the weeks beginning October 5 and November 9, provides 2-3 days without commercial fishing during each week to allow additional natural-origin spawners upstream, as well as additional hatchery and natural origin fish for the freshwater recreational sector. Note that these windows are not consecutive days as provided for in the Grays Harbor Policy.


• Results in an ex-vessel value of $594K versus an ex-vessel value of $705K if we used the 2013 seasons. These are relative values because there is very small number of unmarked hatchery fish included in the calculations that the commercial sector would be required to release.


• Provides the recreational sector with 38% of the Chinook harvest and 22% of the Coho harvest. This compares to the average from 2003-2012 of 34% of the Chinook and 10% of the Coho.

Finally, on a calendar this schedule look like this:
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/22/14 03:06 PM

The escapement windows ( similar to what has been achieved in GH) are a BIG win at WB.

At last year's NOF, I got RW to model 2 days/wk escapement thru 2U to help move some fish upriver.... only to have the Prez of the GN association immediately challenge it.

"Jesus Ron, who's running this show anyway, you or some eye doctor?"

The model was promptly ratcheted down to a 1 day window.... then after more objection from the same guy, it was erased minutes later.

24/7 wipeout after mid-Sept was the outcome.

We're eating this elephant one bite at a time, but 2014 alone potentially takes a mighty big bite. Let's see who shows up at the hearing on June 24.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/24/14 06:50 PM

These comments came from RB a Willapa resident not one of us traveling sports or conservationist and are in response to the talking points circulated by Kirt Hughes the District 17 Bio that I posted a couple of post up in this thread. So I thought I would share them with everyone as he pretty much captured how many seem to feel.



Initial thoughts, not final comments:
1. Whereas nets get most of chinook and coho, if they cannot get any chum (except for a net mortality) then sports cannot have any. This is the old culture (see 6. below).
2. The "gaps" of two days a week are useless when one day at a time, especially with 2N fishery as such a big area. We already know what one day gaps do for escapement and recreational fishing. That is how we got where we are
3. With only one day gaps and the Nov. schedule, the coho wipeout now hits early and late run coho, and models or not, they continue to degrade any coho sport fishery in the bay.
4. With the early August 2T netting, it is now official, they are gill netting Columbia River chinook, plus any early North River natural spawners. Have seen no evidence these are not present in early August. Without such evidence, this schedule is evidence it is OK to risk this depressed run. We should demand proof North River fish are safe from the early 2T schedule, or oppose it.
5. Having seen your analysis of WDFW recreational harvest modeling, claims of a small increase in sport % harvest of chinook and coho are not only tiny, they are not credible. Any claims of increase in escapement may be just as questionable.
6. Chum have been arriving earlier than historically for several years in Willapa Bay. If chum are still in enough trouble that zero retention even by sports is possible, then netting "coho" through Oct 12 is tantamount to accepting a ruined chum run unless Mother Nature takes care of it. I suspect that chum have the high net mortality of chinook, because like chinook, we just do not see them with net marks. When observers see chum in the nets in Oct., the nets should come out. This would qualify as in-season management if we cared about restoring chum.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/29/14 10:00 PM

Quote:
Results in an ex-vessel value of $594K versus an ex-vessel value of $705K if we used the 2013 seasons. These are relative values because there is very small number of unmarked hatchery fish included in the calculations that the commercial sector would be required to release.

Provides the recreational sector with 38% of the Chinook harvest and 22% of the Coho harvest. This compares to the average from 2003-2012 of 34% of the Chinook and 10% of the Coho.

The quote above is from the e mail authored by Kirt Hughes Bio District 17 ( Grays Harbor & Willapa ) that I previously posted and the bit below is a citizen who reviewed just those TWO lines above. More to come later but frankly the review speaks volumes as to the attempts by D 17 staff to misrepresent the 2014 Commercial CR 102. ( WAC's for the commercial season )



I feel you should be aware that we believe the presentation materials and discussion points circulated with the Willapa model and 2014 CR 102 are inaccurate and will be considered misleading by members of the public.

The bullet points in the presentation implies that the commercial season was cut substantially this year versus last using ex vessel sales projections created by inserting the 2013 season in the model and comparing it with the same for the proposed 2014 season. WDFW's presentation states:

Results in an ex-vessel value of $594K versus an ex-vessel value of $705K if we used the 2013 seasons. These are relative values because there is very small number of unmarked hatchery fish included in the calculations that the commercial sector would be required to release.

The model uses Cell X51 in calculating ex vessel values. We believe this cell has a formula problem (missing parenthesis) that values coho at approximately $1 per fish. If corrected, we believe the ex-vessel value for the proposed season in the 2014 CR 102 is $743,832.

More concerning, a comparison for sport harvest in the next bullet point implies the rec fisher will catch more fish in 2014 than previously. WDFW's presentation states:

Provides the recreational sector with 38% of the Chinook harvest and 22% of the Coho harvest. This compares to the average from 2003-2012 of 34% of the Chinook and 10% of the Coho.

The Department's decision to create a 10 year average and insert it into the presentation following the commercial "this year versus last" does not provide the viewer the similar comparison that is implied. Substituting a decade long average for the 2013 percentage of harvest substantially lowered the percentage of sport harvest from 2013 creating an impression of a dramatic increase occurring in sport harvest with the 2014 proposal. When one compares the 31.3% of the coho harvest by sports last year with the 22% expected in the 2014 season proposal it shows sports fishers will actually lose 9.3% to the commercial interests for coho this year.

The Department forecasts show a significant increase in returning Coho salmon that many challenge as unrealistically high. The increased forecast results in the model predicting a dramatic increase in the numbers of Coho returning to Willapa Bay in 2014 and therefore, more Coho being caught this year than last by both sports and commercials. Using "impacts" or the number of fish actually expected to be caught by the model, the following table shows commercial harvest of Chinook is down from 2013 and the sport catch is projected higher. However, when coho numbers are combined with Chinook, the model shows the 2014 proposed season for commercial nets will result in a impact gain for the commercials of 14,112 and only 2024 for the sport sector.

*2013 **2014 2014 Difference
Nets Chinook 15,303 12,026 -3,277
Sport Chinook 5870 6,809 939
Nets coho 11545 28,934 17,389
Sport coho 5267 6,352 1,085
Nets +/- Total Fish 14,112
Sport =/- Total Fish 2,024

*Chinook & Coho "Harvest info" tabs
** WB Planning Model 2014 tab

The Willapa planning model predicts the 2014 season proposal will result in commercial and sport interests increasing harvest by 16,136 total fish (Chinook & Coho combined). Of that number, 87% of the increase in combined catch numbers will incur on the commercial side and only 13% on the sport side. Using a comparison of the fish counts expected to be caught this year versus last leaves an opposite perception than the one created by WDFW using a 10 year average in percentages and ex vessel sales that were miscalculated by a formula error in the model.

This commentary relates the Willapa planning model supplied by WDFW and reportedly used when creating the season installed in the CR 102 for 2014. XXXXXXXX has repeatedly expressed numerous other concerns over other problems in the model that effect its reliability. Those concerns remain unchanged.


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/03/14 01:19 PM


What we have here is a letter to the agency regarding Wynoochee Mitigation and WDF&W 's failure to meet its obligation for 23 years. It is a rather complicated subject but I think folks can get a idea of what is going on and others have knowledge of the history also they may wish to add.



I am writing on behalf of myself, Mr. XXXX, and Mr. XXXX regarding the Wynoochee Mitigation Funds placed in trust by Tacoma City Light ( TCL ) in 1991 for Mitigation for the dam modifications and power generation. Currently the trust has grown with interest to approximately $2,400,000 and the WDF&W Commission directed that a plan to utilize the funds be completed by September 30, 2014 and too date I do not know a plan being put forth by WDF&W staff for public review or comment for the production of 55,700 Coho smolt and 25,000 Steelhead smolt each year.

This being the case I will approach the issue from a historical perspective. WDF&W staff under the direction of former Deputy Director Larry Peck, and later yourself, in series of problem solving meetings with Chehalis Basin citizens that became known as the Bristol Process developed a plan and budget for Wynoochee Mitigation. ( attachment A ) It was agreed that WDF&W would forward the agreed to plan to the Quinault Indian Nation ( QIN ) representatives and other signatories of the Wynoochee Mitigation Agreement for comment and input. The final document was to be submitted to FERC for approval. If you recall both the local community and agency staff took considerable pride in jointly resolving the Wynoochee Mitigation and WDF&W's Skookumchuck Mitigation violations by working together.

What has become apparent is the fact that WDF&W staff failed to complete any of the task and when questions were directed to WDF&W staff by citizens regarding the issue staff assured these citizens that progress was being made. It was not until myself and Mr. Joe Durham both filed Public Document Request that documents became available that showed WDF&W staff had been less than forthright and were likely intentionally misleading citizens.

It appears that WDF&W Region 6 staff under both Ron Warren and Kirt Hughes took the following actions:

1. Documents provided through the PDR process show WDF&W revised the plan not once but twice ( attachment B ) by dropping out both the line item budget and the priority to produce the 55,700 Coho and 25,000 Steelhead smolt. When citizens questioned progress on the TCL Wynoochee Mitigation information was withheld by Region 6 staff, primarily Mr. Warren and Mr. Hughes.

2. Region 6 staff failed to properly present the Bristol plan for the use of Mitigation funds to the QIN resulting in the letter of 12/10/2010 from Mr. Ed Johnston representing the QIN ( attachment C ) objecting to the process WDF&W was utilizing. Again this information was withheld from the citizens of the Chehalis Basin until obtaining documents through the PDR process.

3. It appears WDF&W staff utilized a group of individuals identified as a Technical Committee to attempt to develop and move the Wynoochee Mitigation issue forward. Chehalis Basin citizen participation was not sought and it appears Wynoochee Technical Committee purpose was to shield WDF&W from the local communities scrutiny regarding the changes made in the planning for the use Mitigation Funds.

With the previously mentioned issues in mind we strongly feel that the following need to be incorporated in a revived Wynoochee Mitigation plan:

A. That the plan utilize a revised line item budget from the original Bristol Wynoochee Mitigation plan. That the budget clearly defined the number of Steelhead and Coho smolt to be produced, the cost associated with the rearing of the smolt, and the duration of the production.

B. The Bristol budget had funding directed toward a pipeline for Aberdeen Lake Hatchery that rears the mitigation production for the Wynoochee River. There is little disagreement as to the need for the pipeline as the health of the fish is of prime importance. This expense was originally in the Bristol prepared budget but due to recent efforts of Rep. Brian Blake state funds were provided for the pipeline construction. The funds made available by this outside funding makes available a considerable amount of funding available to address past failures by WDF&W to produce the additional 55,700 mitigation Coho smolt and 25,000 mitigation Steelhead smolt required for the TCL Wynoochee Dam power generation upgrade. It is our view the funds no longer needed for the pipeline should be allocated to producing the approximately 1,856,100 Steelhead and Coho smolt that WDF&W has failed to produce since the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA ) in 1991 as required and prorated for the years remaining in the MOA.

C. Any remaining funds should be used to recycle adults from the dam to a point downstream to enhance harvest opportunity and Friends Landing is a viable release location.

D. The practice of placing large numbers of adult Wild Coho and Native Steelhead above the dam should end and only marked adults be placed above the dam. As very few, if any, smolt survive out migrating through the dam the practice of placing such large numbers of Native Coho and Native Steelhead adults above the dam has been and is a primary reason for the Wynoochee River failing to make Wild Coho and Wild Steelhead escapement and a terrible waste of Native Coho & Steelhead.

E. Wynoochee Dam mitigation production should be required, when possible, to utilize 100% native brood to reduce any possible genetic conflicts now or in the future.

F. The final issue we wish to address is what is not a acceptable use of the TCL Wynoochee Dam Mitigation Trust. It is our understanding that the original mitigation funds for the Wynoochee Dam have been utilized and that twice WDF&W has proposed eliminating the original Mitigation Steelhead production. The shortfall of these funds is the result of the former Washington Department of Game ( WDG ) utilizing a substantial amount of the Mitigation funds to remodel the Aberdeen Lake Hatchery. WDG Director Weyland guaranteed to the Chehalis Basin, that any future shortfall would be absorbed by the agency.

Simply put no part of the TCL Wynoochee Trust should be utilized to pay for expense of rearing the original Wynoochee Dam mitigation Steelhead smolt. That is a WDF&W responsibility outside of the purpose of the TCL Wynoochee Trust.

It is our belief that the steps we have outlined offer the best opportunity to address the failure of WDF&W to meet the TCL Mitigation requirements that WDF&W agreed to fulfill in 1991 as a signatory on the MOA. The TCL Wynoochee Dam Mitigation is a obligation WDF&W has failed to fulfill for 23 years and needs to be addressed promptly and just as importantly properly with citizen participation.

In addition as long time citizen activist we would urge WDF&W to reject its recent policies that shroud this and many other issues in secrecy and embrace the policies of transparency endorsed by the WDF&W Commission.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/03/14 04:48 PM

wow wow wow that's a killer letter... hope they get the point!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/14 12:16 PM

Here is the contact information to place objections or support for the proposed Willapa Commercial Gillnet seasons put forth in the CR 102 and the link to review. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#nof_2014_wb

Frankly the proposed seasons are a strange collection of things that appear to be one thing and are in reality another. I can provide a calendar that shows the seasons but I will have to e mail it to you. A large number of people are pouring over the model and the equity of harvest coupled with the failure of any conservation standards. The agencies take on their efforts are posted previously and I will attempt to get the problems that the "Old Gezer Gang " have found in the next couple of days.


Public Comment Period:
Written Comments may be E mailed to: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov
or mailed to: Joanna Eide, Enforcement Program, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501
Fax 360 902 2156

A public hearing will take place on June 24, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Region 6 Fish and Wildlife Office, Conference Room
48 Devonshire Rd., Montesano, WA 98563
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/14 12:35 PM

Well bit faster than I thought I could be but anyhow here is a compilation of comments that will be placed in opposition to the Willapa Harbor Commercial CR 102.


I am writing on behalf of myself, Mr. XXXX, and Mr. XXXX to express our concerns regarding the Willapa Commercial CR 102. As a citizen I, and all citizens, are offered the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed seasons outlined in the CR 102 as published in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA ). Simply put we question that the average citizen will have the ability to do so as Region 6 District 17 staff have misrepresented the CR 102 to such a degree few citizens will have a clear understanding of what they are being asked to comment on.

On 5/21/14 Kirt Hughes provided via e mail a briefing paper to citizens. ( attachment 1 ) Items in red are from Mr. Hughes:


1. Results in an ex-vessel value of $594K versus an ex-vessel value of $705K if we used the 2013 seasons. These are relative values because there is very small number of unmarked hatchery fish included in the calculations that the commercial sector would be required to release.
This is completely misleading as after review it is clear Mr. Hughes declined to correct a error in the model that he had knowledge of . In attachment 2 you can obtain a clearer understanding but the purpose appears to be an attempt to portray the commercial catch value in such a way to understate the value or equity with the Recreational fishers. The error is simply a wrong value in the formula and values a Coho at $1 a fish.

2. Provides the recreational sector with 38% of the Chinook harvest and 22% of the Coho harvest. This compares to the average from 2003-2012 of 34% of the Chinook and 10% of the Coho.
Again this is not correct and in fact is a gross misrepresentation of the actual outcome should the Willapa commercial seasons be implemented as put forth in the Willapa CR 102. Again in attachment 2 you can clearly see that the Willapa planning model predicts the 2014 season proposal will result in commercial and sport interests increasing harvest by 16,136 total fish (Chinook & Coho combined). Of that number, 87% of the increase in combined catch numbers will incur on the commercial side and only 13% on the sport side. Using a comparison of the fish counts expected to be caught this year versus last leaves an opposite perception than the one created by WDFW using a 10 year average in percentages and ex vessel sales that were miscalculated by a formula error in the model.

3. Provides a larger closure around North River and Smith Creek to protect natural-origin Chinook in those streams to meet our management objective and some of the extra protection identified by the recreational sector.
This is correct in the context that this brief statement provides but again is misleading. North River Native Chinook are the last remaining stock unimpaired by hatchery practices in Willapa Harbor. In addition SaSSI identifies that the North River Chinook return earlier than the rest of the Willapa Chinook. Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld proposed a limited closure area to protect the returning fish that was woefully inadequate and so additional proposals expanding the area were proposed by myself and others.

While the closure area was adopted with the intent to protect the early returning North River Chinook the effort was negated by allowing a mislabeled dip in fishery targeting Columbia bound Chinook in Willapa 2T at the very same time the highest concentration of the North River Chinook are present. In the early commercial fishery scheduled to take place between August 3 to14th a 2T exclusion of commercial fishers needs to be imposed and maintained until September 15th to provide truly meaningful protection to North River Native Chinook .

4. Except during the weeks beginning October 5 and November 9, provides 2-3 days without commercial fishing during each week to allow additional natural-origin spawners upstream, as well as additional hatchery and natural origin fish for the freshwater recreational sector. Note that these windows are not consecutive days as provided for in the Grays Harbor Policy.
The 4/3 policy implemented in the new Grays Harbor with three consecutive days was a major step by the Commission to address the inequities of harvest allocation as the commercial fisheries, be it tribal or non treaty, harvested the vast majority of the fish. In attachment 1 Mr. Hughes identifies the fact that the 4/3 Willapa is different than Grays Harbor's 4/3. This is correct and duplistic at the same time. The one day or two days a week of no commercial harvest starting September 14 in week 38 to the end of week 41 is a attempt at deception again. During this time frame in Willapa Bay returning salmon are primarily Coho and the size and topography of Willapa precludes major distances being covered by returning fish in such a short period of time. The 4/3 concept is dependent on the three net free days being consecutive.

The average citizen would be led to believe that they have a greater opportunity but as outlined previously this is nothing but a shell game intended to misinform the average citizen. What Region 6 District 17 has proposed is a nearly complete wipeout fishery by commercial fishers which precludes any reasonable sharing of harvest. Instead the harvest is misrepresented by Kirt Hughes 5/21/14 " Provides the recreational sector with 38% of the Chinook harvest and 22% of the Coho harvest. This compares to the average from 2003-2012 of 34% of the Chinook and 10% of the Coho" when in reality if represented truthfully it is the Willapa planning model predicts that the 2014 season proposal will result in commercial and sport interests increasing harvest by 16,136 total fish (Chinook & Coho combined). Of that number, 87% of the increase in combined catch numbers will incur on the commercial side and only 13% on the sport side. Using a comparison of the fish counts expected to be caught this year versus last leaves an opposite perception than the one created by WDFW using a 10 year average in percentages and ex vessel sales that were miscalculated by a formula error in the model. ( attachment 2 )

5. Willapa estuary fisheries, both commercial and recreational, are mixed stock fisheries that are not managed to the weakest stocks with equal harvest pressure throughout the entire run timing , a practice disavowed by most present day managers. It appears District 17 staff agree with the Willapa Gillnetters President that there is no need to manage harvest and escapement for natural origin fish only hatchery, which we feel is a rather barbaric view in this day and age. In the model none of the streams flowing into Willapa Bay will make Natural Origin Chinook escapement before either recreational or commercial harvest and fall wildly short after harvest. ( Willapa Model attachment 3 ) This is despite a exploitation rate reduction in the 2014 recreational and commercial seasons from 30% to 20% in an attempt to overcome District 17 Willapa model failures to predict accurately the true impacts of harvest in the Willapa Estuary. This we feel is not a acceptable management policy for Willapa Harbor. In our review several knowledgeable citizens reviewing past model performance believe the model performance is such that the exploitation rate would need to be reduced to 10 to 15% to have any possibility for escapement goals being met for Natural Origin Chinook in the Willapa Harbor estuary.

6. The Willapa model identifies a substantial number of Chum, both hatchery and wild, are killed in the targeted commercial Coho fishery. While it is normal for there to be collateral impacts to non targeted stocks in both commercial and recreational fisheries, some of the proposed weeks in the Willapa commercial seasons are extreme. In the period October 8th through the 14th the model projects a Coho harvest of 3,380 with a by catch mortality of 2,922 Chum which is nearly 1 to 1. The commercial fleet is kept off the water for the days of October 15th through the 31st but return November 1st through the 10th. The model projects a Coho catch of 4,593 with a Chum by catch of 1,163 which results in approximately a 4 to 1 by catch ratio. The proposed by catch of Chum in both weeks is unacceptable and both of these weeks in the commercial should be cancelled and the possibility of alternate days without such extreme by catch explored.

7. It is our understanding that the Chum release mortality rate is calculated at 56% based upon the assumption of 90% compliance by the entire commercial fleet. Having broodstocked with tangle nets, participated in the filming the Grays Harbor Non Treaty Commercial fishers, and understanding that time is money to a commercial gillnet fisher one has to conclude that this is not a valid compliance percentage. It appears rather than identify the proper number of observers to achieve a 90% compliance rate that Region 6 District 17 staff simply picked the 90% rate to extend the commercial seasons to the maximum number of days possible. It is our belief that a minimum of 10% of the commercial fleet must have observers onboard in a 24 hour period to remotely come close to the 90% compliance staff is using in the model. Failure for WDF&W to achieve 10% observers fleet wide should result in a much higher mortality rate being utilized for released fish.

It is our belief staff should withdraw the Willapa Commercial CR 102 and start again regardless if the action results in delays in the Willapa Commercial seasons. Deception and misleading citizens is not acceptable and possibly violates Washington State Law in our view. The APA process and WDF&W's responsibility to comply with it are paramount!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/14 10:47 AM

Pretty dry reading lately as a lot of folks have been trying to get information out. So just what are the objections in English? Well several but lets start with this. The release mortality from the commercial fleet is 56% at 90% compliance. In other words WDF&W is saying in the CR 102 that 90% of the netters will follow the rules and if they do only 56% of the fish the fleet release will perish. This is BS and there is no way that WDF&W will have the ability to get 25% of the fleet fishing days with onboard observers to which is needed to utilize the 90% compliance. In other words what information is out there basically says that commercial selective fisheries compliance with regulations ARE DEPENDANT on the percentage of the fleet with on board observers. Let us say that WDF&W only has 10% boat days with observers then compliance would drop from 90% to 70% or so which means the release mortality goes up 70% or so which results IN FAR LESS DAYS on the water for the gillnet fleet.

Next up is the definition of lethargic. Now when gillnetter drags a non targeted species up in a net the commercial fisher is required to:
a. Assess the condition and release the fish if vibrant,
b. Put the fish in a on board recovery box if lethargic and then release after recovery.

The problem? Well the same District 17 staffer that never saw Chinook coming out of a gillnet dead or lethargic as a observer evidently wrote the definition for lethargic in the Willapa and frankly the fish damn near have rigor mortis setting in to qualify as lethargic. This is important as during the commercial Chinook season and absolutely ALL the time that Chum are present in the commercial Coho season, the injured fish will fill the recovery boxes and require the nets be pulled for a time. So District 17's answer is just redefine lethargic to damn near dead so the commercial fleet can fish in a "selective fishery" with 56% mortality when in reality it much much higher!

This one is ugly. In the week of 10 / 8 - 14 the proposed catch is 3380 for Coho with a by catch of 2922 Chum mortality calculated at 56% @ 90% compliance. This is nearly 1 to 1 a dead Chum as Crab food for every Coho sold. After a two week absence to protect the Chum the commercial fleet returns 11/1-10 and the model projects 5415 of Coho harvested with a by catch of 1163 which is approximately 4.5 Coho sold to 1 dead Chum as Crab feed. Again this ratio is ridiculous to anal you choose but any way you cut it unacceptable.

So why all the gyrations? It is called "cooking the books" and District 17 staff have elevated the practice to damn near a art form! It is about finding a way to get the model to show that commercial impacts are acceptable.


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/14 06:48 PM

I received a few questions around the term lethargic and the following is from the Willapa Commercial CR 102 Page 6:

"Lethargic is defined as having or showing very little movement or is nonresponsive."

Now folks this definition of movement or nonresponsive means the fish is ALMOST DEAD!!!! I mean your like one step away from rigor and I swear WDF&W would try and call that lethargic if they could figure out how to make the fish wiggle so they could pitch it overboard and keep the gillnet fleet on the water.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/12/14 01:44 PM

I have been asked about Grays Harbor Commercial seasons, no idea. They looked like late October and November the new policy limits the wild West bit that existed in the past. In addition the Quinault Nations proposed seasons do not violate court agreed to escapement goals. That is the rub as when Tim Flint headed up Region 6 he separated the Humptulips from the Chehalis not for conservation but to enable a Rec bay fishery. Well with Coho Natural Origin Recruits ( wild spawners ) not making escapement BEFORE harvest it creates scenario riddled with contradictions to the new policy guidelines. One should remember that this IS NOT a big deal on the Rec side but is driven by WDF&W's refusal to recognize that the Chehalis Tribal and QIN ARE the commercial fisheries for Grays Harbor. It is time for WDF&W management to get over this Indian / white guy thing.

The letter below is my, and two other "old Geezers", comments in a letter to the Commission objecting to the Willapa CR 102 and the gross misrepresentation of the proposed Willapa commercial seasons by WDF&W staff.


June 6, 2014 via email: hard copy by mail

WDF&W Commission
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091

Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of myself, Mr. XXXXXX, and Mr. XXXXXX to express our ever growing concerns regarding the Willapa Commercial CR 102. As a citizen I, and all citizens, are offered the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed seasons outlined in the CR 102 as published in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA ). Simply put I question that the average citizen will have the ability to do so as Region 6 District 17 staff have misrepresented the CR 102 to such a degree few citizens will have a clear understanding of what they are being asked to comment on.

On 5/21/14 Kirt Hughes provided via e mail a briefing paper to citizens. ( attachment 1 ) Items in blue are from dissertation and Mr. Hughes stated:

1. Results in an ex-vessel value of $594K versus an ex-vessel value of $705K if we used the 2013 seasons. These are relative values because there is very small number of unmarked hatchery fish included in the calculations that the commercial sector would be required to release.
This is completely misleading as after review it is clear Mr. Hughes declined to correct a error in the model that he had knowledge of . In attachment 2 you can obtain a clearer understanding but the purpose appears to be an attempt to portray the commercial catch value in such a way to understate the value or equity with the Recreational fishers.

2. Provides the recreational sector with 38% of the Chinook harvest and 22% of the Coho harvest. This compares to the average from 2003-2012 of 34% of the Chinook and 10% of the Coho.
Again this is not correct and in fact is a gross misrepresentation of the actual outcome should the Willapa commercial seasons be implemented as put forth in the Willapa CR 102. Again in attachment 2 you can clearly see that the Willapa planning model predicts the 2014 season proposal will result in commercial and sport interests increasing harvest by 16,136 total fish (Chinook & Coho combined). Of that number, 87% of the increase in combined catch numbers will incur on the commercial side and only 13% on the sport side. Using a comparison of the fish counts expected to be caught this year versus last leaves an opposite perception than the one created by WDFW using a 10 year average in percentages and ex vessel sales that were miscalculated by a formula error in the model.

3. Provides a larger closure around North River and Smith Creek to protect natural-origin Chinook in those streams to meet our management objective and some of the extra protection identified by the recreational sector.
This is correct in the context that this brief statement provides but again is misleading. North River Native Chinook are the last remaining stock unimpaired by hatchery practices in Willapa Harbor. In addition SaSSI identifies that the North River Chinook return earlier than the rest of the Willapa Chinook. Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld proposed a limited closure area to protect the returning fish that was woefully inadequate and so additional proposals expanding the area were proposed by myself and others.

While the closure area was adopted with the intent to protect the early returning North River Chinook the effort was negated by allowing a mislabeled dip in fishery targeting Columbia bound Chinook in Willapa 2T at the very same time the highest concentration of the North River Chinook are present. In the early commercial fishery scheduled to take place between August 3 to14th a 2T exclusion of commercial fishers needs to be imposed and maintained until September 15th to provide truly meaningful protection to North River Native Chinook .

4. Except during the weeks beginning October 5 and November 9, provides 2-3 days without commercial fishing during each week to allow additional natural-origin spawners upstream, as well as additional hatchery and natural origin fish for the freshwater recreational sector. Note that these windows are not consecutive days as provided for in the Grays Harbor Policy.
The 4/3 policy implemented in the new Grays Harbor with three consecutive days was a major step by the Commission to address the inequities of harvest allocation as the commercial fisheries, be it tribal or non treaty, harvested the vast majority of the fish. In attachment 1 Mr. Hughes identifies the fact that the 4/3 Willapa is different than Grays Harbor's 4/3. This is correct and duplistic at the same time. The one day or two days a week of no commercial harvest starting September 14 in week 38 to the end of week 41 is a attempt at deception again. During this time frame in Willapa Bay returning salmon are primarily Coho and the size and topography of Willapa precludes major distances being covered by returning fish in such a short period of time. The 4/3 concept is dependent on the three net free days being consecutive.

The average citizen would be led to believe that they have a greater opportunity but as outlined previously this is nothing but a shell game intended to misinform the average citizen. What Region 6 District 17 has proposed is a nearly complete wipeout fishery by commercial fishers which precludes any reasonable sharing of harvest. Instead the harvest is misrepresented by Kirt Hughes 5/21/14 " Provides the recreational sector with 38% of the Chinook harvest and 22% of the Coho harvest. This compares to the average from 2003-2012 of 34% of the Chinook and 10% of the Coho" when in reality if represented truthfully it is the Willapa planning model predicts that the 2014 season proposal will result in commercial and sport interests increasing harvest by 16,136 total fish (Chinook & Coho combined). Of that number, 87% of the increase in combined catch numbers will incur on the commercial side and only 13% on the sport side. Using a comparison of the fish counts expected to be caught this year versus last leaves an opposite perception than the one created by WDFW using a 10 year average in percentages and ex vessel sales that were miscalculated by a formula error in the model. ( attachment 2 )

5. Willapa estuary fisheries, both commercial and recreational, are mixed stock fisheries that are not managed to the weakest stocks with equal harvest pressure throughout the entire run timing , a practice disavowed by most present day managers. It appears District 17 staff agree with the Willapa Gillnetters President that there is no need to manage harvest and escapement for natural origin fish only hatchery, which we feel is a rather barbaric view in this day and age. In the model none of the streams flowing into Willapa Bay will make Natural Origin Chinook escapement before either recreational or commercial harvest and fall wildly short after harvest. ( Willapa Model attachment 3 ) This is despite a exploitation rate reduction in the 2014 recreational and commercial seasons from 30% to 20% in an attempt to overcome District 17 Willapa model failures to predict accurately the true impacts of harvest in the Willapa Estuary. This we feel is not a acceptable management policy for Willapa Harbor. In our review several knowledgeable citizens reviewing past model performance believe the model performance is such that the exploitation rate would need to be reduced to 10 to 15% to have any possibility for escapement goals being met for Natural Origin Chinook in the Willapa Harbor estuary.

6. The Willapa model identifies a substantial number of Chum, both hatchery and wild, are killed in the targeted commercial Coho fishery. While it is normal for there to be collateral impacts to non targeted stocks in both commercial and recreational fisheries, some of the proposed weeks in the Willapa commercial seasons are extreme.

In the period October 8th through the 14th the model projects a Coho harvest of 3,380 with a by catch mortality of 2,922 Chum which is nearly 1 to 1. The commercial fleet is kept off the water for the days of October 15th through the 31st but return November 1st through the 10th. The model projects a Coho catch of 4,593 with a Chum by catch of 1,163 which results in approximately a 4 to 1 by catch ratio. The proposed by catch of Chum in both weeks is unacceptable and both of these weeks in the commercial should be cancelled and the possibility of alternate days without such extreme by catch explored.

7. It is our understanding that the Chum release mortality rate is calculated at 56% based upon the assumption of 90% compliance by the entire commercial fleet. Having broodstocked with tangle nets, participated in the filming the Grays Harbor Non Treaty Commercial fishers, and understanding that time is money to a commercial gillnet fisher one has to conclude that this is not a valid compliance percentage. It appears rather than identify the proper number of observers to achieve a 90% compliance rate that Region 6 District 17 staff simply picked the 90% rate to extend the commercial seasons to the maximum number of days possible. It is our belief that a minimum of 24% of the commercial fleet must have observers onboard in a 24 hour period to remotely come close to the 90% compliance staff is using in the model. Failure for WDF&W to achieve 10% observers fleet wide should result in a much higher mortality rate being utilized for released fish.

In closing we would like to state that while as citizen advocates we realize the Commission has no desire to nor should it desire to " micro manage " Willapa Recreational or Commercial seasons but the gross misrepresentation of information provided to citizens by District 17 staff for the Willapa Commercial CR 102 leads us to believe that the APA process has been compromised. In addition to the previously outlined actions to modify the Willapa Harbor Non Treaty Commercial Fishery we urge the Commission to consider implementing the following additional steps:

A. Instruct staff to withdraw the Willapa Commercial CR 102 and start again regardless if the action results in delays in the Willapa Commercial seasons. Deception and misleading citizens is not acceptable and possibly violates Washington State Law in our view. The APA process and WDF&W's responsibility to comply with it are paramount!

B. We urge the Commission to use its authority to create the ability for Fish Program Manager Jim Scott and Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld to replace current underperforming Region 6 & District 17 staff. From continuing model errors, lack of any conservation standards, misrepresentations to the public ( including the Grays Harbor process to the Commission ), and a bias leading to discrimination imposed upon the recreational fisher in Willapa, it is clear that WDF&W Region 6 and District 17 staff lack the desire, the ability, or leadership to properly manage harvest in Willapa or Grays Harbor.

The complete lack of any harvest conservation standards in Willapa is simply one of the most appalling that we have observed in our many years as citizen advocates for the resource. It is our view that without Commission intervention little will change.

Sincerely,

XXXX

CC: Director Phil Anderson
WDF&W Fish Program Manager Jim Scott
Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/17/14 05:17 PM


The link is to a number of documents created by the Advocacy commenting on the proposed Willapa CR 102 Commercial non treaty net seasons. The models are best viewed after down loading as they are basically reassembled so one better understand them. https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B2tWjgmgVy3yOVZoZzhjV0lVRXc


The letter below is to the Commission from the guys basically calling Bullsheet on Region 6 Willapa process and links to documents are in it also. This is a bit of reading but if you take the time to read the letter to the Commission and the CR 102 comments it pretty much captures the process, such as it is. Keep in mind C&P suffers a bit on PP as the formatting kinda / sorta runs off ....... someplace but you should be able to make heads or tails of it.

Also if anyone would want the documents e mailed so you can send them to others just send your e mail address and I will get them out to you.




May 17, 2014

The Honorable Commissioners
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501

Re: 2014 Willapa Commercial Season

Dear Members of the Commission:

The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy is a nonprofit corporation “.....organized for 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......”

As you are aware, the members of the Advocacy settled a legal challenge to the 2013 Willapa Bay commercial gillnet season under terms agreed by the Department that included three components as follows:

1. An Independent Fisheries Science Panel (IFSP) would be retained to provide recommended mortality rates for selective fishing in Willapa and Grays Harbor;

2. The Advocacy would assist the Department in improving its image and restore public confidence through a series of jointly sponsored meetings would be held to educate the public on season setting processes;

3. The Director would petition the Commission to reopen the Management Plan for Willapa Bay terminal this year.

The first component has been completed. The other two have not and at this point the Advocacy questions whether the goals of any of the three can be reached. However, we do not seek Commission support to complete these conditions. We have legal remedies available to insure the Department keeps its side of the deal.

At this point in time, the Department has filed the CR102 for the 2014 season in Willapa. The season set and WAC language inserted are expected to be adopted on or shortly after the public hearing set for June 24th. The filing of the CR102 with its current language has pushed all to the brink of the cliff. Shortly after the hearing, we fully expect the Department to force all over the edge by adopting the current proposal. Within days, if not hours of adoption, the Advocacy and others will have no choice but to file yet another legal challenge and the Department will be embroiled in yet another round of contentious and prolonged litigation that pits the state treasury against the wallets of its citizens. The goals we had hoped to achieve when entering into the original settlement seem to be rapidly fading away.

The Advocacy has invested significant resources into a presentation that has been provided the Department and duly filed on the record of the APA process for the season. In a candid, critical, and specific fashion, we explain our concerns regarding the current WDFW proposal. The presentation includes specific language change recommendations and three season options set forth in individual Excel spreadsheets created from the one used by WDFW to establish its proposed season.

Another Excel spreadsheet is included that conducts an economic and harvest impact analysis comparing the season proposed by the Department with the options proposed by the Advocacy. This spreadsheet shows why the Advocacy believes its recommendations and the three season options we have developed offer the Department an opportunity rethink its proposal and incorporate provisions that decrease management costs, provide increased profit potentials for the commercial fleet, prevent thousands of fish being killed only to be flung overboard, improve conservation performance and dramatically reduce gear conflicts between the stakeholders.

Review of the Advocacy’s presentation shows that it is not impossible to develop a season that promotes conservation while maximizing harvest opportunity. Unfortunately, while it tries desperately to do so, the Department cannot satisfy all the stakeholders, as it cannot “create 3 full filets out of one salmon.” This is especially true in Willapa for the commercial season as:

• the decline in run sizes diminishes the available harvest;

• the historical fishing practices have decimated natural spawning stocks that the Department is mandated to protect; and

• The ever-increasing costs of taxes, labor and fuel incurred by the gillnet fisherman, combined with the large number of licenses issued (fewer fish per boat) makes the success of the commercial fleet reliant upon the state delivering larger numbers of fish into the nets than are available for harvest.

Recognizing these obstacles, what does seem impossible for the Department is to deliver a season acceptable to the commercial sector even if the season put every one of the few returning natural spawning fish entering the bay into a tote on the deck of a gillnet boat. As a result, the Advocacy accepts the Department staff face a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t scenario” and any season it proposes would likely disappoint the fleet.

However, the Advocacy refuses to accept the notion that it is impossible to improve the performance of the Department when setting seasons. As an example, the Department issued a statement to the public as it filed the CR 102 several weeks ago that claimed the expected “exvessel value” or gross sales of fish to the fleet of the season was “$594K”.

Disclaimer: The Advocacy repeatedly advised the Department during the NOF process that a cell in its harvest model was miscalculating the exvessel value due to a missing parenthesis in a formula inserted in a particular cell. To open the model, find the cell, and make the correction took the Advocacy less than a minute. For some unknown reason, the Department failed to make the correction. If corrected, the model calculates the exvessel value of its current proposal at $736,595.

Regardless, at the point it filed the CR102 containing its proposed season, the Department believed the season it was proposing provided $594K of exvessel value, fished nearly to the last available fish, necessitated extensive investments by the Department into onboard programs during selective fishing cycles (funding source unknown), and killed 5,459 Chum that were to be flung over the side as crab bait. We believe these statements are undisputable facts as documented in WDFW’s own harvest model used to file the CR 102 and create the presentation materials provided the public thereafter.

The Advocacy simply will not accept this proposal is the “best that we could do”. The three season options that the Advocacy is presenting for consideration exceeds the Department’s claim for its proposal with its own model predicting exvessel sales opportunity of $535,569, $636,940, and $742,641. Non-selective 24 hour gillnet seasons with shortened days are offered that allow the fisher flexibility in selecting net mesh sizes and times to be on the water reducing the costs to the fleet as a means to improve the bottom line, which is the true goal of a commercial fisherman.

Conservation standards are improved by avoiding fishing to the last fish. Enhanced protection of native spawning stock is provided and not a single salmon is killed and thrown overboard as crab bait. When selective fishing is utilized, the season is structured to reduce the compliance costs to the fleet and the Department. The Advocacy even goes to the point of offering to provide financial support to help cover the Department’s cost of onboard observer programs to maximize time on the water for the fleet.

The Advocacy is not requesting that the members of the Commission either individually or jointly attempt to intervene in the season setting process or micromanage the Department. However, we do believe it is time to error to the side of candidacy and “lay all cards on the table, face up”. Simply put, the process utilized to set season reflects a Department that is politically polarized and without help from the Commission, it’s all going to come to a head on or shortly after June 24th.

Many in the public are convinced that a season was determined in negotiations outside of public view between upper management and a small number of commercial license holders who consistently turned to key legislators for support and leverage. The basic parameters of the agreed season were supplied to Fish Program staff assigned the dubious task of massaging and manipulating the harvest model to get the predetermined season to fit under the harvest caps set in the model as conservation standards. Then came development of presentation materials to promote the season as the CR 102 was filed.

Not being skilled in the arts of forensic accounting, legalese, and political spin, the presentation to the public came across clumsy at best. The ever-growing number of critics look over the model used and quickly determine where and how the “books have been cooked” to fit the season into the model. Since staffers are not skilled in the art of political spin, review of the sales presentation lead many to the conclusion all is a blatant attempt to deceive (reminiscent of the public reaction to staff’s presentation to the Commission during the re-writing of the Grays Harbor Management Plan). Since the season also fails to deliver the number of fish needed to deliver the desired profit, the commercial interests join in the fracas. Fish Program staff is hung like a punching bag in a gym and the poles and the nets combine forces to work them over.

While it may seem unbelievable to some reviewing its presentation, the Advocacy is convinced the staff within Fish Program have all the education, experience, expertise and experience needed to adopt a season appropriate for Willapa Bay. Key leadership needed is in place. While it unlikely we will reach consensus on all issues, the Advocacy believes Jim Scott and Steve Theisfeld have the talents and abilities to get the job done. However, due to the political polarization and management culture found within the Department, we are also convinced they will not be allowed to actually do the job for which they are paid.

This all leads us to the point where we ask for the support of the Commission. Again, not to adopt or oppose any particular season and, certainly not to micro-manage. Rather, we simply ask that the members of the Commission use individual or combined influence to insure the public that the professional staff within Fish Program have the freedom to make the final decisions for a 2014 commercial season based on their combined professional judgment using the education and expertise they hold and to do so without fear of damage to their careers.

The Advocacy remains committed to protecting and enhancing fish resources in Willapa and Grays Harbor. We fully recognize reasonable people can “agree to disagree” and pledge to remain open-minded until the WAC is adopted. If the current season proposed rules the day, we will honor our commitments to protect these valuable public resources with conviction and vigor.

The Advocacy believes it has done everything possible to avoid yet another legal confrontation and at this point, fear all our efforts have failed. We now pass the ball over the net into the Commission’s court. We stand ready to respond to any questions or requests for additional information.

The Advocacy presentation provided the Department, with attachments, and all the previously referenced Excel files that include the season options referenced have all been posted on Google and are available for downloading at the following addresses:

Advocacy Presentation.PDF (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yeG40eGtHLWZsajA/edit)

Comparison Model.xlsx (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yQi1TNFdHY0VLbG8/edit)

Advocacy Option 1 Model.xlsx (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yQTJDeTBtazFiN0E/edit)

Advocacy Option 2 Model.xlsx (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3ycGpPN1FLQldELTA/edit)

Advocacy Option 3 Model.xlsx (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yYmIxTkJXQUdEUGs/edit)


Respectfully,


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/14 11:02 AM


The letter below is self explanatory but if one ever wanted a break out of how & what the turmoil in WDF&W Enforcement has been this should take care of that problem in short order.



To: WDFW Commissioners, WA State Legislators, and Governor Jay Inslee
From: WDFW Detective Todd Vandivert (retired)
Re: WDFW “Issues”

We want to take this opportunity to tell you about several significant issues with WDFW (WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) in hopes that you can help to resolve these problems, get WDFW back on track, and allow the dedicated employees of WDFW to do their jobs without fear of abuse, corruption or retaliation.

I need to first introduce myself to all of you. I worked for WDFW for about 34 years, before retiring in December 2012. I spent ~22 years as a uniformed fish and wildlife officer before promoting to fish and wildlife detective, where I worked undercover on commercial fish and wildlife criminal cases until my retirement. I have been stationed on both sides of the state, have worked both land and marine duties, and have twice received the statewide officer of the year award.

Over my 34-years with WDFW (I started with the Game Dept.) I have seen some tough times, but nothing as severe as in the last several years. Under Director Phil Anderson’s lead, I have seen cronyism become the norm, employees being threatened berated and retaliated against, and corruption in promotions and discipline. I have watched as top-notch senior officers have fled to other jobs or retired early, while the administration grew more top-heavy with “yes men”. I have watched the WDFW enforcement program virtually unmerge, back into two separate entities (marine officers and land officers) as it was before the merger of Dept. of Fisheries and Dept. of Wildlife.

Shortly after my retirement, I wrote a book (OPERATION CODY) which detailed both the most successful investigation of wildlife trafficking in Washington’s history, and the absolute disfunctionality of WDFW enforcement. As most of my experience is with the enforcement program, that is the perspective from which I will address you, but in the 2013 DOP “State Employee Survey” only one state agency had lower “(employee) General Satisfaction” survey results than WDFW, and WDFW tied for 2nd worst in “(employees) Treated with respect”, so it’s safe to assume these issues at least somewhat cross all programs in WDFW.
I also want to make it clear that I do not speak for all WDFW enforcement employees. That being said, I would guess that if you ask WDFW land officers you will find most agree with my position (but are afraid of coming forward) while most marine officers would not. The distinction between the satisfactions of marine officers vs. land officers is largely attributed to Deputy Chief Mike Cenci (a former Dept. of Fisheries officer). Cenci is, without a doubt, the most abusive supervisor I have ever heard of in state government. Many officers have pleaded with Director Anderson and former Chief Bruce Bjork to remove or at least demote Cenci, but to no avail. In-fact Director Anderson ignored those pleas for help until finally in early 2013 when WDFW hired an “investigator” to look into many serious allegations against the deputy chief. The “investigation” was (in our opinion) a sham and read as if it was written by the deputy chief himself, but did verify several disturbing allegations (other allegations were either not investigated at all, or were only partially investigated, while some allegations were determined to be unfounded). Why the director has allowed enforcement to run out of control, and even protect those whose behavior is well below professional standards is an unanswered question. Perhaps it is because those same offenders (the administration of WDFW enforcement) gave the director’s son a fish and wildlife officer job, or perhaps he just doesn’t care.
The following pages will provide you with some examples of what motivated us to write this letter, in hopes of protecting our resources, as well as the fine officers of WDFW left behind when I retired. If any of you so desire, I can provide you with written materials documenting and supporting the allegations we list below. These same allegations, and supporting documentations have also been provided to several investigative reporters with both the print and television media.
The below allegations listed have been investigated to best of our abilities but interviews and further investigation, by a truly independent law enforcement investigator (NOT A WDFW EMPLOYEE), should be conducted to substantiate these allegations independently.

Supporting documentation, for the allegations listed below, is available upon request.
1) Within months of Steve Crown being appointed to the Chief of enforcement, he fired the vice-president of the F&W (Fish and Officers) Guild and demoted the president of the F&W Sergeants’ union.

2) Cronyism. Enforcement always promotes from within, and eliminates anyone with opposing views/opinions. Experience seems to no longer be a factor.
A) When Chief Bjork retired (summer of 2013), a “nation-wide search” for a new chief was conducted, by posting the job announcement on the WASPC (WA Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s Association) website. The posting lasted 23 total days, including 6 weekend days and a holiday (only 16 work days in total).
B) Newly appointed Chief Crown worked in the same office with ex-chief Bjork, yet had only supervised one uniformed officer in his entire career. He now supervises the entire force.
C) When Chief Crown was the training/hiring Lt., he earned a reputation for being lazy, non-responsive and disconnected. He rarely responded to emails or phone calls from officers who were to train the newly hired officers, and often sent new officers into the field without the necessary equipment or training materials.
D) On 07/09/13 the F&W Officer’s Guild asked Director Anderson to be included in the selection process for the new chief.
On 07/15/13, Director Anderson agreed to allow WDFW officers and sergeants to assist in selecting a new chief. In an email Anderson said; “It is important to me to gain the insights from the Guild and the other sectors of the Enforcement Program prior to making the final selection. I would like to ask the Guild to designate four officers to participate in a group made up of representatives of the Program that will be afforded an hour to interact with our finalist(s) prior to my making the final selection.”
On 07/22/13 Director Anderson sent out the following email; “We have selected Lt. Steve Crown as the finalist for the Chief's position. Joe and I have offered an opportunity for representatives of the Officer, Sergeants, Captains, and headquarters Staff to interact with Steve on Wednesday afternoon here in Olympia at the NRB in room 172 beginning at 3:00 p.m. Our meeting will consist of two 45 minute segments, one to hear from and interact with Lt. Crown and the second 45 minute segment will be for Joe and I to hear from you regarding your perspectives on what you heard and the abilities of our finalist to be a strong and effective leader of the Enforcement Program.”
Before the panel, including officers and sergeants, were to convene Director Anderson had already narrowed the application pool to only one candidate; Steve Crown, even though he had agreed to include F&W officers in the selection process.
F&W Officer’s Guild President Mark James then asked Director Anderson why he had already selected one candidate without including the guild, to which Anderson answered; “So to be clear, a job offer has not been extended to anyone yet. After conducting a thorough review of applications and interviews of those meeting the minimum qualifications, we have a single candidate that rose to the top.”
At the 07/24/13 meeting (a meet and greet with the new chief), Director Anderson stated he recognized there were significant issues with enforcement (and listed many of them out), then assured the participants (including sergeants and officers) these issues would be resolved within 6 months. 15 months later things have only gotten worse.
E) When region 4 (Seattle region) Captain Bill Hebner retired, both Sgt. Rich Phillips and Sgt. Hobbs applied for the promotion. Sgt. Phillips had over 30 years of experience, had been a Sgt. many years more than Hobbs, was very well respected, had experience in negotiating tribal issues as well as labor contracts, and had served as assistant commander of the WA CJTC (Criminal Justice Training Commission) police academy, but also served as the F&W Sergeants Union President. Hobbs had very little experience, yet somehow beat out Phillips for the promotion.
F) Chief Crown recently promoted Alan Myers to region 4 Captain. When the position was first announced, only Lt. Eric Anderson (not related to Director Anderson) applied. Crown closed the position and retested, stating he would not award the promotion to Anderson because Anderson had been the only applicant, and Crown wanted the process to be competitive. The irony was that Eric Anderson had been the only applicant for the Lieutenant, when he had applied for and was awarded that position. Upon re-announcement of the captain position, four candidates applied, and Crown awarded it to Alan Myers (a friend of Crown’s who worked in the same office). Myers has a reputation of using poor judgment, and he had absolutely no supervisory experience (other than training new hires). When Alan Meyers was an officer in Clarkston, he created so many problems with the community, the citizens had a public meeting to discuss how to get rid of him.
G) Deputy Chief Hobbs, went from a 34-year old F&W officer to Sergeant, to heading up SIU (the statewide investigative unit), to Captain of region 4 to Deputy Chief in approximately 3 years. Once Hobbs was promoted to the head of SIU he was stationed in Olympia, where he remained (never moving his family, even when he was then promoted to the Captain of the Mill Creek office), until he ultimately ended up as one of the two deputy chiefs in Olympia.

3) Top-heavy. Under Director Anderson, enforcement has removed positions from the field, and moved them to headquarters in Olympia. Enforcement now has a chief, has two deputy chiefs (historically only had one), a captain (removed from the field office in region 6), two lieutenants and one sergeant in the office, for 7 total commissioned officers in the headquarters office. They also employ five communications staff members, a radio technician, and nine “administrative support” employees, for a total of 15 non-commissioned enforcement employees in headquarters. In 2000, administrative positions (Lt. and above) made up 5.5% of the commissioned staff. Now, that has risen to 8.7%. Under this administration officers spend ~35% of their work time on “Administrative duties” (including training).

4) Unequal treatment- A well respected sergeant was recently demoted because he had knowledge of one of his subordinates having handled “evidence” (it was actually not evidence, but firearms from a WDFW employee, held for safe-keeping) improperly, yet Chief Crown’s (while he was acting as a WDFW designated Property/Evidence Custodian) own drug evidence from one of his own cases, was lost, and Crown apparently never notified the defense or defendant of such, and there was an effort to classify the missing evidence as “destroyed” by preparing to incinerate the evidence envelope (but the evidence destruction witness refused to sign the destruction form since the envelope did not contain the listed evidence items). Chief Bjork’s “investigation” of Crown’s missing drug evidence amounted to having Crown write a memo (in which Crown said he didn’t even remember the case, nor could he find anything in his officer’s notebook), then Chief Bjork signed off on the evidence as “closed- undetermined”.
Recently, the vice-president of the officer’s guild (Dave Jones) was fired, in part, for the same “evidence” situation (improperly handling property for safe-keeping) as the Sgt. was demoted for.
The investigation of Officer Jones and Sgt. Phillips was handled by Deputy Chief Hobbs who, when he was in-charge of the detectives, ignored warnings that evidence was being mishandled, by a detective, during the single largest wildlife trafficking case in WDFW’s history (Operation Cody). Once it was determined that the evidence was so badly handled that prosecutors needed to be warned of the evidence issues (Brady exculpatory evidence disclosures were attached to all reports), Hobbs apologized to the involved detectives for not properly supervising the detective in charge of evidence. The very same issue (but to a much lesser degree) is why Sgt. Phillips was demoted, yet no disciplinary actions were taken against Hobbs for failing to supervise the detective who mishandled the Operation Cody evidence, and within months Hobbs was promoted to captain and then (a few months later) to deputy chief.

On 02/14/14 I submitted a Public Disclosure Request to WDFW demanding any and all written documents relating to “Evidence Irregularities and/or Evidence Discrepancies”. On 02/19/14 I received confirmation of receipt of my PDR. On 02/21/14 (two days after WDFW enforcement received my PDR) WDFW Sgt. Dan Chadwick (Deputy Chief Cenci’s neighbor and best friend) entered a pistol into evidence for Deputy Chief Mike Cenci. The report states the pistol was seized in 1992. The narrative of the evidence report reads; “On 02/21/14 at about 1230 hrs., Deputy Chief Mike Cenci was cleaning out his old files in the Long Beach Office. He came across an old handgun with an evidence tag on it dated 10/13/1992. The tag indicated the gun was seized on that date from xxxxxxxxx (unk dob). Violation indicated poss. of a firearm when under 21 yoa. I ran the name in CODY and observed that an xxxxx was cited on the same date by then Wildlife Agent Corky Roberts. Current address lists the defendant in Aberdeen now and the evidence tag had a Hoquim address. I placed the firearm in Evidence locker no. 1 Long Beach.”
When this pistol was seized by Dept. of Wildlife Agent Roberts in 1992, the pistol would have been held in the Dept. of Wildlife Montesano office evidence locker, but somehow the gun made it from the WDFW Montesano (where Cenci later was stationed as a sergeant) evidence storage to Cenci’s “old files in the Long Beach Office”. It certainly appears that for some reason Cenci retained a seized pistol, (which he had no role in, as he worked for a totally separate agency (Fisheries) at the time) for an extended period of time, then just “found it” while cleaning his office, two days after receiving my PDR regarding “evidence irregularities and/or discrepancies”, yet they demoted a Sgt. and terminated an officer for not properly logging in firearms held for safe-keeping.

Cenci has received at least four written reprimands, including one suspension without pay (for 2-days). The only reprimands, to Cenci, I received through PDRs are for: 2007- losing night vision equipment and a digital camera ($2,000+ of equipment), 2006- vehicle accident/speeding ($11,000+ damage), 2005- profanity directed at a citizen, 2005- vehicle accident/speeding (total loss of patrol vehicle). Out of Cenci’s 8 known vehicle and vessel accidents (just since 1998), he has only been reprimanded for 2 of the accidents. Despite Cenci’s less than stellar record, he has been promoted to Captain, and twice promoted to Deputy Chief.

While Chief Crown was the training/recruiting Lieutenant, he put into place a policy which disallowed officers from being FTOs (Field Training Officers- officers who train the new hires) if those officers had a founded disciplinary actions against them, yet despite Cenci’s personnel record, Crown immediately re-promoted Cenci into a deputy chief position.

In 2010, WDFW Officer Brian Alexander charged a suspect and the suspect’s wife for hunting without a license, exceeding the limit, wastage involving several elk in Ocosta. Alexander placed the bull elk antlers into evidence (in the Montesano impound yard). In preparing for the WDFW antler sale (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/may2412a), Lt. O'hagen gathered up antlers, including the antlers seized in the above criminal case and brought them to Olympia where they were later sold. Lt. O’Hagen photographed all the antlers he took, and claimed there were no evidence tags on the antlers he sold. When O’Hagen gave Officer Alexander a picture of the rounded up antlers, Alexander could clearly see evidence tags on some of the racks. During an evidence audit by Lt. Dennis Nicks, it was found that the Ocosta case antlers were missing. In searching for the missing evidence, Alexander found the missing evidence antlers in the photo that O'hagen took of the sold antlers. The loss of evidence was reported to the prosecutor, since the case was still open. Captain Dan Brinson was assigned to do an investigation into the missing antlers. Lt. Nicks also reported the incident to Chief Bjork in the evidence audit, but Lt. O'hagen was never disciplined for misconduct.


5) WDFW enforcement program values fish and shellfish above wildlife.
A) Deputy Chief Cenci has, several times, stated “Nobody gives a [Bleeeeep!] about deer and elk. If they are so important, then why do we give out kill permits for them?” When confronted with this statement, he will likely respond with “I have made more deer and elk cases than most officers” or “those statements were taken out of context”, but it’s difficult to understand in what context a deputy chief of fish and wildlife enforcement would feel that statement is appropriate.
B) The statewide investigative unit (Detectives) has spent a disproportionate amount of time, effort and money on shellfish (primarily geoduck), yet makes very few actual geoduck cases.
C) Director Anderson came from a fisheries background (Pacific Fisheries Management Council, charter captain), as did Cenci (who came from Dept. of Fisheries).

6) I have three different sworn and signed statements, from officers who spoke directly with Officer Apple and/or read Apple’s original report to support the following (even though the documentation I presently have does not include the original report referred to in this section): WDFW Officer Mike Apple recently made a strong criminal case of illegal trapping of otter on Vashon Island, including surveillance video of the suspect with the illegal traps, but Captain Alan Meyers apparently instructed Apple to not file charges (likely because of fear of potential political fallout). On 04/30/14 I submitted a PDR for the case report (report # 14-001121). According to officers who spoke directly with Officer Apple; a couple of days after the PDR was filed, Captain Myers reportedly ordered Officer Apple to change his case report so that it would not show that Myers had instructed Apple to resolve the serious wildlife violation with a verbal warning. Apple refused to change the report. On 05/06/14 I received the PDR response including case report 14-001121, which had apparently been altered and no longer made reference to Captain Myers telling Apple to resolve the crime with a warning. Officer Apple stated he did not make the changes to the report, yet the report was changed. Someone from WDFW changed Officer Apple’s report, then WDFW sent me the PDR response which worked more favorably for the administration. If WDFW employees altered an official police report, then purposely sent me an altered inaccurate response to my PDR, those actions would likely constitute a crime.

7) Disclosure of confidential information to the media by WDFW administrators- On Sept. 18th 2012, DC Cenci was on television and internet telling the world (at 11:15 am) about an undercover WDFW case (Operation Cody) and the warrants which would be served across the state that same date. Many warrants were scheduled to be served later that same day (as late as 7pm), yet Cenci warned the state (by way of the media) about the warrants; thus jeopardizing the case evidence as well as his own officer’s safety; http://www.king5.com/news/local/Raids-target-alleged-wildlife-poachers-170212656.html
The above-listed release of confidential information was certainly not the only incident of such Cenci has made, but perhaps the most egregious in that it also violated a written contract (Cooperative Agreement) between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and WDFW.
On 06/29/11, WDFW Chief Bjork and USFWS Special Agent in Charge (Paul Chang) signed a case specific contract/agreement for Operation Cody. Section IV I states; “All press releases associated with this investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the Special Agent in Charge of Region 1 and Chief of WDFW and will be released only upon mutual agreement of both. All press releases will be coordinated with the appropriate State District Attorney and US Attorney’s Office.” No such approval was made for Cenci’s new releases, nor were the US Attorney’s Office or the USFWS even contacted about such.
After the initial news release, regarding Operation Cody, Cenci conducted other media releases (also without clearing the releases with the US Attorney or the USFWS), including a radio interview in-which he describes a portion of Operation Cody which was a federal investigation of paddlefish caviar (strictly a federal crime), and untruthfully described the suspects as engaged in international smuggling (there was no indication the caviar had entered international markets); http://kuow.org/post/back-alley-caviar . Apparently Cenci either spoke about the case without bothering to check his facts, or he embellished the truth because “international smuggling” sounded better than the truth.

In response to a PDR I submitted (asking for the internal investigative report of Crown’s missing drug evidence) WDFW provided a suspect’s complete confidential criminal history, including his conviction records. WDFW redacted the suspect’s social security number, but left all remaining information in-place, including his name and date of birth (WDFW actually did this on two of the PDR returns). This is a violation of RCW 10.97 (Washington State Criminal Records Privacy Act) punishable by a criminal misdemeanor and potential loss of criminal history access.

8) Quoted from retired WDFW Sgt. Matt Nixon- “I heard him (Cenci) direct HQ staff to change timesheet coding to reflect the spending of federal grant money in ways it were not worked. I heard him direct investigators to find crimes committed by tribal members to embarrass the tribes publicly. I believe a forensic audit of the program's use of federal monies would show vast abuse of overtime and misdirected funds.”

9) Under Bjork and Cenci’s administration, F&W Officer changed to “F&W Police Officer”. The change was more than just a change of title, as WDFW Officers are now praised for law enforcement work which has nothing to do with WDFW’s mandate to “To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities”.
While most officers did not object to the title change, they have found they are now spending far less time doing what the general public expects of them; catching poachers, and more time seeking out violations of “general authority” crimes. WDFW “Police” are now rewarded for working duties outside of F&W violations; officers are also being praised for spending huge amounts of time on marijuana eradication, traffic violations, check fraud, metal theft, etc., all the while spending less time working fish and wildlife crimes.

10) Many officers and Sergeants are retiring early, to escape the abuse and mismanagement.

11) WDFW Officer Dave Jones, as the F&W Officer Guild vice-president, pushed for Director Phil Anderson to conduct an investigation into multiple allegations of wrong-doing by Deputy Chief Cenci. For months, Director Anderson refused to investigate and when Anderson finally conducted an “investigation” it was incomplete and biased. Months after Jones pushed through an investigation of Cenci, Jones was fired.

12) Loss of officers in the field- WDFW continues to shift officers from the field to administrative positions. In 1997 WDFW had ~122 F&W officers in the field. Currently WDFW has ~96 officers in the field, a reduction of over 23%, despite the fact the legislature has funded “additional F&W officer positions”.

13) Cenci interjecting himself into WDFW investigations- Due to his love of cameras and the media (as well as the money he receives from unnecessary travel expenses) Cenci frequently interjects himself into WDFW investigations, at the take-down stage. Multiple times a year Cenci interjects himself into WDFW high profile investigations or patrols, normally at the culmination of the cases. He does so without always bothering to attend briefings and reading all the applicable reports, but rather shows up and takes over, normally taking the lead role in the interview/interrogations of key suspects, then stands before the media to brag about WDFW’s success. In no other large law enforcement agency, does the deputy chief interject himself or herself in such a manner, as doing so is unnecessary and can jeopardize the success of the operation (i.e.- interrogation of key suspects without full knowledge of the case, can lead to missed opportunities for full confessions). Also; such behavior costs the state unnecessary travel expenses.

Cenci also misleads younger officers into inappropriate behaviors. One such example seemed to have occurred in the San Juan Islands, in November of 2013, when Cenci came all the way from Olympia to lead a routine deer decoy patrol on Lopez Island. It is our understanding that under Cenci’s supervision the decoy deer team (consisting of Officer Rosenberger, Officer Stout, and Cenci) trespassed and placed a decoy deer on the private property, in hopes of enticing suspects into unlawfully shooting the decoy deer, but the landowner caught the officers trespassing on his property (this information has not yet been verified, due to those involved being totally supportive of Cenci (all marine officers)).

14) Reckless driving- Cenci has a well-earned reputation for reckless driving. Cenci has reported at least 5 vehicle accidents, in state owned vehicles, since 2000 and an additional one in 1998 (it is unknown if there are additional unreported accidents). Cenci has also been involved in at least 2 boating accidents/incidents, and has been stopped for speeding. In several of Cenci’s vehicle accidents, he admitted to speeding and/or reckless driving. These accidents have cost the state 10’s of thousands of dollars, but fortunately have not yet hurt or killed any citizens. Cenci’s accident record is rather impressive considering he spends the majority of his time behind a desk.

15) Promotions- Several promotions were custom made for specific officers- examples: Chris Clementson (a personal friend of now retired Captain Volz’s). Captain Volz crafted the Detective job announcement to Clementson’s background and geographical location, told SIU detectives he was going to make Clementson the next detective, and reduced minimum qualifications (as Clementson came nowhere near the existing minimum qualifications), then announced (at a retirement luncheon with the chief and deputy chief present) that Clementson would be the next detective, before the position announcement even came out.

Deputy Chief Cenci “self-demoted” to captain when Chief Bjork retired, but weeks later when Steve Crown was appointed the chief, Crown gave Cenci a deputy chief position back without even announcing the position, or interviewing for it. Crown also created a second deputy chief position, which he held interviews for.
Several years ago, Charles “Alan” Myers (now Captain Myers) said this about the promotional process in WDFW (under Cenci and Bjork’s leadership): “Charles Myers wrote: I had some experience recently in interviewing for a detective position this past summer. I interviewed for the position that was filled by Brad Rhoden. Anyone planning on applying for the position needs to know some things right up front. For example, If you are not networked in with anyone from SIU, especially Ed Volz do not bother applying. Until and unless someone from SIU is your children's god-parent, or something else just as intimate, it will be a waste of time. Also, get a heads up on the interview questions. They ask you questions that demand that you have extensive commercial investigation experience and knowledge. Also, check and see who was already pre-ordained to fill the spot. This is relatively easy information to find out. It seems that most know ahead of time who is more apt to be given the golden pass. If it's not you, then don't bother, unless you're just a sucker like me who was looking for a soul crushing, ego stomping experience to have. But, don't cry for me Argentina. I should have done more to prepare myself. Like move to the west side and become marine officer for one. That definitely would have helped.” Shortly after writing this email, Officer Myers took an undesirable office job in Olympia which allowed him to gain access to the administrative inner circle. He then was quickly promoted up the ladder to Captain.


16) Investigation of Deputy Chief Cenci- When guild representative (Officer Dave Jones) was investigated for an allegation of inappropriate behavior, the investigation was handed to WSP and the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office. When WDFW finally investigated Deputy Chief Cenci, a private attorney was hired by WDFW to conduct the “investigation”; many witnesses were not contacted, and the report was badly skewed and incomplete.

17) Wasting money by retaining unused vessels- One large patrol vessel (vessel #1- protected by Cenci) is believed to have zero hours from November 2010 through June 2011, but the moorage bill for that vessel is over $380 per month for it to just sit there. That is well over $3,000 in moorage costs alone (not including power and maintenance), over 8 months for an unused vessel.

18) Petition- In late March 2014, retired WDFW Detective Todd Vandivert started a petition to remove Director Anderson, Chief Crown and Deputy Chief Cenci (this was at least the second petition to remove Cenci, as the citizens of his own county had one going in 2006). Vandivert obtained well over 1,000 signatures in the first week! Many present and past WDFW employees signed the petition.

19) WDFW employees have been harassed by WDFW administration for supporting the petition to remove the administration, including a WDFW office worker who was brought to tears by administrators (including Captain Myers) for “liking” the petition on her personal Facebook page; in what seems to be a clear violation of freedom of speech.

20) Many WDFW employees voiced support for the petition to remove administrators, but would not sign it due to a valid fear of retaliation.

21) WDFW Officers have been ordered to not have any contact with myself or Officer Dave Jones, as we are both known to be involved in investigating wrongdoing by WDFW enforcement personnel.

22) Almost all of the marine officers support the administration, and very few land officers support them, which shows clear favoritism towards marine issues and programs.



In an 04/12/13 letter to Director Anderson, the F&W Officers’ Guild attorneys stated “Upon review of this investigation, it appears that the following allegations against Cenci are SUSTAINED by the investigator, or SUPPORTED by the investigative report” (Director Anderson was made aware of the investigative report findings on March 12th 2013):
23) Cenci failed to file a WDFW boating accident report for a boating accident he had at Seafair.
24) Cenci engaged in sexual intercourse, with a dept. employee, while at work.
25) Cenci called a female officer a “bitch”.
26) Cenci commented, in a restaurant, about a waitress’ breasts.
27) Cenci called officers (including a female officer) “cowards” and “pussies” for not jumping into the water to find a missing boater, and failed to listen to their explanation of why they did not do so.
28) Cenci has, on different occasions, told officers “you don’t know @#$#”
29) Cenci made a comment, in reference to a Sgt., that he was “going to kick his ass”.
30) Cenci has stated, several times when discussing work priorities, “Nobody gives a [Bleeeeep!] about deer and elk” and “if it doesn’t have fins, it doesn’t mean [Bleeeeep!]”.
In Director Anderson’s response letter to the F&W Officers Guild (regarding the Cenci “investigation”), Anderson ended his letter by stating; “From the Department’s perspective this concludes the matters associated with the allegations of unethical and unlawful actions on the part of either Chief Bruce Bjork or Deputy Chief Mike Cenci. It is regrettable that these two outstanding and dedicated employees were subjected to these type of unwarranted allegations.”
As you digest and process the above-listed information, keep in mind that WDFW just demoted an outstanding sergeant (Rich Phillips) and terminated a dedicated K-9 officer (Dave Jones). The sergeant was demoted for failure to supervise Officer Jones (because the Sgt. had knowledge that Officer Jones had allegedly not properly handled “safe-keeping property”). Officer Dave Jones (the officer who initiated the investigation of Deputy Chief Cenci) was terminated, in part, for not properly handling property held for safe keeping. Yet Chief Crown mishandled drug evidence, Deputy Chief Cenci “found” a pistol in his files, which had been missing for 22 years, and Deputy Chief Hobbs (who conducted the investigations of Sgt. Phillips and Officer Jones) had himself failed to supervise one of his subordinates resulting in severe evidence issues in a major case. We don’t think we need to point out the hypocrisy of the WDFW administration terminating/demoting employees for the same, more serious, acts they have committed themselves.
What saddens me the most it that for 25+ years, when any young college student would ask me what it’s like to be a Fish and Wildlife Officer in Washington, I always answered; “It’s the best job on earth”. Now, I (like many others) tell them to look elsewhere.
We sincerely thank all of you for your attention to these serious issues, and I will avail myself to questions, comments or requests for supporting documentation.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/14 12:16 PM

The prior post is self explanatory but if one ever wanted a break out of how & what the turmoil in WDF&W Enforcement has been this should take care of that problem in short order. This is relevant to the current mess in Grays Harbor and Willapa as the lack of honesty and conservation ethics exhibited by District 17 ( GH & Willapa ) staff will not change until we have a different Director. The current WDF&W Director is 100% old school and those who hope for some form of enlightened management are going to have to wait until there is a change at the top.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/14 04:16 PM

If what the letter says is true, then many more than just the head need removal.
Posted by: rojoband

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/14 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
If what the letter says is true, then many more than just the head need removal.


Wow..... Really sad that it took a retired game warden getting fed up to dig this up.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/14 08:28 PM

WDFW Enforcement went through a pretty extensive and expensive certification program a while back. If memory serves, they are one of the few LE agencies in WA that achieved that. Might be better to forward the information to them rather than the Press because the certifiers can actually take a public/professional action if warranted.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/14 06:34 AM

CM -
Are you referring to CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for law enforcement agencies) accreditation the WDFW enforcement received a decade or so ago?

That accreditation meant that the agency had met some pretty serious communication and training standards. If only part of the claims in that letter are true it is obvious that meeting those standards was largely a expensive "paper" exercise. Though at the time the enforcement leadership made a big deal of getting that accreditation.

While I don't recall what the cost was to go through that accreditation process I do recall that in a time of tight budgets it was pretty controversial at the time when the agency did it. Again as I recall most of the national fish and wild agencies as well as most Washington County Sherriff departments have not gone through that process and some folks wondered whether that money would have been better spend on keeping agents in the field.

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/14 11:54 AM

That's what I was talking about. It was also pretty costly because of the remodeling needed to do in their HQ.

Remember, too, one of Murphy's Laws. An ounce of Image is worth a pound of Performance.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/14 02:50 PM

Quote:
WOW! Saw that you posted this to piscatorial pursuits, but man this needs to get out to newspaper editorials, King 5 and Komo 4 news outlets, and iFish and Gamefishin websites. I don't have accounts on those sites...but man. This is coming from the ONLY 2 time OFFICER OF THE YEAR for WDFW, so you have to immediately give the guy some amount of credibility. Getting the word out right now is crucial, as it seems like a lot of issues that lay at director anderson's feet are finally coming home to roost, as you can only sweep so many skeletons in the closet before the door wont shut and they all spill out. I can't say enough thanks to Mr. Todd Vandivert and his years of service, and continued service in retirement. He should be given an honory award for this investigative attempt to clear the agency of such wrongdoings. I am contacting my state reps to make sure they recieve a copy of this letter and do something about it.


This came in my e mail so I thought I would post it. Not for our reading benefit but for the gentleman that wrote the letter to the Commission that I posted previously. One never knows about letters that harsh but it seemed authentic and had the proper bells and whistles. What I did not know was the fact that this is coming from the ONLY 2 time OFFICER OF THE YEAR for WDFW. The loyalty the former employees have is often difficult to grasp but I think if this gentlemen is who the e mailer says he is then I am going with someone who is fighting FOR the agencies credibility which under Mr. Anderson has reached the level of about ZERO / to NONE!
Posted by: the machinist

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/14 10:19 AM

I question many things I see on the net, so contacted a good friend of mine that is also retired WDFW enforcement.

He knows this writer well & says that the writer is meticulus enough that he would never write anything that he can not back up. He says the writer only sees things in black & white, with no gray areas. And if you buy the book, you will not be able to put it down.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/14 08:02 PM

Now this is a beauty!!!! This is a attorney for the Willapa Gillnetters trying to intimidate WDF&W with findings from a bio they hired. Now the consultants report is 13 pages long so I will put it up in two or three parts later. That said this is interesting reading as ........................ oh hell I do not know but trying to intimidate a government agency is not such a good idea!!!!!!!! I did not fix the formatting as this is exactly as received but converted from a PDF to Word.


Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Attn: Joanna Eide, WDFW Rules Coordinator 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091 rules.coordinator@dfw. wagov

RE: Comments to CR'102
WAC 220-40-021- Willapa Bay salmon summer fishery WAC 220-40-026)- Willapa Bay salmon fall fishery

Dear Ms. Eide:

The undersigned and this law firm represent the Willapa Bay and Gr.ays Ha.rbor Gillnetters Associations ("Associations"). The following are the Associations' comments to CR 102 draft
regulations for the Willapa Bay sahnon sununer fishery and Willapa Bay salmon fall fishery promulgated under WAC 220-40-021 and WAC 220-40-027, respectively.

BACKGROUND

In January 2014 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ("WDFW''), Tim Hamilton, Arthur Hohnan, and Ron Schweitzer settled litigation under Thurston County cause nos. 13-2-01741- 2 and 13-202050-2 ("Settlement Agreement"). Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a. copy of the Settlement Agreement. The Associations did not have an opportunity to participate in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement requires the WDFW to procure consulting services from independent fishery scientists. The scientists and their scope of work were jointly selected by the parties to the Settlement Agreement and the WDFW. The Associations did not have the opportunity to participate in this process.

The WDFW further agreed to use public funds to establish a private non-profit organization. The organization is intended to promote recreational fishing in Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor. The organization is called the Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy ("Advocacy"). The officers of the Advocacy are Tim Hamilton, Arthur Hohnan, and Ron Schweitzer. Itisunclear how the public funds were used by the Advocacy or its officers. The Associations have never received similar funds.

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T 0 R N E Y S A T L A W •

June 24, 2014
Page 2


A Professional Services Corporation



The.scientists engaged by the WDFW and the Advocacy convened a panel identified as the Independent Fisheries Science Panel ("IFSP"). On.March 31, 2014, the IFSP produced the Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Commercial Salmon Fisheries Mortality Rates ("IFSP Report"). The IFSP was requested to address only the following issues:(1) Chinook and chum salmon release mortality rates for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor with fishermen complying with the regulations; (2) Chinook and chum salmon release mortality rates for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor in light of actual fishing practices; and (3) identifying compliance problems with fish-friendly tactics. The issues posed to the IFSP also appear to have been created by the Advocacy. The Associations again did not have the opportunity to participate in the IFSP's formulation of its scope of work and they did not receive any meaningful opportunity to comment on the IFSP's draft report.

On May 21, 2014, the WDFW issued CR-102 filed as WSR 14-11-105 for the 2014 North of Falcon commercial salmori rules for Willapa Bay. On June 23, 2014, Ian Courter of Mount Hood
.Environmental prepared a Teehnical Memorandl.}!Il which consists of a Review of the IFSP Recommendations and the 2014 Proposed Rules for Willapa Bay Commercial Salmon Fishing. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B'' is a copy of the Technical Memorandum. Mr. Courter observes that release mortality rates for naturally spawning chinook are one of the most significant factors impacting the 2014 commercial gillnet season. (Technical Memorandum, p. 3). Regarding the mortality rates,Mr. Courter finds that "[i]t appearsthat the WDFW used the IFSP Report exclusively to arrive at these figures." (Technical Memorandum, p. 3). As a result, the WDFW's Willapa Bay rule-making process for 2014 suffers from the e flaws as the IFSP Report discussed in the Technical Memorandum.

ANALYSIS

The statutory mandate for the WDFW state5 as follows:

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair th resource. Ina manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing inthis state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times orplaces, or inmanners or quantities, as inthejudgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

RCW 77.04;012. To further these broad objectives, the Legislature directed that "[t]he commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making." RCW 77.04.013.

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

June 24, 2014
Page 3


A Professional Services Corporation



These objectives grant the WDFW regulatory authority to manage fish within the waters of
this state for purposes of conservation. Purse Seine Vessel Owners Ass'n v. State, 92 Wn. App.381, 391, 966 P.2d 928 (1998);see also Northwest Gillnetters Ass'n v.Sandison, 95 Wn.2d 638, 641, 628
P.2d 800 (1981). In order to manage a fishery for conservation, WDFW is permitted to do the following:

[i]t •enables the agency to collect data regarding the size, plaeement, and harvest of runs, to regulate the type of gear and times at which it can be employed in fishing specific varieties and runs •of fish, to discriminate among classes of users by gear and purpose, to artificially enhance the fishery through hatchery programs, and even to force the owners of existing dams to improve fish passage facilities.

Northwest Gillnetters Ass'n v. Sandison, 95 Wn. 2d 638, 641-642, 628 P.2d 800 (1981).

The grant of broad discretion to an agency includes the corresponding obligation to take actions that are not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). Arbitrary aild capricious is defined as follows:

Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of facts and circwnstances. Where there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary and capricious even though one may believe an erroneous conclusion has been reached.

Pierce County Sheriff v. Civil Service Com'n of Pierce Cowtty, 98 Wn.2d 690, 695, 658 P.2d 648 (1983) (quoting State v.Rowe, 93 Wn.2d 277, 284, 609 P.2d 1348 (1980).

Based on the above analysis and the Technical Memorandum, the WDFW has failed to discharge its statutory mandate and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

A. The WDFW violated its statutory mandate and the APA by failing to treat the Advocacy and the Associations equally in the IFSP process without adequate justification .

The statute states:

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. Ina manner oonsistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well..being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shallpromote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

RCW 77.()4.012. In accord with this statute, the WDFW •must balance both commercial and
_recreational interests. Puget Sound Crab Ass'n v. State, 174 Wn. App. 572, 581-582, 300 P.3d 448

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

June 24,2014
Page 4


AProfessional Services Cocporation



(2013). The WDFW must also treat both the commercial and recreational industries equally. Id. at
584. The WDFW may onlytreat the groups differently if it has an adequate explanation on the record. The failure to treat two similarly situated groups equally without adequate explanation is arbitrary under the AP. Petroleum Communications. Inc. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 1164, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kempthorne, 452 F.Supp.2d 105, 115 (2006).

• The commercial industry and recreational industry were not treated equally here and the WDFW lacks any justification for such disparate treatment during its rule-making process. Rather, the Settlement Agreement and the IFSP process, at the expense of public funds, provided the Advocacy access to agency rul(}-making to the exclusion of the Associations. Such an exclusive practice reSulted in disparate treatment of two similarly situated groups - the Advocacy and• the
Associations. Disparate treatment violates the WDFW's mandate and it violates the APA because there is no basis to treat the groups differently during a process intended to encourage public
involvement. The WDFW has not only failed to encourage the Associations' involvement inthe IFSP process, it excluded the Association8 by agreemen with the Advocacy. Accordingly, the WDFW caruiot adopt the IFSP's conclusions without adequate justification for treating the Advocacy and Associations differently during the IFSP process. The IFSP Report must be excluded from the WDFW rule- making process on this basis alone. •

B. The application of a 10% actual practices adjustment to naturally spawning release mortality rates is arbitrary and capricious because it is not supported by any reliable data and it is contrary to the on-board observer data collected by the WDFW.

The IFSP concludes that release mortality rates will be higher in actual practice due to the failure of the commercial fleet to comply with fish friendly tactics. To support this conclusion, the IFSP relied upon unqualified lay opinion testimony and video presented at workshops. This evidence lacks any credibility and is directly contrary to the WDFW on-boat observer data collected during the gillnet seasons.

Further, Mr. Courter finds that the application of a noncompliance rate is subjective, lacks empirical .evidence, and is duplicative of factors already included in the FRAM model. (Technical Memorandum, p. 6). The WDFW's decision to apply the IFSP's 10% adjustment renders the WDFW's action similarly subjective, duplicative, and arbitrary.

To consider information that lacks any indicia of reliability or credibility which is contrary to actual data in the WDFW's possession disregards the facts and circumstances available to the IFSP, it lacks any rational support, and it duplicates a factor Blready included in the model. A final rulethat relies solely upon the IFSP Report and disregards the attending facts and circumstances is arbitrary and capricious Puget Sound Harvesters Ass'n v. Washington State Dept.. of Fish and Wildlife, 157 Wn.App.935, 945, 239 P.3d 1140 (2010). Accordingly the non-compliance rate adjustment must be removed and the mortality rates adjusted accordingly.,

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

June 24, 2014
Page 5


A Professional Services Corporation






C. There is no data_ to su1mort a drop-out mortality rates of 3% for commercial fisheries.

Based on the information available from WDFW, there isno empirical data.to support a drop­ out rate for Willapa Bay commercial gillnetters. It apPears, based upon the _available infoation from the WDFW, that the WDFW and tribal co-managers have agreed upon these rates, but the WDFW has no data to support the conclusion that such rates pccur in actual practices. Mr. Courter finds that the drop-out rates arenot based on objective data and redundant. (Technical Memorandwn,
p. 7). Accordingly, the drop-out rates must be removed and the mortality rates adjusted accordingly.

D. The application of spring Chinook test fishery data from the Colwnbia River must be adjusted to reflect the time frame and migration distance expected inWillapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

Tl1e IFSP report finds that data from Ashbrook et al. (2004) does not need to be altered because mortality of spring Chinook in the Colwnbia River did not differ substantially between trea1ment and control fish upstream ofthe McNary Dam. Grays Harbor and the Willapa Bay fall runs are materially different than the Colwnbia River spring run. The Columbia River fishery has significantly lower long-term survival rates and higher corresponding mortality rates because of the presence of hydroelectric dams, the significant distance traveled by returning fish before reaching spawning grounds, and the significant time in fresh water before spawning.

Mr. Courter also disagrees with the IFSP' s :findings because there is affirmative data to dispute the IFSP'sunsupported conclusions. The IFSP Report appears to concede that it made an affirmative conclusion based upon a perceived lack of evidence. An affirmative conclusion based upon the lack of evidence here is inappropriate because of the material differences between the fishenes. Mr. Courter sites VanderHaegen, G.E.et al (2004) and Ashbrook et al. (2009) forthe conclusion that there are significant capture-related mortality occurring upstream of McNary Dam on the Colwnbia River. (Technical Mernorandwn, p. 8-9). Therefore, distance of travel distinguishes the Columbia River spring runs and Willapa Bay fall runs.

Moreover, the U.S. v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC") reached a similar conclusion to Mr. Courter by applyiri.g a 4()0/o long term release mortality rate •to Columbia River Chinook based on "study design biases" inAshbrook et al. (2004). (Technical Memorandwn, p. 9). The IFSP's analysis is clearly inconsistent with the Technical Memorandum and the TAC despite reviewing the exact same data.

The IFSP and subsequently the WDFW are disregarding the attending facts and circwnstances available to adequately inform the 2014 rule-making process. A final rule based solely upon the IFSP Report that disregards the actual facts and circumstances is arbitrary and capricious. Puget Sound Harvesters Ass'n v. Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 157 Wn. App. 935, 945, 239 P.3d 1140 (2010). .

M C G A V I C K G R A V E S
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

June 24, 2014
Page 6


A Professional Sices Corporation




The WDFW must develop a scalar to adjust the mortality rates accordingto actual Willapa Bay conditions and the study • design biases observed in Ashbrook et al (2004). . (Technical Memorandwn; p. 13). Without adequate adjustment, the WDFW's rule .disregards the weight of available scientific evidence on this issue.

E. The imposition of tangle nets on Willapa Bay fails to consider the economic impact on the commercial industry.

The WDFW's statutory mandate requires it to consider the economic burden ofits regulations on the fishing industry. Puget Sound Crab Ass'n v. . State, 174 Wn. App. 572, 581-582, 300 P.3d 448 (2013). The imposition of tangle nets on Willapa Bay, only a few months before the season commences, fails to.account for the economic impact of such a change on the commercial industry. Itis impossibleto purchase atangle net in time forthe2014 summer and fall Willapa Bay commercial salmon season. Manufacturers are not capable of filling orders for tangle nets in the allowed time frame. As a result, the economic burden will be significant as the commercial industry will not be permitted to fish as a result of this change in equipment. e Associations request the WDFW to delay the imposition of tangle nets in order to provide the Associations a commercially reasonable time to acquire the new gear.

CONCLUSION

The Associations request that the WDFW disregard the IFSP's Report. The Associations request that naturally spawning chinook mortality rates be adjusted according to the Technical Memorandum 's recommendations. The Associations request that the WDFW promulgate a regulation for the 2014 commercial gillnet season in Willapa Bay that complies with RCW 77.04 and RCW 34.05.

Sincerely,



.GOOwffi

cc: Clients
Mike Grossman, Washington Attorney General's Office

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/14 09:17 PM


We are still working on Public Document Request and here comes this gem. Key is to read bottom up as it is the Director starting the thread. Now let us say this right now absolutely ZERO misconduct is present here. It is appropriate for any citizen to contact their elected representative and request assistance but I think this takes Rep. Blake out of the even handed approach column. You choose!!!!


From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW) Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 2:38 PM To: Anderson, Philip M (DFW)
Cc: Warren, Ron R (DFW); Scott, James B (DFW)
Subject: RE: willapa/Blake



Attached are the other 2 items we handed out. DraftResponse is the preliminary recommendation from the Independent Fishery Scientist Panel on gillnet release mortality rates for Chinook. The other two are the Chinook and Coho FRAM mortality rates used by state/tribal/PFMC modelers. Net drop out would be represented by “Other Mortality”.



Concerns expressed by the commercial industry that I noted (it may not be all of them):

1. The drop out rate used was not based on a study of commercial fisheries in Willapa Bay and their fisheries are now very different than other areas such as Puget Sound. Differences such as soak time need to be considered.

2. The IFSP was not an independent committee. They specifically cited that one member fishes with Jim Martin often and Martin’s son is married to Liz Hamilton or her daughter.

3. They want money from the agency to conduct an independent review of hooking mortality.

4. With regard to the 20% limitation: they told us the Naselle couldn’t support the goal when the management plan was drafted; none of the Chinook in Willapa are wild anymore; NFMS has said they wouldn’t list Willapa Chinook under ESA; and we need to go back to managing only for hatchery fish.

5. If part of the bay is closed to commercial, it needs to be closed to recreational also.



Please let me know if there are other items you need prior to Tuesday morning.



From: Anderson, Philip M (DFW)
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:01 PM
To: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW); Warren, Ron R (DFW); Scott, James B (DFW)
Subject: willapa/Blake

All:

Got a message from Brain today. He said his phoning was ringing off the hook about Willapa, I assume that was generated from the meeting Friday night. He requested a breakfast meeting with me soon. If you happen to see this e-mail and have an electronic copy of any hand-outs that were used Friday night or the three pieces we referenced on Friday that you could send to me, that would be great. thanks, Phil
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/25/14 11:20 AM

The Willapa Commercials Consultant report was a bit large and simply did not take to C&P as the formatting really took a hike! So here are his recommendations such as they are but keep in mind he was hired by a user group to develop a supporting document for the Willapa Gillnettters and NOT as the IFSP that the Commercials ( and District 17 staff ) hate. The IFSP were hired by Jim Scott ( AD Fish Program ) charged with working INDEPENDENTLY to develop mortality rates in fisheries for Grays Harbor and Willapa. Rec hooking mortality went up as did the commercial release mortality but the Gillnetters who have never been held accountable ( particulary by District 17 staff WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO BE MONITORING COMMERCIAL FISHINGS ) and it appears the guys are having problems with the concept that " it ain't OK to cook the books"!

Quote:
The Department should provide the commercial fishing fleet with information pertaining to the need/justification for a 4% increase in the recreat ional fishing harvest allocation.


This is my personal favorite. The Commercial Fleet take over 85% of the harvest in Willapa and this guy wants justification for the 15% or less the Recs get? " You got to be kidding me" is about the nicest way to respond to that with "Your shi--- me" closing in for the lead.


So here you are:


Recommendation Summary

list of primary recommendations in order of priority:

l) The Department should not use the IFSP to address noncompliance with regulations, and the noncompliance rate adjustment should be removed because it has no empirical basis. Moreover, a subjective noncompliance rate has already been applied to FRAM harvest rate estimates and inclusion of the same rate in the planning model would be redundant.

2) The Department should remove drop-out/off mortality rates from the Willapa Bay planning model because they have no empirical basis and subjective rates have already been incorporated into FRAM harvest rate estimates. WDFW should also develop a study plan to inform true estimates of drop-out and drop-off mortality.

3) The assumed post-release mortality rate for large and small mesh sizes should not exceed the rate agreed to by the TAC (40%) to account for bias in study results reported in Ashbrook et al. (2004). Furthermore, The number of factors affecting prespawning mortality increases with migration distance and time; therefore, additional reductions in assumed non-retention mortality must be made to account for life-history differences between spring and fall Chinook salmon.

4) WDFW should provide a clear explanation of the need to reduce the harvest impact on natural origin Naselle River Chinook salmon before finalizing rules for the 2014 commercial season.

5) To facilitate the comment/review process, justification for model structure and inputs should be compiled into a single report rather than relying on reviewers to compile numerous memos, reports, and public meeting synopses.

6) The Department should build upon and/or modify my explanation as needed to develop an accurate reflection of how the proposed fishery differs from previous seasons.

7) The Department should provide hind-cast estimates of the commercial fishery length (days) for the last l0 years under the new management regime proposed for 2014.

8) Efforts should be made to collect species-specific data to improve the accuracy of chum salmon non-retention mortality estimates.

9) The Department should provide the commercial fishing fleet with information pertaining to the need/justification for a 4% increase in the recreat ional fishing harvest allocation.

Posted by: larryb

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/25/14 06:28 PM

4. With regard to the 20% limitation: they told us the Naselle could’t support the goal when the management plan was drafted; none of the Chinook in Willa pa are wild anymore; NF MS has said they would’t list Willa pa Chinook under ESAU; and we need to go back to managing only for hatchery fish

after reading the statement that there are no wild Chinook left in the willapa I remembered reading in the vidette that in the 1890's the canneries on Gray's harbor planted "blacks" from the Sacramento river to have an early run king in the Chehalis to can. so does this mean that there are no native early run kings in the chehalis
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/26/14 09:05 AM


Link is to SASI and look to North River/ Smith CR. The assertion by the gillnetters and some Rec fishers fearful of managing for a wild native fish, none exist in Willapa is BS. Willapa has issues of a total management failure and it is coming home to roost.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisherie...orderby=Species
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/26/14 09:21 AM

Riverguy-

With the mass marking of the Chinook hatchery production through out the Willapa Bay basin I would be very interesting to see what information is available on the mark rate of Chinook carcasses recovered in the North River/Smith Creek (elsewhere in the basin).

Collection of that information should be straight forward; is it available?

If so has it been made available to folks?

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/26/14 01:01 PM

If memory serves, Willapa was the poor stepchild for stock assessment. From what I recall, there were years with not much done because of the need to do Grays because of Indian/non-Indian sharing/co-management.

Neither watershed has much for chum surveys; wind up Rivrguy on how those escapements are "estimated".
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/26/14 05:29 PM

Not sure Curt but I will look around. The thing folks miss with the gillnetters claim that illegal private hatcheries are the source of the North River Chinook is pretty much delusional and why some in the REC community run around braying that [Bleeeeep!] is something well past hard to understand. The simple fact is that most folks have ZERO idea of survival rates. Unfed or some feed time fry have almost zero survival. Now you can get around that by rearing to about 150 fry to the lb, correct brood, and planting sites that are in ideal habitat but it is almost impossible to get enough eggs of that quality outside the Chehalis Basin.

SaSI was done quite a ways back prior to the implementation of that ridiculous piece of crap management plan R-6 put together under Ron Warren and Kirt Hughes. Also before the use of selective fishing ( which is selective in name only and a farce ) with few observers and the Region 6 staffer charged with the Commercials and never seeing a near death or dead fish come in to the boat in a commercial gillnet that needed to be revived. Willapa salmon harvest management, be it Commercial or Rec, is nearing to point that the local communities could loose a lot of the hatchery production in the near future.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/27/14 01:26 PM


The Chum thing is amazing and I will use Grays Harbor but Willapa is similar but I do not know the details as well. So in Grays Harbor they take three locations on the East Fork Satsop ( near Simpson 1, Cramer's Spawning Channel, and on Decker Creek ) and Stevens Creek on the Hump, add them up and then extrapolate basin wide. First Stevens Creek is the best Chum stream on the Hump and the three reaches of the Satsop are influenced by 300k to 500k of Chum released ( broodstocked parents ) that come back and spawn with the natural origin adults.

Now the purpose of the program was to rebuild the Satsop Chum which has happened but by utilizing spawning numbers heavily influenced by the hatchery Chum it results in a inappropriate break out of the number of harvestable adults resulting a steady destruction of Chum stocks above Satsop in the Chehalis and upper tributaries. The reason is simple in that upper basin Chum do not reproduce at the same rate as lower basin Chum. So they are quite willing to write off and exterminate native Chum stocks from 1/3 of the Chehalis Basin. That simple yet complex. The thing is commercial fisheries, be it tribal or non treaty, once established you play hell getting those things reformed. It usually follows the pattern of they are not there anymore kill em all, they were never there, ( when bounced and shown pictures you usually get " oh before my time" ) or to few remain to worry about and it is a real shame that happened. Oh did I mention that WDF&W WAS in charge then to? I do believe the words used are ZERO accountability with Region 6 District 17 staff past & PRESENT!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/05/14 02:34 PM

My e mail has gone to a reoccurring theme as to questions on the Grays Harbor & Willapa commercial seasons. So no I do not know the final season lay out for either and WDF&W has time with the APA process ( CR 102 to create the WAC ) in GH as it is 60 days after submission with two public comment periods.

That said the current Director and AG ( Attorney General's staff ) assigned to WDF&W have used the CR 103 or Emergency Rule Change to circumvent the APA process before. Yes you can sue them but unless you prove financial dislocation it will finish up legally AFTER the season and why the guides have not used this route is beyond me. Also interesting how WDF&W utilizes this to fend off citizens more or less enraged over being screwed one more time.

So in Grays Harbor they could get to mid August before dropping the Commercial CR 102 as it will be late Oct before time is available under the 3 consecutive net free days. No I do not know how Region 6 gets around the issue that Humptulips Wild Coho have not made escapement for 23 years. It should not effect the in river Rec as it will be C&R on Wild with a low hooking mortality but 2C both Commercial & sport no idea as the numbers are very much in the minus column for escapement before ANY harvest with much higher release mortalities.

It is my understanding that the proposed QIN seasons DO NOT violate any court agreed to escapement goals as they get 50% of the harvestable at the bar. The separation of the Hump and Chehalis is a WDF&W thing that the QIN DID NOT agree to and are NOT bound by. It does create problems for Region 6 in that the Recs can mold around the QIN seasons but NOT so the NT nets. WDF&W really has problems getting away from this Indian vs White Boy thing with commercial fisheries.

In Willapa WDF&W is close to or out of time for the infamous Commercial Dip In fishery in 2T. More commonly know as the screw the REC and Wild Chinook this lovely piece of unholy crap takes place in late July or early August. They have time for the remaining commercial fisheries.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/05/14 03:23 PM

One last item. Through the PDR process ( Public Document Request ) I and others have attempted to gather information. We make it public and when this rolled out in a PDR by the Advocacy I was startled. So let us go back to 2013 when one of our local fishers, well known on PP, yelled about no creel count in the Grays Harbor Bay fishery so off District 17 went AND CLOSED THE BAY SEASON. So now was it retribution or conservation or both? Well the creel census September 18 through September 21 had 589 angler trips with a harvest of 152 Wild Chinook & 27 marked Chinook harvested. In other words FISHING sucked! So why the closure? You choose but there is little doubt that what data District 17 had obtained did NOT show a major over harvest.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/08/14 01:41 PM

Quote:
after reading the statement that there are no wild Chinook left in the willapa I remembered reading in the vidette that in the 1890's the canneries on Gray's harbor planted "blacks" from the Sacramento river to have an early run king in the Chehalis to can. so does this mean that there are no native early run kings in the chehalis


No not really. The Chehalis has one Chinook run that starts around may and ends in December. Our Chinook run starts with the Springers ( which are not Springers in the normal sense but the front end of the summer component ) followed in July by the primary Summer Chinook coming in through mid September. The last part of the run is mid Sept through the first part of October finishing with the late component latter part of October and November. The December Chinook that went to the E. & W. Folks Satsop, and two tributaries near Elma are pretty much wiped out. The Summers are primarily E. Fork Satsop & Upper Chehalis. Now the Wynoochee did have a true Springer run that Spawned in the gorge ( pre dam ) that WDFW did not recognize and are gone despite local efforts led by GHTU which DW can tell you about as he baby sat the brood.

Now hatchery releases of different numbers and stocks have occurred and some rather substantial. The second Satsop hatchery built was next to Schafer Park and one year they took 5 or 50 million eggs ( typo or ?? as no one knows ) and transferred them to the old Upper Chehalis Hatchery which lost them due to facility failure. Another is when the Hump went to native stock Chinook the entire Hump hatchery run of Chinook was transferred to the East Fork Satsop, reared to yearlings and released.

So in the Chehalis we have a Chinook run that has three distinct run timings as to spawning but the entry through the bay gets muddled. The thing is not many Chinook come in from the salt Nov & Dec but rather enter the bay and stage ( hold ) in the tide water areas in the Chehalis, which is to the South Elma Bridge on the Chehalis. Adults returning to some streams stage pretty hard up to several months, which is why they take a real pounding by commercials fisheries as they have a real habit of hanging out in the tidal zones of the river which is where the commercial fisheries are.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/13/14 10:41 AM

Recently I filed a PDR ( Public Document Request ) regarding communications concerning the Grays Harbor Management Plan Redo. I took this action as I was having difficulty getting frank responses from WDF&W to questions which is not acceptable. Once / twice / thrice I will accept duplicity / evasion / stone walling but after three it is a PDR time. So below is the compilation of public comments unfiltered ( at least by me ) and it will give everyone the wide range of views that citizens have.

I must say though that in this and other documents my favorite was the commercial fisher who identified 77,000 sport fishers should not get a greater allocation of harvest than a few hundred ( in GH about 25 ) commercial fishers. Seems they can not fathom that the tribal catches ARE COMMERCIAL fisheries. This Indian / White Boy thing needs to be put away, once and for all!!

So here you go the Washington citizen comments on Grays Harbor Management. ( condensed by WDF&W )




11 January 2014

Summary of public comment regarding draft Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy.




Included below are excerpts from written comment received between October 21, 2013 and January 9, 2014, and verbal testimony summarized from the December 7, 2013 Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting. Comments have not been edited for content or to correct spelling, grammar, or punctuation.

Comments were summarized into ten (10) categorizes including: allocation, alternative fishing practices, communication/transparency, conservation, data rigor, economic value, enforcement/accountability, hatcheries, limit effort, and miscellaneous.

Categories are collated by major reason for which the policy is needed (Enhance Conservation Focus, Restore and Maintain Public Trust, and Clarify Sharing of Impacts), followed by a section with remaining categories.

Enhance Conservation Focus

Conservation
• The state wants to kill down to the last fish. We need to think about conservation.
• Calculated in FRAM down to the last fish the bycatch to the last fish.
• complete closures have been implemented before and the fish come back. It that is what it takes fine. It comes down to conservation. We need the fish in the gravel.
• ESCAPEMENT GOALS and SALMON CONSERVATION must be the #1 Priority. Once the resource is gone, everyone loses.
• Escapement ,We must meet escapement goals each and every year. This is imperative to the survival of the fish that swim and spawn in these waters. Any type or length of fishery should always be secondary. I am well aware that this could mean on lean years that we do not have a directed fishery by anyone and if that is what it takes then so be it.
• It was abundantly clear from the vast majority of attendees that consevation of Grays Harbor wild salmon is their highest priority. Several topics were included within the conservation umbrella; opposition to the Chehalis River dam, ocean-derived nutrition, harvest management and more.
• The state is driving to ESA.
• As for Conservation, everyone needs to do their part.
• My big thing is in-season management. I think conservation needs to be the top priority, even if it limits my opportunity to fish ensuring that over-forecasting doesn't have to result in overharvest, and subsequently missed escapements.
• This fishery must have season checks and balances to ensure that we do not over harvest on any given year
• Guiding Principles Item 14; When a mark-selective fishery occurs, the mark-selective fishery shall be implemented, monitored, and enforced in a manner designed to achieve the anticipated conservation
benefits. Everytime the WDFW feels that the selective harvest is expected to impact fishery escapements goals, the fishery is shut down, but it's only shut down to sport fisherman and not tribal/commerical havesting.
Escapement goals are not being met, yet we allow the tribal fisheries to run nets 7+ days a week which has a much greater impact on returning salmon than any sportsman catch.

• At the heart of the current difficulties is not just rec v commercial but rather the inland communities citizens growing and adamant opposition to the failure to make escapement and the practice of WDF&W awarding the vast majority of harvest taking place in the marine area communities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam.
• concerned about failure of Reg 6 management. Not making escapement.
• Continuing to fail for the last 10 years.
• Escapement goals are not being met.
• for too many years too many fishermen taking too many fish.
• Blatant overharvest by the QIN, particularly Chinook. Late coho and steelhead are in a similar state as Chinook.
• Millions of dollars have been spent by tax payers and Logging companies to create more habitat yet WDFW has not increased any Escapement Goals, provided more fish to the gravel, increased wild populations, to match the third largest watershed on the Pacific Coast on the United States. I see some great opportunities to increase fish populations in this wild river system that is capable of providing a better future of this resource.
• The people of our state have invested a lot in enhancing habitat for salmon yet Region 6 has been content to leave goals low and then seldom meet them. In a region which has been satisfied and enjoyed management job security while missing escapement goals for Gray's Harbor and Willapa Bay 9/10 of the time, a culture change would be needed.
• 30 years of experience in the legislative projects. I have worked on habitat recovery and still no fish in Wildcat Creek.
• Unfortunately, too little time was provided for indepth discussion regarding policies to achieve wild salmon recovery in Grays Harbor and its tributaries - far too much time was again consumed for allocation discussions
• If you are concentrating on the escapement maybe you should start in the ocean fishery. You don’t want to admit to the amount of fish you are allowing to be killed in the “catch ten and release to keep one fishery”.
• Article about Alaska Kenai Salmon - "Catch and release practices prevent many salmon from reaching a spawning location or result in poor spawning success."
• For the recreational fishery in Grays Harbor I would like you to consider the following: Any year there are not enough chinook to have a retention fishery that area 2.2 from the Chehalis River bridge (highway 101) to the mouth of Johns River (piling number 8) be closed to all fishing before the first of October. This is needed to save chinook salmon from over harvest via hook and release. Large numbers of fishers show up to see how many chinook they can catch in one day even though they release them. One fisher bragged to me they caught 17 chinooks in one day when it was non retention only.
• The spring chinook fishery is a joke. The only reason the tribe fishes for spring chinook is to harvest wild steelhead that are returning. This practice need to STOP!
• If CTRC is the non-treaty tribes then this draft does not allow a non-treaty spring Chinook fishery in the Chehalis River system. I support no non-treaty tribal fishing for spring Chinook in Grays Harbor and the Chehalis river system.
• Another issue I have is why is ANY spring salmon fishery of any kind allowed on the Chehalis River system?

Limit effort
• I would like to state for the record that I believe that until you curtail the tribal fishery it will be of little use to keep restricting the non tribal fishers.
• One partial solution is to LIMIT GUIDES AND CHARTER OPERATORS TO A SINGLE TRIP PER DAY. It would probably be prudent to have logbooks for guides to get a more accurate reporting of the true catches for salmon, sturgeon, steelhead and walleye.
• A quicker and more effective option would be to use a “drawing” similar to elk harvesting wherein a preset number of license holders will be granted the ability to fish in the upcoming season. While the number of fishers active each season would decrease, establishing a drawing avoids seasons where all the participants suffer when sales of fish caught “….didn’t cover the cost of the diesel”.
• for too many years too many fishermen taking too many fish.

Alternative fishing practices
• We must require sustainable forms of fishing. Currently Recreational fisherman utilize barbless hooks and selective or non-selective fishing as a means of ensuring the right fish are taken at the right times. Entanglement nets are not a sustainable fishing method.
• Make everyone even that's commercial fishermen go back to hook and line
• Following the example set in harvesting razor clams, crab, and shrimp, we propose that WDFW consider establishing commercial seasons wherein recreational and commercial license holders harvest with the same gear (poles), in the same geographical areas and at the same time throughout the entire season. License fees and bag limits could be adjusted as well. One example would be a commercial license at three times the recreational license and the commercial bag limit at three times the recreational in a corresponding fashion.

Restore and Maintain Public Trust

Communication/ Transparency
• The Grays Hbr. Advisory Committee, WDFW Fish biologists, and GH gill net assoc. should be on record as to their method, data and tools used to recommend the catch sharing percentages for each sector outlined in this "draft". I would like to see fishery decisions in Washington State made on biologically sound information. It appears that political influence now dictates many decisions made by WDFW.
• The public needs to be informed that the catch allowed by the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) comes out of the recreational sector. If the category designated as CTCR in the charts is the non- treaty Chehalis Tribe(s), it needs to be designated as such in the draft policy. Non-treaty catch quota should not be taken from the recreational sector. How can WDFW give the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) a catch percentage when they provide no catch figures to WDFW? My recommendation is "no catch figures", "no fishing".
• The Director and the Region need to bring co-management back to Grays Harbor.
• We need to talk about the QIN. They overharvest year after year. Then tell the state what they are going to do without any say from the state. WDFW needs to take them to court.
• There is no co-management in Grays Harbor. If the state is not fishing then the tribe will.
• WDFW needs to include previous run estimates, escapement goals and final catch statistics for each sector to determine an equitable catch percentage. The percentages "proposed in the draft" , for each sector have no meaning without inclusion of above mentioned data from previous years. The percentages outlined in the draft are meaningless w/o previous data.
• Overall the GH management plan is too vague and unclear. It is good to see a committment for an annual review but there is little mention of metrics against which performance would be measured by the commission. This is a region that has regularly underperformed on escapement goals for multiple species for over a decade.
• The current draft does not have specificity. What we are looking for in the policy are deadlines and goals.
• These guidelines are only a tweaking of the current guidelines. In Willapa there are no co-managers – even with no co-managers the results are the same. Guiding principles, communicate, document, etc. these are not principals they are window dressing.
• I offered comment, those are not in the policy; asked for teeth in the policy they are not there either.
• Comments about communication – with the internet, communication is easy. With short notice through the internet look at all the people who are here.
• Thirdly, All participants in this fishery must meet their obligations to be involved in the process of season setting and ensure that their numbers and dates are published in the proper manner.
• I want to see the Public more involved in the WAC process before North of Falcon. This process has only involved a fee people invited by WDFW. The Commercial Fleet has dominated this process for many years with WDFW supporting them over Conservation. The Tribes are also part of the Commercial harvest and should be regulated in the same process instead of WDFW letting them do what they want.

• The APA process is not being followed. I have spent $10K’s of my money bringing lawsuits against WDFW, and have 1000’s of hours of time invested. The public trust is lost. Kehoe, you said for us to write the document, we did that. None of that is in this document. Don’t close the door or your mind on this.
• far too much time was again consumed for allocation discussions… it amounts to nothing more than a wishing session between the gillnetters and the sporties.

Data Rigor
• The tools the department has is like a butter knife. The first improvement needed is the CRC. Like to see timelier reporting like in the PS crab CRC. Adaptive management, like in PS, monitor the fishery more closely and shut the fishery down when the quota is reached. Need a policy that passes fish to the spawning beds. There is no co- management in Grays Harbor. If the state is not fishing then the tribe will.
• Region 6, forecasts runs before fish hit the hatchery; need to let the fish hit the hatchery then forecast. I fish the Skookumchuck and have seen the enhancements.
• needs to be a framework for in-season management, ensuring that over-forecasting doesn't have to result in overharvest, and subsequently missed escapements.
• Science and biology should drive management.
• Calculated in FRAM down to the last fish the bycatch to the last fish. Then set the season in days. The mortality percentages - 45% is not in the Columbia studies. The study is only long-term, where is the short term? Other studies should be reviewed.
• The current Management plan and models for the Chehalis Basin and Willapa Basin are not acceptable anymore and out dated. Millions of dollars have been spent by tax payers and Logging companies to create more habitat yet WDFW has not increased any Escapement Goals, provided more fish to the gravel, increased wild populations, to match the third largest watershed on the Pacific Coast on the United States.

Enforcement /accountability
• The sports fisherman are getting more and more of the allocation every season. The sports fishers are not being held accountable for their catches as we the commercial fisheries are being held accountable for every fish harvested.
• Anglers on guide trips would also furnish license numbers to the guide to record days fished and actual catches to avoid cheating on the annual limits.Daily recording in the logbook should be mandatory and all entries should be made within 24 hours of the trip completion. Alaska uses this system but when boat launch areas are super busy then it is easy to forget to complete the log on site and a 24 hour allowance for recording final catch info would be fair. AK imposed fines for non completion on site and that was strictly a revenue operation and lead to many confrontations between guides and enforcement personnel.
• Selective fishing if its going to happen it needs to follow scientifically designed procedures and protocols. In Grays Harbor they violate all internationally recognized rules.
• They need to fish selectively like they have been trained.
• It was also made clear that there is considerable support for increasing the number of WDFW enforcement officers in order to maximise conservation efforts to recover Grays Harbor wild salmon
• there is considerable support for increasing the number of WDFW enforcement officers in order to maximise conservation efforts to recover Grays Harbor wild salmon.
• The public needs to be informed that the catch allowed by the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) comes out of the recreational sector. If the category designated as CTCR in the charts is the non- treaty Chehalis Tribe(s), it needs to be designated as such in the draft policy. Non-treaty catch quota should not be taken from the recreational sector. How can WDFW give the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) a catch percentage when they provide no catch figures to WDFW? My recommendation is "no catch figures", "no fishing".
• We need to monitor the Quinault’s and take them to court.

Clarify Sharing of Impacts

Allocation
• 77,000 people sport fish salmon in the state of Washington (1.1%); the commercial fishers provide fish to the rest of the state. Allocation should be 50:50 on all species.
• In the survey the sports zeroed out commercial allocation. Sport have lots of opportunity statewide.
• I fully support the non-treaty commercial salmon fishing in Grays Harbor. Generations of families in Grays Harbor have been supported by the salmon gilnetting season - I strongly encourage you to consider those families - it's very important to them.
• I have been a gillnetter for over forty years. In the 70s we would get to fish from the 6th of July till sometime in November. The fleet of boats was over four times what it is today. We had a very valuble sport fishery during those times also.
• I support the non-tribal commercial salmon fishery in Grays Harbor. The non-tribal commercial salmon fishery is vital to many families in our area. Please keep this is mind when determining future allotment of our resources.
• There are other fisheries in GH, we need to be mindful of the share that comes to the state. That is the portion that should be fairly distributed to sport and commercial fisheries. The sports emphasize that there are two fisheries; sport and commercial - and that commercial include the tribes.
• The sports fisherman are getting more and more of the allocation every season. The sports fishers are not being held accountable for their catches as we the commercial fisheries are being held accountable for every fish harvested. Washington gives the tribal fishers 58% of the allocation. Start there. The commercial catch is nominal compared to the tribal and the sports fishers
• The Chehalis side should have a small amount of Chinook set aside for the commercial to access to coho. There are large surplus of coho – hatchery and natural both.
• Divide the catches of Chinook equally between the recreationals and gillnetters for wild chinook. Since wild coho has been the run of concern for the last several years they will be used as incidentals during chinook and chum fisheries. Impacts to be used when run size is below escapement goal will be divided 60% gillnetters and 40% recreationals. The only exception to this is if the run size is 156% greater than the escapement goal then there could be a directed wild coho fishery divided 60% recreationals and 40% gillnetters. Between 110% and 156% of escapement goal the wild coho will be divided 60% recreational and 40% gillnetters. Hatchery chinook
and hatchery coho will be taken during other Humptulips fisheries.
• The goals for recreational fishing involving "experience" or "opportunity" are inappropriate. We are already seeing this concept being abusedd in plans for alternative gear elsewhere in the Columbia. OR officials are talking about closing sport fishing during peaks of runs to allow enough mark selective commercial harvest using purse seines! Sports not to worry, you will get extra days during off peak run times. Seines get the harvest, sports get the "experince" of more fishing with less opportunity per day. This is how sports fishing is to be minimized, along with its superior econiomic benefits. The draft guidelines need to be changed to prevent this approach in Region 6.
• They should not be fishing more than 3 days / week. They are taking huge sections out of the run.
• the commercial gill nets should be in the water one day less than what it was this year. Ive been keeping an eye on the nets in the river because I drive over the Chehalis river bridge in Aberdeen every day and have seen nets in the river, either commercial or native american, 5 days a week. That is unacceptable for recreational fishing because when they take the nets out on Friday, it takes a while for those fish can get through to get up the river to where bank fisherman can have some fun and try and catch some salmon to allay the exorbitant cost for the license. I have no problem paying the license cost but expect the recreational fishery to be given more emphasis.
• One good thing is to allow 3 d/wk without nets. Need a change in the current conscious approach. End of year review – compared to what? Need more in the policy.
• Support 3 days/week proposal for net free.

• The 3 day proposal for net free; what does that mean? The treaty fishery is already fishing 4 days/week, does this leave the NT fleet sitting on the beach?
• The rec option offered 3 days sport and 4 days commercial. The Commercial won’t offer a compromise. Recreation is willing to have days on and days off.
• Tribal and commerical netting should only be allowed on a Sun (1200) - Thursday (1200) during the fishery. If the catch goals are not met, extensions or additional netting days can be addressed and granted, but only after escapement data is reviewed.
• I want to see the Public more involved in the WAC process before North of Falcon. This process has only involved a fee people invited by WDFW. The Commercial Fleet has dominated this process for many years with WDFW supporting them over Conservation. The Tribes are also part of the Commercial harvest and should be regulated in the same process instead of WDFW letting them do what they want.
• Similarly, it was very clear that future, non-treaty salmon harvests should be guided by the greatest benefit to cost ratio - from the data shared this evening it seems that recreational fishing accounts for far greater revenue to Washington state than does the commercial sector.
• At the heart of the current difficulties is not just rec v commercial but rather the inland communities citizens growing and adamant opposition to the failure to make escapement and the practice of WDF&W awarding the vast majority of harvest taking place in the marine area communities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam.
• The QIN fishery represents more than a meaningful commercial opportunity, and it should be the only one they are obligated to allow. I would like to state for the record that I believe that until you curtail the tribal fishery it will be of little use to keep restricting the non tribal fishers.
• Commercial netting should be stopped immediately within Grays Harbor and its tributaries. This is an outdated practice that is not sustainable today in this location due to overharvest and impacts on sensitive species as
it does not allow of selective release listed groups of fish. Addtionally there is not the abundance of fish in Grays Harbor that allow this practice to continue. The economic benefit of having a strong sport fishery in Grays harbor and its tributaries far out weigh the small benefit that harvesting the remaining fish by commercial fisherman
• The public has repeatedly stated that a tribal net or a non-tribal net is a commercial net under state law. The legislative mandate of the Commission and department states, "The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state." (RCW 77.04.012). You will notice the law does not require the Department to provide three commercial fishing opportunities based on tribal affiliation. The attached AGO shows the Attorney General was asked if a non-tribal commercial fisherman who opted to take the buyout could sell the boat back to a tribal fisherman. The AG opined that a tribal fisherman was a commercial fisherman under state law and such could not be done. Since the Chehalis and the Quinault commercial fishing takes approximately 58% of the available harvest in Grays Harbor, the mandate is fulfilled without the Department imposing yet another third commercial fishery.
• The inland community does not perceive a difference between the commercials. This ain’t Mobile Alabama 1963 the state needs to get over it, the tribes have the right to take their fish.
• Steady decline in the Chehalis. You see that there are two different gillnets, this is one fishery. We are fishing behind all these nets. There should be a focus on one netting season – 60:40 commercial.
• Two fishing interests – rec and commercial. Both interests desire the maximum allotted to them. The commercials scoop hundreds, the recs use one hook, and can only keep two.
• Economics we important, look at where the money comes from; you are supporting a welfare system for the GH commercial fleet.
• Allocation should be developed on science not public opinion. It needs to be understood that nets are not in the water 24hrs / day, the fish get through. Sound fishery science.

Other

Economic value
• Commercial value does not account for 1000’s of coho that go un-harvested.
• Increasing the sales price of the fish harvested commercially would provide compensation for the reduced harvest volume. WDFW should consider eliminating the would allow the commercial license holders the ability to market the fish caught at retail (i.e.commercially in its seasons in Grays Harbor be sold at wholesale to a licensed fish buyer. This requirement that fish caught “Fresh Tuna” on the dock in Westport, fresh salmon at the farmer’s market in Olympia, etc.).
• I'm a sportfishing guide based out of Olympia. I spend the majority of my days fishing in the Chehalis Basin. A dependable season would make my job much easier. I can book trips without fear of in season shutdowns.
• I look at things in terms of money. Are you getting your numbers up? That is an investment. If we are not getting fish back then why are we spending the money?
• The economic benefit of having a strong sport fishery in Grays harbor and its tributaries far out weigh the small benefit that harvesting the remaining fish by commercial fisherman.
• Also, the economic impacts do help the local economy in a big way My clients, for a two person trip pay me around $175 a person for a days fishing. Many people come from out of the area, spending money on motels, dinner, lunch and assorted other items plus licensing. This benefits many in the local area. I also try and buy my supplies locally as well as fuel and my licensing. Thanks for taking this into account when looking at fishings impacts to the local economy.
• recreational fishery has more economic value than the commercial fishery (at least that is what your data suggests even though you say that it is not comparable to commercial data), that the commercial gill nets should be in the water one day less than what it was this year.
• it was very clear that future, non-treaty salmon harvests should be guided by the greatest benefit to cost ratio - from the data shared this evening it seems that recreational fishing accounts for far greater revenue to Washington state than does the commercial sector
• Economics we important, look at where the money comes from; you are supporting a welfare system for the GH commercial fleet.
• I am writing to express my interest in the Grays Harbor non treaty gillnet fishery. South Bend Products purchases a large percentage of the harvested fish from Grays Harbor. The fishery produces high quality fish that are marketed throughout the country. Please consider the fact that in addition the income the fishery provides to the fisherman, it provides jobs to on- site buyers and crew, truck drivers, plant workers and office staff. Reduction or elimination of the non-treaty fishery is a reduction of jobs in Gray’s Harbor and Pacific Counties. I would appreciate your consideration of maintaining the non treaty fishing opportunities in Gray’s Harbor.
• The GN licenses actively used are about 50% of those sold. You could cut that by 50% again and you might have viable fishery.
• late 1970-80’s commercial buyback. The commission mandate in state law is to maintain the viability of the fishing industry.
• sport fishery $1.5M, in current dollars is close to $2M.

Hatcheries
• We also need to restore the hatchery production that has been lost.
• Also you have to fertilize the River you have to put the salmon carcasses back in the River to fertilize the River, most of the rivers are stale and dead now because they have not had the salmon carcasses that the bugs need to feed on. Let's revive the rivers. Then also put as many fish in the River as possible. Then it would make no difference whether it was a hatchery fish are wild spawned fish it would be in the River and you'd have as many fish as you need.

• As for the hatchery's put the hatchery's at full speed raise as many fish as possible get them in the River, it doesn't have to be a year later after they have attached, put them in immediately.
• enhancing the Salmon returning to Grays Harbor. I only see maintaining what we have now.

Miscellaneous
• Neither current escapement goal methodology nor eelgrass management practices by WDFW take into account the natural carrying capacity of these bays
• Region 6 has been content to leave goals low and then seldom meet them. In a region which has been satisfied and enjoyed management job security while missing escapement goals for Gray's Harbor and Willapa Bay 9/10 of the time, a culture change would be needed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/14/14 07:44 PM

Willapa commercial seasons are moving forward. R6 Fish Program Steve Theisfeld is trying get them to folks but a link will be coming. If you want them in a e mail attachment PM me and I will forward them. And yes the commercials are in 2T in mid August for 3 1/2 days along with two other mid areas so yes it will be a clean sweep so plan accordingly as there will not be crap in that bay for 2 1/2 weeks after the debacle !
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/14 04:19 PM


The link below is to the WDFW rule making page on their website. Always interesting this time around it is even more so and not the CR 103 ( CR 101 starts / CR 102 puts forth a proposal / CR 103 finishes it up with modifications ) but rather the CES. ( Concise Explanatory Statement ) The CES is the legal response to citizen comments and this time around it is not the C&P crap but rather a 41 page item by item response. Now if one does not care to take the time to read it don't but I would urge you to if you fish Willapa or Grays Harbor. This CES was done by the agencies attorney or someone with one hell of a legal mind and as you have the gillnetters threatening to sue if they do not get a wide kill em all fishery on one side and the Advocacy at them on the otherside over the complete collapse and failure of the infamous Willapa Management Plan and the continued destruction of native stocks. Keep in mind the CES has a lot of well thought out information right along with some things that are totally misrepresented followed closely by utter fabrication.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/permanent.html#nof_2014_wb
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/18/14 08:47 AM


The Willapa CES on page 32 had this gem. It is the response to a citizen objections to favoritism shown the commercial fisheries. The most disturbing part of this is that Willapa is managed to the commercial side to achieve statewide balance for commercial / Rec. This is utter BS and why Willapa is important to ALL Rec fishers. Now the bit below where the CES more or less says the Commission must agree as they have not objected or provided different guidance. I will us take back several months when the Commission Chair Wecker grilled Mr. Anderson on the issue if the Agency was going to bring Willapa to the Commission for review. Watching Mr. Anderson stammer around trying not to give a direct answer was a classic.

So part of the settlement with the Advocacy was the Agency has to ask the Commission to reopen the Willapa Management Plan. It is about to be ground zero on how you create a management plan that respects natural stocks, protects them, and provide maximum economic benefit on the harvest of hatchery fish. That isn't with a gillnet and the massive economic loss to Pacific County tourism as a destination fishing region has been catastrophic for Pacific County. Nah I doubt if the Commission truly understands what has been done to Willapa during the time Mr. Anderson has been Director but I do believe they are about to learn.


1) Many commenters expressed that the Department did not properly assess the economic value of each fishery sector.

The Department understands there is value in both recreational and commercial fisheries. Commercial fisheries are easier to assess. Market prices and the number of fish caught and sold are known values. Reporting requirement of the commercial fishery allows for quick processing of data. Evaluation of the

recreational fishery isn’t as simple. There are limited creel survey data available for the marine area recreational fishery that could be used to estimate effort and subsequent economic value of the fishery. There are no recent data available for freshwater fisheries in Willapa Bay. In order to make an estimate of effort, the Department would have to make assumptions about individual angler catch rates, likely by using data from other basins.

The Commission North of Falcon policy notes: “Willapa Bay harvest management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries” and “When assessed from a statewide perspective, fishing directed at chinook, coho, pink, sockeye, or chum salmon will not be exclusively reserved for either sport or commercial users.” The adopted rules are predicted to provide
$662,759 in ex-vessel value for the commercial sector (compared with a preliminary estimated ex-value of $638,000 in 2013).

However, the comment suggests that WDFW needs to allocate catch between sectors based on economic value derived from the fish harvested. This issue is much more complex given the “statewide perspective” direction in policy. A simplistic re-allocation within Willapa Bay would not address the balance of opportunities across the state. The majority of Chinook and coho are prioritized for recreational fisheries in most other regions. For example: “The Puget Sound harvest management objectives for chinook and coho stocks, in priority order, are to: (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and (2) identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest.” Willapa Bay is the one region of the state where pre-season planning has resulted in more Chinook and coho harvested by the commercial sector on a regular basis over the past decade. The Department has complied with specific policy direction to allocate resources when provided. No such direction has been provided in Willapa Bay, suggesting that the Commission is comfortable with the current opportunity and catch balance. WDFW anticipates that the Fish and Wildlife Commission will be reviewing Willapa Bay salmon management this fall and additional guidance will be forthcoming. In lieu of current prescriptive guidance regarding opportunity and catch sharing, the Department believes the adopted rules provide meaningful fisheries for both sectors and comply with Commission policy.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/18/14 06:51 PM


The comments below are a response by the Advocacy to the Willapa Commercial season for 2014 outlined in the CES. It was the Advocacy that brought the legal action in 2013 challenging the Commercial season that basically started the effort to protect natural origin spawners ( wild ) so I thought this might be of interest to some folks following the many issues surrounding Willapa salmon harvest.


Phil Anderson, Director
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091 RE: 2014 Willapa Commercial Season Dear Director Anderson:
The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy offers the following comments on the 2014 com- mercial season recently adopted for Willapa Bay. In addition, the Advocacy feels that the parties should move forward with completing their performance under the agreement reached as a result of the 2013 season challenge.

The Advocacy recognizes significant improvements in the NOF process used to develop the 2014 commercial season. We believe more improvements are in order, especially in the area of reliabil- ity and accuracy of presentation materials. That being said, we compliment the efforts undertaken by the staff this year to improve the public’s ability to participate in the process. We take special note of the efforts undertaken by Region 6 staff under the leadership provided by Steve Thiesfeld.

Another noteworthy improvement related to public participation is the season adopted actually re- flected many of the comments and input provided by the public during NOF. While many will be disappointed that their points of view were not adopted in the fashion they sought, the CES draft- ing improved significantly and the public could actually recognize the process they participated in and see where the Department agreed and WDFW’s rationale when it didn’t agree with their points of view.

The Advocacy further recognizes that the season adopted shows significant progress in regards to the Advocacy’s concerns over selective fishing utilization and conservations standards. We note the following highlights:

• The installation of a protection zone for the North River Chinook stock;

• Reducing the harvest cap for Chinook from 30% down to 20%;

• Seeking support from the commercial fleet to find alternative gears;

• Increasing onboard observers from <1% historically to 15% during selective fishing periods;

Page 2, Willapa Commercial Season Comments

• Reducing the reliance upon selective fishing and moving toward a non-selective approach with retention to reduce discarding large numbers of dead bycatch;


• Language changes in the WAC that require all bycatch to be released be placed into a recovery box and remain there until fully recovered;

• Insertion of net free days during weekly cycles rather than continuous 7 day a week seasons to help get fish upriver; and

• Insertion of several weeks of net free time during the high point of the Chum run cycle.


Unfortunately, the Advocacy also has significant concerns over the season that was adopted. In our view, the 2014 season once again fails to rise to the legislative mandate that the Department manage first for conservation and harvest second.

We highlight the following concerns:

a. The CES only references inseason adjustments to increase the commercial season when professional fisheries management protocols recognize that inseason monitoring (the purpose of quick reporting of landings) and reducing harvest if over-harvest is underway is a key to insuring conservation standards are met. (In season management is used regularly for recreational seasons and other commercial fisheries in Washington);

b. The season adopted installs unlimited net pressure (number of boats) into 2T during much of the run cycle for North River Chinook dramatically negating the intended benefits of the protection zone

c. The decision to once again install a net season of this magnitude in 2T as a means to deliver the fleet the maximum-possible ex-vessel values from hatchery Chinook will continue the downward trend of natural spawning Chinook reaching the gravel in the Willapa, Nasalle, and other streams (evolved after the Department installed a lucrative net season into the area now known as 2T over 5 years ago);

d. The Department states that it will increase observers but doesn’t provide any assurance that observers will be properly trained and enforcement staff will be present in adequate numbers to deliver the 90% compliance rate assumed by the Department;

e. Reliance on an assumed 90% mortality figure without adequate historical
justification and when WDFW possesses ample evidence that fisher compliance with Fish Friendly Practices is inconsistent, at best;

Page 3, Willapa Commercial Season comments

f. While the Department adopted the Advocacy and others recommendation to allow the fleet to retain Chum as a means to avoid wasting fish while increasing the ex-vessel value to the fleet, it failed to adopt the key reason for supporting such a move, adding another week cycle of net free time during the prime time of the Chum run cycle (practicing avoidance).

While we had sincerely hoped it would be otherwise, due to the above stated concerns, the Advocacy cannot endorse the season that has been adopted. As a result, we intend to reserve our rights to object in the future if the problems identified above in a. through
f. are proven valid during the 2014 season or similar conditions reappear in an adopted WAC in the future.

Hopefully, Mr. Theisfeld and others within the Department will conduct the fisheries in such a fashion that our concerns are not proven valid. The natural spawners and future generations of citizens would benefit greatly if the Department can prove us wrong and the Advocacy members would like nothing better than to admit the Department did so. The question remaining is “Will the Department conduct the season in a manner that actually delivers the conservation results that are implied by or expressed within the text of the CES?”

The decision to opt not to challenge this year’s season was difficult in many ways. A pri- mary driver was the Advocacy’s recognition that the department faces the difficult task of correcting decades of unsuccessful hatchery and harvest practices and success will depend greatly on a concerted effort by all involved.

The Advocacy is ready and willing to move forward in a positive fashion. To that end, we look forward to receiving notification that you have requested that the Commission revisit the Willapa plan. We also stand ready to begin working directly with WDFW staff to schedule and conduct the four public meetings called for in the settlement agreement.

Again, we compliment the Department on its improvements installed this year over the experience of last year. We feel that now is the time to continue with those improvements and complete the performance of the 2013 settlement agreement.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/19/14 05:21 PM


The letter below is to Director Anderson from the QIN regarding budget and hatchery cuts / production and while it was written in 2009 not much has changed. I think I will try something and see if it helps folks understand the letter or rather the dance that WDF&W the QIN have had going on since the late 1990's. I will put my comments in RED so they easily distinguished from the letters author's comments. Now the formatting will be rough as in going from a PDF to word to PP things ...... ah ....... get strange?

So here goes ............................






Phil Anderson Interim Director
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091 Dear Phil:



RECEIVED
APR 8 2009

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

Thank you for your letter dating January 27, 2009 providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on the potential impacts of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) budget shortfall and the proposed hatchery program reductions. Our comments pertain primarily to proposed reductions in production for facilities located within Grays Harbor.

Factors similar to the four listed in your letter to help identify and rationalize specific program reductions across multiple species and geographic regions are appropriate. However, we believe that two additional considerations should also be taken into account: (1) The extent to which hatchery operations are related to mitigation agreements or requirements to offset damage to habitat or as a condition for obtaining permits or other authorization; Yes & no. The QIN is correct that the hatchery production IS mitigation for the loss of natural production but only to harvest not spawners in a stream. (2) The effect on total allowable harvest mortality of wild and hatchery production from Grays Harbor, for treaty and non-treaty fisheries both within and outside Grays Harbor, under management constraints directed at protection of comingled naturally-produced stocks. 100% correct BUT ( seen that coming didn't you? ) the QIN view is to the court agreed to escapements for Grays Harbor and it's tributaries. The simplest way I know to explain that is if tributary fails to make spawner escapement that is OK as long as the total escapement goal for spawners is acheived. Now the state side is managed down to the tributaries ( larger streams only ) level for Coho & Chinook but not Chum. So what to do? I am clueless as for the last 15 years the co managers have operated a dual management system with each taking care of their share of harvest. Sure the fish and public have suffered but what is new?

Generally, we believe that WDFW and the QIN should work collaboratively as co¬ managers to identify adjustments to hatchery production programs that are focused on improving specific program effectiveness, efficiency, scientific defensibility and reduction of risks to natural salmonid populations. Priority considerations for reducing hatchery production at facilities located within Grays Harbor:

• Programs that do not provide mutual harvest benefits to co-managers within Grays Harbor or pose ecological risks to indigenous populations of naturally produced fish should be eliminated first. For example:

• Out-of-basin transfer programs. I beleive this is directed toward the issue that WDF&W stopped producing salmon ( other than the 300K Skookumchuck Dam mitigatin ) for the Chehalis Basin and rear nearly 1,500,000 Coho for Puget Sound at the Skookumchuck Facility and thank you QIN for objecting.

•Non-local origin summer-run steelhead programs. Non-local origin lake stocking programs. Now this one is just plain BS. The Rec sports fisheries license fees pay a huge portion of WDF&W's bills and to complain about Summerrun Steelhead is rather self serving. Now the non local lake stocking are the Rainbow lake plants for heaven's sake directed primarily at families and children. That the QIN would feel this is inappropriate is a bit of a reach. My goodness the thought that tax payer dollars and citizen license fees only go to things that benefit QIN commercial fisheries defies logic.

• We recommend that WDFW discontinue the Stevens Creek summer run steelhead program in the Humptulips, Lake Aberdeen releases in the Wynoochee, and Eight Creek in the Upper Chehalis. Non-local origin summer run steelhead programs should be eliminated before any reductions for local origin winter run steelhead programs in Grays Harbor are considered. I addressed this previously. Elimination of these programs will potentially reduce fish health risks to other stocks in Grays Harbor and adjacent watersheds because IHN virus is currently being harbored in Lake Aberdeen and Humptulips steelhead. Now this one is a bit stunning as e mails identify objections from another tribe objecting to releases salmon by the QIN of smolt showing signs of IHN. Having some Rainbow we were rearing years back sequestered due to IHN and the fish showed zero signs of the disease but it was detected. I think this one is best left to the Bio's. Rearing capacity that becomes available due to reductions in the summer steelhead program should be utilized to reduce loading densities for on-station winter steelhead production to reduce stress and improve the capacity to manage future IHN virus outbreaks.

• The highest priority for production program goals for the Skookumchuck facility should be directed at providing mitigation for habitat degradation in the Upper Chehalis basin. In-basin mitigation for past and current habitat degradation in the upper Chehalis and future habitat impacts caused by potential flood control projects should receive the highest priority when considering adjustments to enhancement production for Upper Chehalis facilities. This is a bulls eye of the first order. Part of the Governor Dan Evans Salmon Enhancement package the Skookumchuck facility was built and produced salmon for the Chehalis. WDF&W ended the program transferred the 300k mitigation Coho smolt to Bingham Hatchery on the Satsop ( in violation of the mitigation agreement which was ended when Friends of the Chehalis threatened legal action several years back ) Out-of-basin transfers of fish produced in Grays Harbor facilities should have lower priority than in-basin releases. The Skookumchuck hatchery is currently utilized for incubation and rearing of 1.65 million Skykomish origin hatchery coho. Eyed eggs are transferred from Marblemount hatchery to Skookumchuck in January and subsequently transferred to South Sound and Squaxin Island net pens as juveniles in February of their release year. Consequently, the largest release group of hatchery coho raised within Grays Harbor does not contribute to Grays Harbor fisheries. Again thank you QIN as most folks in the Chehalis Basin are unaware that WDF&W continues to utilize one of the most cost effective hatcheries in the state to benefit Puget Sound fisheries. The losses to our community are simply just huge! The proposed reductions to Grays Harbor total 16% whereas a 13% reduction in total production is proposed for South Puget Sound. We note that no reductions are currently proposed for Puget Sound net pen programs that utilize hatchery capacity within Grays Harbor. Right on target folks! No BS here as the QIN pegged this one.

• We support the elimination of Satsop origin coho transfers to Upper Chehalis facilities in favor of the use of Upper Chehalis origin stock as broodstock for the Skookumchuck facility. Now this is interesting. Prior to the present Director being appointed the local communities worked collaboratively on several issues. This was one of the issues and the mitigation Coho were moved back to the upper basin to comply with the mitigation requirements after Freinds of the Chehalis threatened legal action BUT three release sites were to be utilized for this production to disperse harvest opportunity for Rec fishers over a wider area of the upper basin and utilized a LATE ( Dec / Jan ) Satsop Coho stock. Now the rub, bump in the road, a say what moment, WDF&W was supposed to have conversations with the QIN to insure it was not a issue and evidently this DID NOT happen. Bad our side as both the QIN and Chehalis Tribe concerns should ( and were supposed to be ) addressed.

• We request additional information regarding the basis for WDFW's proposal to reduce Chehalis coho production by 40% while proposing a 15% reduction for Humptulips production. The largest release group within Grays Harbor occurs from the Stevens Creek hatchery in the Humptulips River. Hatchery escapements (rack + strays) over the last decade averaged over 25,000 for on-station releases. This program consistently produces the largest hatchery surpluses within Grays Harbor. Adjusting the size of the Stevens Creek coho program was recommended by the HSRG in 2004 as one option for reducing the number of strays and reducing the annual surplus returning at the rack. The Humptulips NOR Coho ( natural origin recruits or Wild ) have not made escapement for 23 years or more and when it did it was only because of the influx of up to 4 hatchery origin Coho for every 1 NOR Coho. Right here things get weird and not just a little but way way out there. Because the Humptulips utilizes pumped river water and does not have a weir a very large percentage of returning adults simply swim right past the hatchery and do what salmon do when they return, they spawn! So for years local advocates from Tom Pentt, Jerry Paveltich, and myself and many others attempted to get a hatchery modification done to utilize Stevens Creek water to reduce straying. In fact the current Fish Program Manager and several Science Division staff tried to get funding for the modification only to have Olympia veto it.

Presently the modification is to be completed this summer ( courtesy the former Governor's job package ) and Rep. Blake's effort must be recognized. That said we have a problem on the Humptulips with NOR Coho as they have been overwhelmed for so many years by the hatchery stock that the QIN appears to accept that it will take hatchery strays to supplement the NOR Coho to make escapement. Take this year as an example. Before harvest the Humptulips NOR Coho will not make escapement. So what to do? Shut down harvest? Recs can selectively fish in river and get the impacts very low by releasing NOR ( unclipped ) Coho. Not so the QIN or NT Nets for that matter. Add to the mix the new Grays Harbor policy that dictates managing for NOR stocks and you have a recipe for something that looks like two trains meeting head on.

Blame the QIN? I think not as WDF&W knew of the problem but just ignored it, as did the QIN. Blame WDF&W? Yes / No but remember as knowledge of hatcheries limitations have grown it culminating with HSRG ( Hatchery Scientific Review Group ) and as with everything the dollars to make changes are scarce and competition for funds fierce and the Humptulips lost out. So now WE ( QIN / WDF&W / citizens ) have a problem and on this issue the blame game will get neither the tribal fisheries or non treaty fishers out of this mess. Only the QIN & WDF&W can map a path out of this mess and mess is a simplistic term to describe what exist with Humptulips NOR Coho. Well I guess another route is available and it would be a judge saying you shall.


• In additional reductions in production are necessary, impacts of adjustments to each program should be evaluated in terms of the distribution of harvest opportunity among treaty and non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries, particularly within each Grays Harbor management area. Based on information currently available to us regarding program effectiveness and program specific contributions to Grays Harbor fisheries, we recommend the following,:

•No reductions should be made to current levels of Aberdeen net pen releases of 150,000 coho.
Proportional reductions should be larger for off-station Westport net pens and on-station Hurnptulips releases than on-station Satsop releases to help reduce hatchery stray rates and improve "sharing"of reductions in production. This one is really locked in the history of Bingham Hatchery. When Mr. Blum was Director of WDF&W he directed that Simpson Hatchery ( now renamed Bingham ) be closed due to a lower than normal survival rate of out migrating Coho smolt which appeared to take place in the South Monte reach of the river which became known as the "line of death". Well now the meeting at Monte Square with the public was ah .... loud? So a compromise was developed and part of the compromise was to move Bingham Hatchery presmolt to net pens at the Port of Grays Harbor and Westport Marina to get a larger return and provide opportunity in the Westport Marina for tourism. In addition Senator Brad Owen obtained funding for a study of the so called "line of death".

While the net pens do offer up opportunity straying is pretty much a given so it has always been a bit dicey as WDF&W did not really address it in the beginning as it should have. Now that was easy to whack em with but remember at the time the knowledge of hatchery / wild interaction as to genetices was just beginning to emerge. Around Grays Harbor things just seem to run on auto pilot which can come home to bite one's self in the rear, big time.

Lastly, when considering plans for future production from Grays Harbor facilities independently from budget-drive modifications, we suggest that we jointly explore reduction of on-station releases of Humptulips River coho and reallocation of funds to increase production of Chinook within the Chehalis system. This would be nice but I am not going to hold my breath.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposed hatchery program reductions and look forward to working with you to develop a final package.

Sincerely,

Ed Johnstone
Quinault Fisheries Policy Spokesperson
Posted by: FishinSinsation

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/19/14 09:25 PM

Any idea when the quinault tribal netting schedule going to be posted for the hump?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/19/14 10:14 PM

id say sometime in late aug..
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/14 10:10 AM


Here is what R6 D17 ran in the model. It is essentially the 2013 schedule but I would not bet it is the final word. Sorry about the formatting but C&P goes nuts when dropped in PP but at least you can get a general idea. The thing is despite public posturing the state & QIN do not exactly go out of their way to get along.

Stat Week Actual # Days
schedule Date Fished
36 Sept. 1- Sept. 7 0.0
37 Sept 8 - Sept 14 0.0
38 Sept 15 - Sept 21 0.0
0 39 Sept 22 - Sept 28 2.0
2 40 Sept 29 - Oct 5 3.0
3 41 Oct 6 - Oct 12 4.0
4 42 Oct 13 - Oct 29 4.0
2 43 Oct 20 - Oct 26 2.0
0 44 Oct 27 - Nov 2 2.0
0 45 Nov 03 - Nov 09 1.0
3 46 Nov 10 - Nov 16 2.0
5 47 Nov 17 - Nov 23 5.0
5 48-53 Nov 24 - 5.0
24 30
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/14 09:24 AM


This came through my e mail and I thought it hit right on.


The Recs (and even the Commies) should recognize that the tribes are their "friends" if all they want to do is catch more fish. QIN would be ecstatic if Hump, Satsop, and Skook, plus Satsop Springs absolutely maximized releases of quality fish.

They use habitat and wild fish as a hammer to get what they want (the Feds are real responsive, too). The big fear in the halls of power is having to protect habitat and actually produce fish in it. GH does not need a single hatchery fish in order to have robust wild runs that would support a larger in-Harbor fishery-sport and Commercial- than you have today. It would take continuing to protect the habitat and require significant changes in AK, BC, and WA ocean fisheries in the short term. Over the long term some ocean fisheries could be put in place. Not as big, but probably limits for all when open.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/22/14 10:58 AM

Couple of things folks have questions about. As to Grays Harbor the simple fact is nobody knows for sure on the QIN or NT net schedules. First the QIN have not posted it and WDF&W has not come an agreement with the QIN on the 2014 seasons. Best guess here is about the same as last year. While some may think they know, the simple fact is until WDFW files a CR 102 for the NT Commercial season nobody will know for sure just what the days / dates are. As to the situation regarding Humptulips Wild Coho numbers way below escapement thus hitting some critical directives in the new Commission Guidelines yes / no / say what is around? It is a interesting as to how Region Manager Steve Theisfeld resolves this bit and stays out of court.

In the July issue of the Reel News has a guest editorial by the U of W on the conflict between Rec and Commercial fisheries in Willapa Harbor on page 4. It is a good read and for folks who would like a copy the Reel News provided us a PDF of the issue to send to folks. So if you would like a electronic copy PM me and I will send it to you. Also on Page 3 is a letter to the editor outlining the process utilized which is a really good read.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/23/14 01:29 PM

CR 102 for Grays Harbor for the Non Treaty Commercial Gillnet season has been filed and posted on WDF&W's website. A review is underway but here is the link to take a look. The QIN is to be similar to last year, or at least that is what we have been told.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/23/14 03:11 PM

So, if we assume the QIN follows a schedule similar to last year, is the "4 on-3 off" a pipe dream at this point?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/23/14 03:29 PM


Not really but could. It is 4/3 but if the QIN goes for five and does not violate the court decisions then that week would only have two days net free. But it should not happen often if at all. The 4/3 was not intended to restrict the court mandated tribal harvest so the state side ( NT Nets ) is the restricted entity.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/23/14 06:19 PM


Another way to look at is 4/3 in a calendar week and the QIN normally start at noon and take out at noon. Now two 24 hr periods occupy 3 calendar days and 3 QIN days occupy 4 calendar days resulting in no NT nets. A end run was tried using 96 hours but did not fly ( after clarification ) so the QIN maybe doing five is offset by the manner they conduct fisheries. This means that R6 can not try to dodge 4/3 by backing NT nets behind QIN using hours ( part of days ) rather than calendar days. In other word I minute of a 24 calendar day takes all 24 hrs up. No games no reinterpretation.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/23/14 09:01 PM


Little more. Region 6 Fish program Manager Steve Theisfeld sent the model out so if you would like it PM me. On the NT tab it has the combined Humptulips & Chehalis net schedules lined out by week. Handy little thing!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/14 11:30 AM


The information below is from QIN President Fawn Sharp published in a Tulalip Tribal news lettere and reflects the QIN comments on the new WDF&W Commission policy for Grays Harbor. ( & the tributaries ) Many will reject the positions put forth by President Sharp but one should temper that rejection with a understanding that history drives perception for most folks tribal or non tribal. That said in the last 15 years ( or more ) co management in Grays Harbor has went from co management to dual management with both the QIN and WDF&W pretty much managing their portion of the harvest pretty much independent of each other.

President Sharp: " Rather than confronting the major threat to natural fish production in the Grays Harbor Basin, destruction and degradation of habitats, the Commission has chosen to focus on harvest by a small segment of the fishing community." Two things come to mind here. First it was a major revolt by citizens that resulted in the new Commission policies not just a idle thought by the Commission. It was a diverse and substantial number of citizens not a small group of self serving individuals. Secondly the inland communities in the Chehalis Basin have shouldered the vast majority of the burden of habitat reform and believe the purpose to be to get fish back to the streams for healthy runs. The QIN relationship with the Chehalis Basin salmonid stocks is primarily harvest. If you have more fish due to restoration you have more for harvest BUT that does not necessarily mean more spawning salmon in the streams that the fish spawn. In fact the Chinook escapement goal was recently reduced for Grays Harbor .

President Sharp: “As co-managers, the Quinault Nation and State should be working collaboratively and cooperatively to conserve Grays Harbor salmon. Yet the Commission didn’t even bother to meet with us. The Commission’s plan is a stark reminder of the decades-long battles in the federal courts which found that the so-called ‘conservation’ actions of the State of Washington were in fact ‘wise use’ decisions that unlawfully discriminated against treaty fishing. It is inconceivable that today, some 40 years after the decision of Judge Boldt in US v Washington, the Commission would still choose to ignore tribal rights and interests,”

I guess this is one view but the following is from the new Grays Harbor Management plan. 2) Meet the terms of U.S. v. Washington and other federal court orders and promote a strong relationship with the Quinault Indian Nation. Spawning escapement goals, fisheries, and artificial production objectives will be developed and jointly agreed with the Quinault Indian Nation. Agreements between the Department and the Quinault Indian Nation related to salmon in the Grays Harbor Basin shall be made available to the public through the agency web site.[/b][/I]

So take a look and draw your own conclusions.

TAHOLAH, WA (2/18/14)— “I am extremely disappointed that the State Fish and Wildlife Commission has chosen to unilaterally develop a management policy for Grays Harbor salmon,” said Fawn Sharp, President of the Quinault Indian Nation. Her comment referred to a recent news release in which the Commission announced its February 8 approval of a new salmon-management policy to conserve wild salmon runs and clarify catch guidelines for sport and commercial fisheries in the bay.

“As co-managers, the Quinault Nation and State should be working collaboratively and cooperatively to conserve Grays Harbor salmon. Yet the Commission didn’t even bother to meet with us. The Commission’s plan is a stark reminder of the decades-long battles in the federal courts which found that the so-called ‘conservation’ actions of the State of Washington were in fact ‘wise use’ decisions that unlawfully discriminated against treaty fishing. It is inconceivable that today, some 40 years after the decision of Judge Boldt in US v Washington, the Commission would still choose to ignore tribal rights and interests,” said Sharp.

“Quinault Nation has consistently demonstrated leadership in habitat restoration, enhancement and all aspects of good stewardship. The State’s pursuit of fish-killing dams in the Chehalis River and the Commission’s actions reflect continuation of a disturbing pattern. Rather than confronting the major threat to natural fish production in the Grays Harbor Basin, destruction and degradation of habitats, the Commission has chosen to focus on harvest by a small segment of the fishing community. The State also continues to ignore the orders of federal courts. Proper management of Grays Harbor fishery resources requires a comprehensive and cohesive approach developed through collaborative processes at state/tribal, regional and even international levels. By acting on its own, the Commission violated the principles of cooperation and trust and even such agreements as the Centennial Accord. While the Commission’s policy can’t apply to our fisheries, implementation of the Commission’s policy could well set the stage for future conflict and confrontation,” said President Sharp.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/14 03:00 PM

It would be interesting to look at the abundance of wild salmonids in the Quinault. Almost all of the watershed is in reservation or National Park. Which means the evil state of WA is not doing land/habitat management. As fish managers for the Quinault, isn't it the Tribes who would set the appropriate escapement goals? If there is one place in WA where the Tribes can showcase how well they manage natural reosources it would be there, right? Or did I miss something?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/14 03:13 PM


I can usually find a few things I agree with in these tribal rants, but in this case, all I can find to agree with is that the State and the Tribe are deeply divided on these issues. That much is crystal clear. Rather than waste time and energy pointing out the flaws in Ms. Sharp's assertions, I'll simply state how refreshing it would be to JUST ONCE see a treaty tribe admit to SOME degree of accountability for the declining salmon populations. I won't argue that they dealt the major blow (that was us, back in the cannery era), but if they want their "half" to be some number larger than zero 50 years from now, they might want to take a quick glance in the mirror while planning their 5 days/wk. "winter steelhead fishery." It would also be nice to see the QIN send a representative to NOF or any other regional meeting to address co-management issues, as opposed to claiming they were never invited to the discussion.

It just makes me wonder what bridges they intend to build with this sort of self-serving ranting. Bitching about what we're trying to do to ensure a future for wild salmon while they refuse to make any changes of their own won't do much to improve relations or our salmon runs. Sometimes, I think they're interested in neither.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/14 03:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
It would be interesting to look at the abundance of wild salmonids in the Quinault. Almost all of the watershed is in reservation or National Park. Which means the evil state of WA is not doing land/habitat management. As fish managers for the Quinault, isn't it the Tribes who would set the appropriate escapement goals? If there is one place in WA where the Tribes can showcase how well they manage natural reosources it would be there, right? Or did I miss something?


YES. The Queets is another shining example of how their "stewardship" has made a huge difference (in terms of the rapid rate of decline among salmon and steelhead populations)... And all that despite the habitat on the Queets being among the best left in the lower 48. Most impressive.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/14 03:43 PM

Quote:
I'll simply state how refreshing it would be to JUST ONCE see a treaty tribe admit to SOME degree of accountability for the declining salmon populations.


Without ranting I will put this out to chew on. The QIN asked R-6 Fish Program if their proposed 2014 seasons violated any court agreed to escapement goals" & the answer was NOPE. The court mandated escapement goals are for Grays Harbor and all the streams empting into it and do not break them down by tributary streams. So the QIN manages itself ( no co management here ) for 50% harvestable across the bar FOR THE ENTIRE WATERSHED COMBINED. Now the state separated the Humptulips and Chehalis years bck but the tribe did not agree to amend their court rights and frankly appear unwilling to consider doing it either. So you have two different views on how things are managed. When all streams are combined in that manner then the total of escapement has been met or is close in recent years. This results in the final total looking OK but tributaries some down ( about 1/3 of the Chehalis watershed crashing with Chum & Humptulips Wild Coho never making escapement ) and some way up depending on the year & all three species run size.

Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/26/14 12:21 PM

Well, well, well....

WDFW changed how Region 6, Chehalis/Humptulips, was managed......change was done for a few reasons, major was to benefit the growing sports marine fishery.

QIN stayed with the "time honored way" of management.

WDFW needs to change back to the management style, that seemed to keep peace, with all the parties concerned.......IMO

Time for WDFW needs to understand that a gill net is a gill net. QIN and Chehalis tribe can meet commercial fishery, from GH, for the salmon eating public.

NOF process could be made a lot easier, less costly and State coffers, enlarged with a more active sports fishery in the Chehalis basin.....again, IMO
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/27/14 12:42 AM

[quote Fawn Sharp]“As co-managers, the Quinault Nation and State should be working collaboratively and cooperatively to conserve Grays Harbor salmon.
[/quote]

Yes they should Fawn, so why don't start working on that?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/14 12:46 PM

Sometimes in the ongoing conflict between the Rec & Commercial fishers we forget that the discussion ( sounded better than brawl ) has a very human element. The following two letters one addressing Grays Harbor and the other Willapa, obtained in a PDR, capture that rather well. It is rather easy to blind one's self to the human cost to REC families and traditional Commercial fisheries but it is very real.

A Commercial perspective:
To the Members of the Washington State Salmon Commission,

I am the wife of a 4th generation gillnetter out of Grays Harbor. Adolf Bold, our great grandfather, made and fished his gillnets by hand as he worked as a German immigrant coming to the United States in hope of a better life. This year my son was the 5th generation from our family to step on a grays harbor gillnet boat. This fishery is very much a part of our family's history and heritage. We value commercial fishing, specifically gillnetting as it has supported our family for over a century .

I am saddened to learn that commission is favoring sport fishing over commercial fishing. I am also disappointed to see that many other avenues of conservation have not been explored. It seems that all accounts of fishery depletion are being pinned on the gillnet fleet. Commercial gillnetters are following the guidelines clearly set out by WDFW, and yet they are being "punished" for following the rules.
While I understand that Chinook salmon runs are low and concerns are high, I do not believe that allocating more fish to the sportsmen will do anything to further conservation efforts. With the introduction of live boxes and net changes, gillnetters have adapted and have seen decreased mortality. We would like to see similar efforts made on the part of the sportsmen whether it be isolation of spawning grounds, regulations on jet boats, decreased catch limit, or limited entry, there must be concessions made on both sides- not continually on the part of the commercial gillnetters alone.

Please keep in mind that these fishermen are family driven people, they work very hard to make a living and are dependent on the resources that they harvest. There is continual accusation of the moral character of the fleet, the honesty of their catch and the professionalism of their endeavors. While sportsmen continue to advocate for increased observation and supervision among the gillnet fleet, we would like to see increased observation among the sport fishery. The assumption that an individual has better intentions, better moral character, and stronger inclination to follow the rules simply because of fishing for sport vs. fishing for income is ridiculous. Assume the best of these men, their work ethic alone speaks volumes on the strength and endurance of their character.

While we all recognize that changes must be made, I certainly hope the commission will consider the impacts of the continual cut back of the non-tribal gillnet fleet. These impacts certainly will have an immediate impact on our income, and the incomes of those in the fishing community, but in the long­ term they will impact the legacy of family's like ours. Please do end our way of life in order to silence the present demands of those who are unwilling to compromise.

Commercial fishing is our heritage; it is our history and our future.


And a Recreational Fisher Perspective:
Westport/Grayland Chamber of Commerce

I am contacting you on behalf of recreational fishers in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Business owners should be able to support both commercial and sport fishing. They should not be bullied into making a choice. Most of the gill netters in this area are fine people. There is a very small fraction that want the sport fishers out by any means. There has been name calling and harassment on the Tokeland docks. Here is an example, a man was walking down the dock to his boat in the morning. He passed by a few gill netters standing by one of their boats. He said nothing to them but after he walked by one of them shouted "we gotta get these ---- suckers outa here". They threaten business people with the loss of their dollars if they support us in any way. My wife and I stayed a month per year in Tokeland for 18 years and spent a considerable amount of money from South Bend to Westport. We don't fish there anymore because of what I have encountered. I won't elaborate on what I have been called.

In past years, we had to struggle but both sides got a decent season at the annual salmon meetings. In 2010 the WDFW made no pretense of fairness. The sport fishing representatives that attended thought it was not a legitimate negotiation. They held private meetings with the gill netters before each of the last two meetings. Towards the end of the last meeting, one of the commercial fishers said something like, "we've wasted enough time, isn't it time to tell them how it's going to be?" Soon after his statement the DFW did just that. In recent years the gill net fishing started around mid September in Willapa Bay. In 2010 They received a so called "test fishery" with not many boats but quite a few dates. They got two full fleet openers in August just when the recreational season is beginning. They started their regular season about four days earlier than the recent average.

The DFW also required us to release all unmarked Chinook and coho. This is very frustrating, many anglers reported a 50% release rate. With Chinook, the naturally spawning and hatchery salmon are all the same stock. The native silvers that are scarce don't come in until nearly a month after the marine sport fishery is basically over. They required the gill netters to release the unmarked salmon also. Catch and release gill netting makes no sense. At the mortality rate they are assessed at, they wasted 940 kings and 9,544 silvers, then add the sport fishing mortality. This is an awful waste of food and I was told it was a disgusting sight, the dead salmon drifting down with the tide.

Westport spends a lot of money attracting us to this area. The DFW and the gill netters appear to be trying to get rid of us. The Department totally ignored the letter the Chamber sent last year. If this doesn't change there will be a constant decline in recreational fishing. I was told the South Bend launch was down about 50% last year, Tokeland was down too. Some members of the Legislature seem to have some leverage on the DFW. You probably know a lot more about that than I do. We do not want to take over, we just want what is fair for us and for the business community. I am sending a copy to the 19th District Legislators.

On the subject of South Grays Harbor, as you know a great Chinook sport fishery has been lost. It was good for us and for you. The DFW still allows a non tribal gill net Chinook mortality and they have allowed a sport fishing Chinook mortality with a coho fishery. With Tribal fishing, I wondered if you had tried talking directly to them. This could be of interest to sport and commercial fishers also. There is also the habitat destruction in the Chehalis headwaters. I really hope we can make some progress on all these problems.


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/14 03:06 PM

From WDF&W Willapa Commercial Season

July 28, 2014


To Interested Parties:

This letter is to inform you of commercial salmon gillnet fishery regulations in Willapa Bay during 2014.

Please be aware that not all commercial fishing areas are open during each opener and that the area around the North River (see summary of schedule for a specific description of closed area) in area 2T is closed to fishing prior to 6:00 p.m. on September 30, 2014. Retention of sturgeon and steelhead is strictly prohibited. Encounters of sturgeon with tags of any sort should be reported. DO NOT REMOVE tags; carefully obtain and submit information from tags to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 48 Devonshire Rd., Montesano, WA 98563.

During all commercial fishing for salmon in Willapa Bay:
- Commercial fishers MUST:
o Have in their possession a WDFW-issued “fish Friendly” certification card.
o Carry an on-board observer when requested by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to do so.
o Report encounters of green sturgeon through the Quick Report system or to a dealer for reporting. Direct reporting by fishers shall include name of the fisher and vessel #, date, catch area, and number of green sturgeon encountered.

- Wholesale dealers and fishers retailing their fish MUST
o Report purchases of salmon including all “take home” to WDFW by 10:00 A.M. of the day following the commercial landing. The quick reporting requirement does not preclude the obligation of buyers to report catches on fish tickets. A copy of the “Statewide Quick Reporting Summary Sheet” can be downloaded on our website at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/. Dealers should use the “buyer only” portion of the fish ticket to list the number of green sturgeon encountered with any landing and in the pounds/price columns label as ‘encountered’.

These regulations are subject to change based on in-season information. You are advised to verify schedules and regulations on the WDFW hotline at (360) 902-2500 or (360) 249-4628 before fishing. You may obtain a copy of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for this fishery at http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2014/wsr_14-15-052.pdf .

This letter and other relevant information regarding this fishery are available on the WDFW website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/netting_schedules.html. For additional information or questions, please contact Barbara McClellan at (360) 249-1213 at the Region 6 Montesano office.


Summer Fishery (openers occurring between July 22 and August 15 annually):
6:00 a.m. August 12, 2014 through 6:00 p.m. August 15, 2014; Areas 2N, 2T (excluding North River closure area), and 2U ONLY. Retention of any species other than coho, Chinook, and chum is prohibited; 9-inch maximum mesh size.

Fall Fishery (openers occurring between August 16 and November 30 annually):
Gear restrictions:
- Openers occurring prior to 7:00 a.m. September 8 the maximum mesh size is 9 inches.
- Openers occurring between 12:01 p.m. September 8 and November 30 the maximum mesh size is 6 ½ -inches.
Area restrictions:
- No openers will occur in areas 2K and 2P during 2014.
- During the fall season no openers are scheduled in Areas 2M, 2R, and 2T until 6:00 p.m. September 15.
- Area 2T north of a line from Toke Point channel marker 3 easterly through Willapa Harbor channel marker 13 (green), then northeasterly to the power transmission pole located at 46°43.1907'N; 123°50.83134'W), is closed to fishing prior to 6:00 p.m. September 30.
- Each week from September 15 through October 3 Areas 2M, 2N, 2R, and 2T close at 6:00 p.m. Friday evening; each of these weeks 2U closes one day prior at 6:00 p.m. Thursday evening each week (September 18, September 25 and October 2).

Mark selective fishery and recovery box requirements:
- From 12:01 p.m. September 8 through 12:00 p.m. (noon) September 22, 2014.
o Soak time is limited to 45 minutes during any set.
o Recovery boxes are required and must be operated when gear is being retrieved and when a wild (unmarked) Chinook or steelhead is being held to recover.
o All wild (unmarked) Chinook and all steelhead MUST be placed in an operating recovery box and remain until they are not lethargic and not bleeding; ALL wild (unmarked) Chinook are required to be released.
o Regulation Compliance Incentive Day, please be aware that an opening noon September 21 - noon September 22 may occur provided that compliance as accessed during previous days fishery openings exceeds 90%, this day will be implemented by e-rule.

Atlantic Salmon
Wholesale dealers and fishers are asked to contact the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife should Atlantic salmon be taken during any fishery in Washington waters. Please notify the appropriate WDFW staff member of when and where the fish was encountered or contact Fish Program in Olympia at (360) 902-2700.


2014 Summary of Willapa Bay Summer and Fall Commercial Gillnet Fisheries
This summary sheet is provided as a courtesy for use as a quick reference and does not fully describe 2014 rules. For additional information or questions, contact Barbara McClellan at #360-249-1213 or Mike Scharpf at #360-249-1205.

The following are in effect for ALL commercial openers in Willapa Bay:

• Retention of STURGEON is PROHIBITED. ALL encounters MUST be reported to Wholesale Buyer or Quick Reporting
• For QUICK REPORTING (by 10am the day following landing), NOTICE OF INTENT, and reporting GREEN STURGEON ENCOUNTERS: Fax 360-249-1229; telephone 1-866-791-1280; email harborfishtickets@dfw.wa.gov
• Notice of Intent to fish any opener during 2014 is REQUIRED by August 5, 2014.
• All participants MUST have attended a "Fish Friendly" best fishing practices workshop and have their department-issued certification card in their immediate possession.

Date and Time Area Mesh size stretched Requirements and gear restrictions:
6:00 AM, Aug. 12 through 6 PM, Aug. 15, 2014 2N, 2T (except those waters north of a line from Toke Point channel marker 3 easterly through Willapa Harbor channel marker 13 (green) then northeasterly to the power transmission pole located at 46° 43.1907’ N, 123° 50.83134’ W), and 2U 9-inch maximum



RELEASE STURGEON


7:00 PM, Aug. 25 through 7:00 AM, Aug. 26, 2014,
7:00 PM, Sept. 1 through 7:00 AM, Sept. 2, 2014,
AND
7:00 PM, Sept. 7 through 7:00 AM, Sept. 8, 2014.
2N and 2U 9-inch maximum
7:00 PM, Sept. 8 through 7:00 AM, Sept. 9, 2014,
7:00 PM, Sept. 9 through 7:00 AM, Sept. 10, 2014,
7:00 PM, Sept. 10 through 7:00 AM, Sept. 11, 2014,
AND
7:00 PM, Sept. 14 through 7:00 AM, Sept. 15, 2014. 2N and 2U 6 ½ -inch maximum RELEASE ALL WILD (UNMARKED) CHINOOK AND STURGEON

Live boxes are REQUIRED to be used on-board

Soak times are limited to 45 minutes (from gear entering the water until fully removed)
Continued on next page

Date and Time Area Mesh size stretched Requirements and gear restrictions:
6:00 PM, Sept. 15 through 6:00 PM, Sept. 19, 2014,
2M, 2N, 2R, and 2T (except those waters north of a line from Toke Point channel marker 3 easterly through Willapa Harbor channel marker 13 (green) then northeasterly to the power transmission pole located at 46° 43.1907’ N, 123° 50.83134’ W) 6 ½ -inch maximum RELEASE ALL WILD (UNMARKED) CHINOOK AND STURGEON

Live boxes are REQUIRED to be used on-board

Soak times are limited to 45 minutes (from gear entering the water until fully removed)
6:00 PM, Sept. 15 through 6:00 PM, Sept. 18, 2014,
2U 6 ½ -inch maximum
6:00 PM, Sept. 22 through 6:00 PM, Sept. 26, 2014,
AND
6:00 PM, Sept. 28 through 6:00 PM, Sept. 30, 2014
2M, 2N, 2R, and 2T (except those waters north of a line from Toke Point channel marker 3 easterly through Willapa Harbor channel marker 13 (green) then northeasterly to the power transmission pole located at 46° 43.1907’ N, 123° 50.83134’ W) 6 ½ -inch maximum

RELEASE STURGEON
6:00 PM, Sept. 22 through 6:00 PM, Sept. 25, 2014,
AND
6:00 PM, Sept. 28 through 6:00 PM, Oct. 2, 2014

2U 6 ½ -inch maximum




RELEASE STURGEON


6:00 PM, Sept. 30 through 6:00 PM, Oct. 3, 2014,
2M, 2N, 2R, and 2T 6 ½ -inch maximum
6:00 PM, Oct. 4 through 6:00 PM, Oct. 7, 2014,

12 AM, Midnight, Nov. 2 through 11:59 PM, Nov. 7, 2014,
12 AM, Midnight, Nov. 10 through 11:59 PM, Nov. 14, 2014
AND
12 AM, Midnight, Nov. 17 through 11:59 PM, Nov. 19, 2014. 2M, 2N, 2R, 2T, and 2U 6 ½ -inch maximum
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/14 11:01 AM

This issue is a very interesting. For many the thought that Director Anderson gives a preference to Commercial fishers is rather dominate. From the Commercial side I bet that view is not shared, to say the least. For my part I will take you back to the final North of Falcon at Olympia a couple years back. Region 6 District 17 utilized nearly 3 1/2 hours putting forth just what was possible and what was simply unattainable. Then Director Anderson came down from his office and set in a bit until we broke for lunch. Coming back into the meeting following lunch we were witness to staff pounding away on the lap top keyboard utilized to display the model and options on the wall. What happened next was a bit mind boggling as now what was not possible was possible and what was possible ( for the Recs ) was now not! This prompted one attendee to state in a rather load voice "it isn't safe to go to lunch around here!"

So did Director Anderson use his position to influence the outcome for the Commercial and Recs in Grays Harbor? Depends on your view as the Recs yup but no from the Commercials I imagine. It is the Directors role to guide WDF&W through processes but out of the public forum underway? Behind closed doors? Nah ain't buying that BS. Mr. Anderson is a knowledgeable man and if he has views he should state them openly, in a forthright manner to the ENTIRE group of folks in attendance. The failure of WDF&W to grasp that the lack of openness and transparency continues to erode the public's faith in WDF&W as a government institution. Frankly lack of openness and transparency helps drive WDF&W's lack of ability address the many challenges facing the users and resource itself.

Offhand these guys need to do a serious reboot if they have any desire regain the public's trust. The real question is do they give a damn?


The letter below is a response from Commission Chair Wecker who does appear to care and attempted to address the Advocacy's concerns about the Directors influence.

July 18, 2014
Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 98557

Dear Sirs:

I am writing in response to your letter dated May 17, 2014. The gist of what you request is contained in this paragraph from your letter:

"This all leads us to the point where we ask for the support of the Commission. Again, not to adopt or oppose any particular season and, certainly not to micro&#8208;manage. Rather, we simply ask that the members of the Commission use individual or combined influence to insure the public that the professional staff within Fish Program have the freedom to make the final decisions for a 2014 commercial season based on their combined professional judgment using the education and expertise they hold and to do so without fear of damage to their careers."

The Commission views its role in holding the Department accountable as one of its more important jobs. I have no evidence that Department staff have been unable to use their professional judgment due to "threat of damage to their careers." That said, I do understand that season setting in Willapa Bay has become increasingly contentious and likely will become more so. It is vital that the public have confidence that the Department is adhering to high standards of professionalism especially with respect to our conservation mandate.

This year, some changes have been proposed in setting the Willapa salmon fishing seasons. The Commission will not be able to thoroughly review Willapa fisheries management options until we begin our official consideration of the development of a policy for Willapa salmon management -- a process we expect to begin in October.

However, in the next couple weeks, I will have a conversation with the Director regarding the mechanisms that are in place to assure that staff can offer their best professional judgment in the decision-making process that leads to the setting of seasons in Willapa Bay.

Thank you again for your comments,

Miranda Wecker, Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/14 12:56 PM


The information below is from Region 6 and the CR 102 Commercial Grays Harbor. A link is provided to WDF&W's website.



In an effort to reduce unnecessary printing costs and help protect our environment, we are asking those interested in viewing the CR-102 proposed WAC changes to access it electronically at the following web site, where it can be viewed or downloaded.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html

A public hearing will be held in accordance with RCW 34.05.325 at the Region 6 Montesano Office in the large conference room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563 on Tuesday, August 26, 2014.

Discussion times will be:

1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. WAC 220-36-023 - Rules for commercial salmon fishing in Grays Harbor.

In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing you may submit written comments to: Rules Coordinator via mail at: WDFW Enforcement 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091, via e-mail: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or via fax: (360) 902-2155 by August 19, 2014.

If you would like an email copy or need a printed copy of the proposed rules, please send a request
to: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or call (360) 902-2700.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/31/14 12:28 PM


In sorting a Public Document Request I happed upon this document. It is a summary of comments to the Commission from the public as the Commission developed the new plan. Some may find this to be Interesting reading and there is a wide range of thought to be sure.



11 January 2014

Summary of public comment regarding draft Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy.

Included below are excerpts from written comment received between October 21, 2013 and January 9, 2014, and verbal testimony summarized from the December 7, 2013 Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting. Comments have not been edited for content or to correct spelling, grammar, or punctuation.

Comments were summarized into ten (10) categorizes including: allocation, alternative fishing practices, communication/transparency, conservation, data rigor, economic value, enforcement/accountability, hatcheries, limit effort, and miscellaneous.

Categories are collated by major reason for which the policy is needed (Enhance Conservation Focus, Restore and Maintain Public Trust, and Clarify Sharing of Impacts), followed by a section with remaining categories.

Enhance Conservation Focus

Conservation
• The state wants to kill down to the last fish. We need to think about conservation.
• Calculated in FRAM down to the last fish the bycatch to the last fish.
• complete closures have been implemented before and the fish come back. It that is what it takes fine. It comes down to conservation. We need the fish in the gravel.
• ESCAPEMENT GOALS and SALMON CONSERVATION must be the #1 Priority. Once the resource is gone, everyone loses.
• Escapement ,We must meet escapement goals each and every year. This is imperative to the survival of the fish that swim and spawn in these waters. Any type or length of fishery should always be secondary. I am well aware that this could mean on lean years that we do not have a directed fishery by anyone and if that is what it takes then so be it.
• It was abundantly clear from the vast majority of attendees that consevation of Grays Harbor wild salmon is their highest priority. Several topics were included within the conservation umbrella; opposition to the Chehalis River dam, ocean-derived nutrition, harvest management and more.
• The state is driving to ESA.
• As for Conservation, everyone needs to do their part.
• My big thing is in-season management. I think conservation needs to be the top priority, even if it limits my opportunity to fish ensuring that over-forecasting doesn't have to result in overharvest, and subsequently missed escapements.
• This fishery must have season checks and balances to ensure that we do not over harvest on any given year
• Guiding Principles Item 14; When a mark-selective fishery occurs, the mark-selective fishery shall be implemented, monitored, and enforced in a manner designed to achieve the anticipated conservation
benefits. Everytime the WDFW feels that the selective harvest is expected to impact fishery escapements goals, the fishery is shut down, but it's only shut down to sport fisherman and not tribal/commerical havesting.
Escapement goals are not being met, yet we allow the tribal fisheries to run nets 7+ days a week which has a much greater impact on returning salmon than any sportsman catch.

• At the heart of the current difficulties is not just rec v commercial but rather the inland communities citizens growing and adamant opposition to the failure to make escapement and the practice of WDF&W awarding the vast majority of harvest taking place in the marine area communities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam.
• concerned about failure of Reg 6 management. Not making escapement.
• Continuing to fail for the last 10 years.
• Escapement goals are not being met.
• for too many years too many fishermen taking too many fish.
• Blatant overharvest by the QIN, particularly Chinook. Late coho and steelhead are in a similar state as Chinook.
• Millions of dollars have been spent by tax payers and Logging companies to create more habitat yet WDFW has not increased any Escapement Goals, provided more fish to the gravel, increased wild populations, to match the third largest watershed on the Pacific Coast on the United States. I see some great opportunities to increase fish populations in this wild river system that is capable of providing a better future of this resource.
• The people of our state have invested a lot in enhancing habitat for salmon yet Region 6 has been content to leave goals low and then seldom meet them. In a region which has been satisfied and enjoyed management job security while missing escapement goals for Gray's Harbor and Willapa Bay 9/10 of the time, a culture change would be needed.
• 30 years of experience in the legislative projects. I have worked on habitat recovery and still no fish in Wildcat Creek.
• Unfortunately, too little time was provided for indepth discussion regarding policies to achieve wild salmon recovery in Grays Harbor and its tributaries - far too much time was again consumed for allocation discussions
• If you are concentrating on the escapement maybe you should start in the ocean fishery. You don’t want to admit to the amount of fish you are allowing to be killed in the “catch ten and release to keep one fishery”.
• Article about Alaska Kenai Salmon - "Catch and release practices prevent many salmon from reaching a spawning location or result in poor spawning success."
• For the recreational fishery in Grays Harbor I would like you to consider the following: Any year there are not enough chinook to have a retention fishery that area 2.2 from the Chehalis River bridge (highway 101) to the mouth of Johns River (piling number 8) be closed to all fishing before the first of October. This is needed to save chinook salmon from over harvest via hook and release. Large numbers of fishers show up to see how many chinook they can catch in one day even though they release them. One fisher bragged to me they caught 17 chinooks in one day when it was non retention only.
• The spring chinook fishery is a joke. The only reason the tribe fishes for spring chinook is to harvest wild steelhead that are returning. This practice need to STOP!
• If CTRC is the non-treaty tribes then this draft does not allow a non-treaty spring Chinook fishery in the Chehalis River system. I support no non-treaty tribal fishing for spring Chinook in Grays Harbor and the Chehalis river system.
• Another issue I have is why is ANY spring salmon fishery of any kind allowed on the Chehalis River system?

Limit effort
• I would like to state for the record that I believe that until you curtail the tribal fishery it will be of little use to keep restricting the non tribal fishers.
• One partial solution is to LIMIT GUIDES AND CHARTER OPERATORS TO A SINGLE TRIP PER DAY. It would probably be prudent to have logbooks for guides to get a more accurate reporting of the true catches for salmon, sturgeon, steelhead and walleye.
• A quicker and more effective option would be to use a “drawing” similar to elk harvesting wherein a preset number of license holders will be granted the ability to fish in the upcoming season. While the number of fishers active each season would decrease, establishing a drawing avoids seasons where all the participants suffer when sales of fish caught “….didn’t cover the cost of the diesel”.
• for too many years too many fishermen taking too many fish.

Alternative fishing practices
• We must require sustainable forms of fishing. Currently Recreational fisherman utilize barbless hooks and selective or non-selective fishing as a means of ensuring the right fish are taken at the right times. Entanglement nets are not a sustainable fishing method.
• Make everyone even that's commercial fishermen go back to hook and line
• Following the example set in harvesting razor clams, crab, and shrimp, we propose that WDFW consider establishing commercial seasons wherein recreational and commercial license holders harvest with the same gear (poles), in the same geographical areas and at the same time throughout the entire season. License fees and bag limits could be adjusted as well. One example would be a commercial license at three times the recreational license and the commercial bag limit at three times the recreational in a corresponding fashion.

Restore and Maintain Public Trust

Communication/ Transparency
• The Grays Hbr. Advisory Committee, WDFW Fish biologists, and GH gill net assoc. should be on record as to their method, data and tools used to recommend the catch sharing percentages for each sector outlined in this "draft". I would like to see fishery decisions in Washington State made on biologically sound information. It appears that political influence now dictates many decisions made by WDFW.
• The public needs to be informed that the catch allowed by the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) comes out of the recreational sector. If the category designated as CTCR in the charts is the non- treaty Chehalis Tribe(s), it needs to be designated as such in the draft policy. Non-treaty catch quota should not be taken from the recreational sector. How can WDFW give the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) a catch percentage when they provide no catch figures to WDFW? My recommendation is "no catch figures", "no fishing".
• The Director and the Region need to bring co-management back to Grays Harbor.
• We need to talk about the QIN. They overharvest year after year. Then tell the state what they are going to do without any say from the state. WDFW needs to take them to court.
• There is no co-management in Grays Harbor. If the state is not fishing then the tribe will.
• WDFW needs to include previous run estimates, escapement goals and final catch statistics for each sector to determine an equitable catch percentage. The percentages "proposed in the draft" , for each sector have no meaning without inclusion of above mentioned data from previous years. The percentages outlined in the draft are meaningless w/o previous data.
• Overall the GH management plan is too vague and unclear. It is good to see a committment for an annual review but there is little mention of metrics against which performance would be measured by the commission. This is a region that has regularly underperformed on escapement goals for multiple species for over a decade.
• The current draft does not have specificity. What we are looking for in the policy are deadlines and goals.
• These guidelines are only a tweaking of the current guidelines. In Willapa there are no co-managers – even with no co-managers the results are the same. Guiding principles, communicate, document, etc. these are not principals they are window dressing.
• I offered comment, those are not in the policy; asked for teeth in the policy they are not there either.
• Comments about communication – with the internet, communication is easy. With short notice through the internet look at all the people who are here.
• Thirdly, All participants in this fishery must meet their obligations to be involved in the process of season setting and ensure that their numbers and dates are published in the proper manner.
• I want to see the Public more involved in the WAC process before North of Falcon. This process has only involved a fee people invited by WDFW. The Commercial Fleet has dominated this process for many years with WDFW supporting them over Conservation. The Tribes are also part of the Commercial harvest and should be regulated in the same process instead of WDFW letting them do what they want.

• The APA process is not being followed. I have spent $10K’s of my money bringing lawsuits against WDFW, and have 1000’s of hours of time invested. The public trust is lost. Kehoe, you said for us to write the document, we did that. None of that is in this document. Don’t close the door or your mind on this.
• far too much time was again consumed for allocation discussions… it amounts to nothing more than a wishing session between the gillnetters and the sporties.

Data Rigor
• The tools the department has is like a butter knife. The first improvement needed is the CRC. Like to see timelier reporting like in the PS crab CRC. Adaptive management, like in PS, monitor the fishery more closely and shut the fishery down when the quota is reached. Need a policy that passes fish to the spawning beds. There is no co- management in Grays Harbor. If the state is not fishing then the tribe will.
• Region 6, forecasts runs before fish hit the hatchery; need to let the fish hit the hatchery then forecast. I fish the Skookumchuck and have seen the enhancements.
• needs to be a framework for in-season management, ensuring that over-forecasting doesn't have to result in overharvest, and subsequently missed escapements.
• Science and biology should drive management.
• Calculated in FRAM down to the last fish the bycatch to the last fish. Then set the season in days. The mortality percentages - 45% is not in the Columbia studies. The study is only long-term, where is the short term? Other studies should be reviewed.
• The current Management plan and models for the Chehalis Basin and Willapa Basin are not acceptable anymore and out dated. Millions of dollars have been spent by tax payers and Logging companies to create more habitat yet WDFW has not increased any Escapement Goals, provided more fish to the gravel, increased wild populations, to match the third largest watershed on the Pacific Coast on the United States.

Enforcement /accountability
• The sports fisherman are getting more and more of the allocation every season. The sports fishers are not being held accountable for their catches as we the commercial fisheries are being held accountable for every fish harvested.
• Anglers on guide trips would also furnish license numbers to the guide to record days fished and actual catches to avoid cheating on the annual limits.Daily recording in the logbook should be mandatory and all entries should be made within 24 hours of the trip completion. Alaska uses this system but when boat launch areas are super busy then it is easy to forget to complete the log on site and a 24 hour allowance for recording final catch info would be fair. AK imposed fines for non completion on site and that was strictly a revenue operation and lead to many confrontations between guides and enforcement personnel.
• Selective fishing if its going to happen it needs to follow scientifically designed procedures and protocols. In Grays Harbor they violate all internationally recognized rules.
• They need to fish selectively like they have been trained.
• It was also made clear that there is considerable support for increasing the number of WDFW enforcement officers in order to maximise conservation efforts to recover Grays Harbor wild salmon
• there is considerable support for increasing the number of WDFW enforcement officers in order to maximise conservation efforts to recover Grays Harbor wild salmon.
• The public needs to be informed that the catch allowed by the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) comes out of the recreational sector. If the category designated as CTCR in the charts is the non- treaty Chehalis Tribe(s), it needs to be designated as such in the draft policy. Non-treaty catch quota should not be taken from the recreational sector. How can WDFW give the non-treaty Chehalis Tribe(s) a catch percentage when they provide no catch figures to WDFW? My recommendation is "no catch figures", "no fishing".
• We need to monitor the Quinault’s and take them to court.

Clarify Sharing of Impacts

Allocation
• 77,000 people sport fish salmon in the state of Washington (1.1%); the commercial fishers provide fish to the rest of the state. Allocation should be 50:50 on all species.
• In the survey the sports zeroed out commercial allocation. Sport have lots of opportunity statewide.
• I fully support the non-treaty commercial salmon fishing in Grays Harbor. Generations of families in Grays Harbor have been supported by the salmon gilnetting season - I strongly encourage you to consider those families - it's very important to them.
• I have been a gillnetter for over forty years. In the 70s we would get to fish from the 6th of July till sometime in November. The fleet of boats was over four times what it is today. We had a very valuble sport fishery during those times also.
• I support the non-tribal commercial salmon fishery in Grays Harbor. The non-tribal commercial salmon fishery is vital to many families in our area. Please keep this is mind when determining future allotment of our resources.
• There are other fisheries in GH, we need to be mindful of the share that comes to the state. That is the portion that should be fairly distributed to sport and commercial fisheries. The sports emphasize that there are two fisheries; sport and commercial - and that commercial include the tribes.
• The sports fisherman are getting more and more of the allocation every season. The sports fishers are not being held accountable for their catches as we the commercial fisheries are being held accountable for every fish harvested. Washington gives the tribal fishers 58% of the allocation. Start there. The commercial catch is nominal compared to the tribal and the sports fishers
• The Chehalis side should have a small amount of Chinook set aside for the commercial to access to coho. There are large surplus of coho – hatchery and natural both.
• Divide the catches of Chinook equally between the recreationals and gillnetters for wild chinook. Since wild coho has been the run of concern for the last several years they will be used as incidentals during chinook and chum fisheries. Impacts to be used when run size is below escapement goal will be divided 60% gillnetters and 40% recreationals. The only exception to this is if the run size is 156% greater than the escapement goal then there could be a directed wild coho fishery divided 60% recreationals and 40% gillnetters. Between 110% and 156% of escapement goal the wild coho will be divided 60% recreational and 40% gillnetters. Hatchery chinook
and hatchery coho will be taken during other Humptulips fisheries.
• The goals for recreational fishing involving "experience" or "opportunity" are inappropriate. We are already seeing this concept being abusedd in plans for alternative gear elsewhere in the Columbia. OR officials are talking about closing sport fishing during peaks of runs to allow enough mark selective commercial harvest using purse seines! Sports not to worry, you will get extra days during off peak run times. Seines get the harvest, sports get the "experince" of more fishing with less opportunity per day. This is how sports fishing is to be minimized, along with its superior econiomic benefits. The draft guidelines need to be changed to prevent this approach in Region 6.
• They should not be fishing more than 3 days / week. They are taking huge sections out of the run.
• the commercial gill nets should be in the water one day less than what it was this year. Ive been keeping an eye on the nets in the river because I drive over the Chehalis river bridge in Aberdeen every day and have seen nets in the river, either commercial or native american, 5 days a week. That is unacceptable for recreational fishing because when they take the nets out on Friday, it takes a while for those fish can get through to get up the river to where bank fisherman can have some fun and try and catch some salmon to allay the exorbitant cost for the license. I have no problem paying the license cost but expect the recreational fishery to be given more emphasis.
• One good thing is to allow 3 d/wk without nets. Need a change in the current conscious approach. End of year review – compared to what? Need more in the policy.
• Support 3 days/week proposal for net free.

• The 3 day proposal for net free; what does that mean? The treaty fishery is already fishing 4 days/week, does this leave the NT fleet sitting on the beach?
• The rec option offered 3 days sport and 4 days commercial. The Commercial won’t offer a compromise. Recreation is willing to have days on and days off.
• Tribal and commerical netting should only be allowed on a Sun (1200) - Thursday (1200) during the fishery. If the catch goals are not met, extensions or additional netting days can be addressed and granted, but only after escapement data is reviewed.
• I want to see the Public more involved in the WAC process before North of Falcon. This process has only involved a fee people invited by WDFW. The Commercial Fleet has dominated this process for many years with WDFW supporting them over Conservation. The Tribes are also part of the Commercial harvest and should be regulated in the same process instead of WDFW letting them do what they want.
• Similarly, it was very clear that future, non-treaty salmon harvests should be guided by the greatest benefit to cost ratio - from the data shared this evening it seems that recreational fishing accounts for far greater revenue to Washington state than does the commercial sector.
• At the heart of the current difficulties is not just rec v commercial but rather the inland communities citizens growing and adamant opposition to the failure to make escapement and the practice of WDF&W awarding the vast majority of harvest taking place in the marine area communities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam.
• The QIN fishery represents more than a meaningful commercial opportunity, and it should be the only one they are obligated to allow. I would like to state for the record that I believe that until you curtail the tribal fishery it will be of little use to keep restricting the non tribal fishers.
• Commercial netting should be stopped immediately within Grays Harbor and its tributaries. This is an outdated practice that is not sustainable today in this location due to overharvest and impacts on sensitive species as
it does not allow of selective release listed groups of fish. Addtionally there is not the abundance of fish in Grays Harbor that allow this practice to continue. The economic benefit of having a strong sport fishery in Grays harbor and its tributaries far out weigh the small benefit that harvesting the remaining fish by commercial fisherman
• The public has repeatedly stated that a tribal net or a non-tribal net is a commercial net under state law. The legislative mandate of the Commission and department states, "The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state." (RCW 77.04.012). You will notice the law does not require the Department to provide three commercial fishing opportunities based on tribal affiliation. The attached AGO shows the Attorney General was asked if a non-tribal commercial fisherman who opted to take the buyout could sell the boat back to a tribal fisherman. The AG opined that a tribal fisherman was a commercial fisherman under state law and such could not be done. Since the Chehalis and the Quinault commercial fishing takes approximately 58% of the available harvest in Grays Harbor, the mandate is fulfilled without the Department imposing yet another third commercial fishery.
• The inland community does not perceive a difference between the commercials. This ain’t Mobile Alabama 1963 the state needs to get over it, the tribes have the right to take their fish.
• Steady decline in the Chehalis. You see that there are two different gillnets, this is one fishery. We are fishing behind all these nets. There should be a focus on one netting season – 60:40 commercial.
• Two fishing interests – rec and commercial. Both interests desire the maximum allotted to them. The commercials scoop hundreds, the recs use one hook, and can only keep two.
• Economics we important, look at where the money comes from; you are supporting a welfare system for the GH commercial fleet.
• Allocation should be developed on science not public opinion. It needs to be understood that nets are not in the water 24hrs / day, the fish get through. Sound fishery science.

Other

Economic value
• Commercial value does not account for 1000’s of coho that go un-harvested.
• Increasing the sales price of the fish harvested commercially would provide compensation for the reduced harvest volume. WDFW should consider eliminating the would allow the commercial license holders the ability to market the fish caught at retail (i.e.commercially in its seasons in Grays Harbor be sold at wholesale to a licensed fish buyer. This requirement that fish caught “Fresh Tuna” on the dock in Westport, fresh salmon at the farmer’s market in Olympia, etc.).
• I'm a sportfishing guide based out of Olympia. I spend the majority of my days fishing in the Chehalis Basin. A dependable season would make my job much easier. I can book trips without fear of in season shutdowns.
• I look at things in terms of money. Are you getting your numbers up? That is an investment. If we are not getting fish back then why are we spending the money?
• The economic benefit of having a strong sport fishery in Grays harbor and its tributaries far out weigh the small benefit that harvesting the remaining fish by commercial fisherman.
• Also, the economic impacts do help the local economy in a big way My clients, for a two person trip pay me around $175 a person for a days fishing. Many people come from out of the area, spending money on motels, dinner, lunch and assorted other items plus licensing. This benefits many in the local area. I also try and buy my supplies locally as well as fuel and my licensing. Thanks for taking this into account when looking at fishings impacts to the local economy.
• recreational fishery has more economic value than the commercial fishery (at least that is what your data suggests even though you say that it is not comparable to commercial data), that the commercial gill nets should be in the water one day less than what it was this year.
• it was very clear that future, non-treaty salmon harvests should be guided by the greatest benefit to cost ratio - from the data shared this evening it seems that recreational fishing accounts for far greater revenue to Washington state than does the commercial sector
• Economics we important, look at where the money comes from; you are supporting a welfare system for the GH commercial fleet.
• I am writing to express my interest in the Grays Harbor non treaty gillnet fishery. South Bend Products purchases a large percentage of the harvested fish from Grays Harbor. The fishery produces high quality fish that are marketed throughout the country. Please consider the fact that in addition the income the fishery provides to the fisherman, it provides jobs to on- site buyers and crew, truck drivers, plant workers and office staff. Reduction or elimination of the non-treaty fishery is a reduction of jobs in Gray’s Harbor and Pacific Counties. I would appreciate your consideration of maintaining the non treaty fishing opportunities in Gray’s Harbor.
• The GN licenses actively used are about 50% of those sold. You could cut that by 50% again and you might have viable fishery.
• late 1970-80’s commercial buyback. The commission mandate in state law is to maintain the viability of the fishing industry.
• sport fishery $1.5M, in current dollars is close to $2M.

Hatcheries
• We also need to restore the hatchery production that has been lost.
• Also you have to fertilize the River you have to put the salmon carcasses back in the River to fertilize the River, most of the rivers are stale and dead now because they have not had the salmon carcasses that the bugs need to feed on. Let's revive the rivers. Then also put as many fish in the River as possible. Then it would make no difference whether it was a hatchery fish are wild spawned fish it would be in the River and you'd have as many fish as you need.

• As for the hatchery's put the hatchery's at full speed raise as many fish as possible get them in the River, it doesn't have to be a year later after they have attached, put them in immediately.
• enhancing the Salmon returning to Grays Harbor. I only see maintaining what we have now.

Miscellaneous
• Neither current escapement goal methodology nor eelgrass management practices by WDFW take into account the natural carrying capacity of these bays
• Region 6 has been content to leave goals low and then seldom meet them. In a region which has been satisfied and enjoyed management job security while missing escapement goals for Gray's Harbor and Willapa Bay 9/10 of the time, a culture change would be needed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/14 12:32 PM

As the fall salmon season grows near many have questions around the issue if they will see positive change and equity for inriver sports fishers. Yes but just how is dependent upon the fish, weather, and the rivers natural processes. ( flows / temperature, ect. ) So we wait and in the not to distant future it will play out. So rather than babble on and confuse many ( most including myself ) as the various directives in the new Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) play out we will explain how the guidelines effect Recreational Fishers as the 2014 Fall Salmon season unfolds.

So has the implementation of the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) been a success? From a Non Treaty Commercial Gillnetter perspective I imagine the word terrible comes to mind. From my perspective it has been a tough go but I think yes is the answer. Do issues still exist that need to be addressed? Oh yeah but a good management plan should not only set direction but bring issues forth that need further review.

This exactly what has happened. In my letter to the Commission below I have outlined several issues that for so many years WDF&W simply refused to address and simply ignored them. So now folks we will watch the process unfold as for the first time in decade WDF&W will have to address these issues in public at the Commission level.

It is going to be interesting watch play out to say the least! My thoughts on issues at the moment are outlined in the letter below.



Dear Commissioners,

The months since the Commission adopted the new Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) have been interesting, to say the least. While citizen views are diverse as to the success of the GHMP mine are simple, " it has been 100% successful". Why one may ask? The answer is simple enough. A management plan should not just provide a framework for harvest and set standards to be reached but through utilization of management framework identify issues that require further review. This is exactly what has happened in the implementation of the GHMP again this is not a failure Commissioners but rather a success!

In the adoption of the plan it was made clear by the Commissioners to all the citizens and organizations participating that this was going to be difficult journey as the conservation driven GHMP was implemented. I can say with certainty that has been the case.

In addition the Commission committed to review of the plan to address issues arising from the implementation of the new GHMP. With that in mind Commissioners I wish to bring forth three issues that I feel need to be addressed in the review.

ITEM 1: Humptulips Natural Origin Coho ( NOR )

The Humptulips NOR Coho have not made escapement for 23 consecutive years that I have documentation of and several agency staff believe this is the case since the Humptulips Hatchery began operation. To compound the problem the Hatchery Origin Recruits ( HOR ) Coho numbers spawning went as high as four HOR Coho for every one Natural Origin Recruits ( NOR ) Coho spawning. This year before any harvest the Humptulips NOR Coho would not make escapement even without harvest.

We have been told that the Quinault Indian Nation ( QIN ) sees no issue with this as the combination of NOR and HOR spawning in the gravel combined to make escapement is acceptable. One could reject this position rather easily except there is justification for their position and it exist in the East Fork Satsop River. In the 1990's local volunteers assumed operation of a closed WDF&W facility Satsop Springs and developed programs broodstocking to rebuild Chinook & Chum stocks. Brood is taken, spawned & reared an released on site into river. The returning HOR adults spawn with the NOR adults and broodstocking is utilized to minimize any reuse HOR adults in the egg take.

So how is the issue of Humptulips NOR Coho different from EF Satsop NOR Chinook and Chum? Both are integrated stocks, in fact with the Humptulips HOR staying rates so high for so many years I would venture a guess that the Humptulips Coho hatchery Coho are exactly the same genetically as the NOR spawning Coho. If not for the Chum supplementation by HOR adults it is doubtful EF Satsop Chum would make escapement minus supplementation one generation out and most definitely not two life cycles. I believe that Humptulips NOR Coho need to be high on the review list if not the primary issue.

ITEM 2: Dual Management

We have been told that the QIN has the position that US v Washington ( and other court decisions ) gives them the right to 50% of the harvestable salmonids entering Grays Harbor. That the 50% is applicable to total of streams that enter Grays Harbor. WDF&W on the other hand separate the Humptulips and manage it independent of the bay tributaries and Chehalis River. This results in the model many times ( most ) showing over harvest of either a Chehalis or Humptulips stock. Prior to separating the Humptulips from the Chehalis Basins both WDF&W had the same management plan. It can be said that when both had the same plan it seemed that there was less turmoil.

Additionally we have been told that the QIN asked the question "do the proposed 2014 QIN Commercial seasons violate any court agreed to escapement goals?" To which WDF&W staff responded "no". If the QIN position is correct we have a issue that needs resolution. In my mind the harvest rights of the QIN are court mandated and unchallengeable. So what to do? Model Non Treaty fisheries around the QIN seasons? Continue to move forward and hope the QIN recognizes the validity of the GHMP? Simply put Commissioners this is a co mangers issue and one that citizens can not have much influence on. This is dual management not co management, goes hand and hand with item 1, and needs to be reviewed.

ITEM 3: Wynoochee Mitigation:

Myself, Joe XXXX, and Bill XXXX have been working with Jim Scott, Steve Theisfeld and Region 6 staff to develop a plan to fulfill WDF&W's Wynoochee Mitigation obligations by the end of September as the Commission directed. It was our view that after over two decades of failing to move the Wynoochee Mitigation issue forward it would be difficult but doable. Simply put Commissioners yes we still feel it is doable. As to difficult? That is a understatement of the first order. We believe the task can be completed but I would venture a guess that the issues may push our efforts up against the deadline. Hopefully not but both agency staff and ourselves are attempting to meet the Commission's expectations.

Additional Thoughts 4/3:

One item that will unfold in the next few months is the benefit of the GHMP directive of three consecutive days net free ( 4/3 ). In a recent weeks some have lamented that much of the gains from 4/3 will go to the QIN fishers so 4/3 is a failure. This commissioners is just plain wrong. ANYONE who fishes in river above Aberdeen will benefit greatly. Does this means the QIN set net fishers who fish the tide water reach benefit? In a word yes as the returning salmon will not always clear this reach of the river in three days. While the QIN may gain some benefit the Recreational fishers and the fish itself will reap the greatest benefit.

When one considers that for a decade or more Region 6 utilized the preseason run forecast for inriver recreational fisheries rather than what remained after bay recreational, QIN harvest, and Non Treaty Commercial resulting in inriver recreational fishers only getting approximately half of the season they were entitled to. Frankly Commissioners this whining by those who now must face the issue of equitable distribution of harvest and have been the benefactors of the past practices by Region 6 staff.

In closing let me say again I regard the New GHMP introduction as a huge success. That many in Conservation, Sport, or Commercial camps may disagree depending on their perspective is a given. From my perspective the issues outlined in this correspondence have been present and known for many years by few. The GHMP ended that and required that WDF&W Region 6, QIN, citizens, and user groups address these issues. I, for one, sincerely appreciate the Commissions courage and effort to chart direction for managing Grays Harbor fisheries in a manner that guarantees protection of not just the fish but future generations of harvesters.

Thank You.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/09/14 03:38 PM


In the past weeks I have received questions regarding the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) and just what are a citizens' rights if WDF&W violates the policies put forth by the Commission? One has the right to object to WDF&W in writing from the Director down through the layers of staff. You can also write the Commission and attend Commission meetings and address the issue in the " Public Comment " period of a Commission meeting.

Well and good many feel but that really does not require that WDF&W truthfully and completely address a citizens' concerns. Correct to a point and the Washington State Legislature addressed this by passing the RCW below. ANY citizen who feels that WDF&W has violated a Commission Policy can utilize section two of the RCW below. At the absolute least they have to respond in writing minus the usual smoke & mirror routine. The most you can expect? That the policy is put though the legal process and becomes law which is different than " advisory " as the current GHMP passed by the Commission. WDF&W violate the law and a citizen ( or organization ) can seek to have the courts enforce the law. The legal standards are much different than advisory guidelines the Commission adopts.


RCW 34.05.230
Interpretive and policy statements.

(1) An agency is encouraged to advise the public of its current opinions, approaches, and likely courses of action by means of interpretive or policy statements. Current interpretive and policy statements are advisory only. To better inform and involve the public, an agency is encouraged to convert long-standing interpretive and policy statements into rules.

(2) A person may petition an agency requesting the conversion of interpretive and policy statements into rules. Upon submission, the agency shall notify the joint administrative rules review committee of the petition. Within sixty days after submission of a petition, the agency shall either deny the petition in writing, stating its reasons for the denial, or initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with this chapter.

(3) Each agency shall maintain a roster of interested persons, consisting of persons who have requested in writing to be notified of all interpretive and policy statements issued by that agency. Each agency shall update the roster periodically and eliminate persons who do not indicate a desire to continue on the roster. Whenever an agency issues an interpretive or policy statement, it shall send a copy of the statement to each person listed on the roster. The agency may charge a nominal fee to the interested person for this service.

(4) Whenever an agency issues an interpretive or policy statement, it shall submit to the code reviser for publication in the Washington State Register a statement describing the subject matter of the interpretive or policy statement, and listing the person at the agency from whom a copy of the interpretive or policy statement may be obtained.
[2004 c 31 § 3; 2001 c 25 § 1; 1997 c 409 § 202; 1996 c 206 § 12; 1995 c 403 § 702; 1988 c 288 § 203.]
Notes:
Part headings -- Severability -- 1997 c 409: See notes following RCW 43.22.051.
Findings -- 1996 c 206: See note following RCW 43.05.030.
Findings -- Short title -- Intent -- 1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
Part headings not law -- Severability -- 1995 c 403: See RCW 43.05.903 and 43.05.904.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/14 11:12 AM

Well yesterday was interesting! The Director resigned, the first budget proposal was presented and the Thurston County Court just upheld the lower decision in which the Puget Sound Harvesters Association (gillnetters) argued the 2012 commercial season in Puget Sound was illegal as it did not provide gillnets the same opportunity to fish as purse seiners. The court found that the Department's position that the non-selective nature of gillnets that had higher mortality for bycatch than seines was justification for refusing the gillnetter's request for more fishing opportunity when it passed the season regulation. All in all the total of all three made for a really really bad day for commercial salmon harvesters.

If you want a copy of the decision just PM me and I will get it to you. The budget draft is running in another thread so take a look.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/14 02:20 PM

So, the court said a non-selective gear can, when selectivity is needed, be given less time and fish. Wonder how that would play in Federal Court since fishing gear used (I believe) is a personal choice and not a genetic requirement.
Posted by: wsu

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/14 02:26 PM

That's covered in the opinion. The court (it was actually the state court of appeals upholding Thurston County Superior) held that the gillnetters did not have an equal protection claim under the state or federal constitutions.
Posted by: N W Panhandler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/14 02:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Well yesterday was interesting! The Director resigned, the first budget proposal was presented and the Thurston County Court just upheld the lower decision in which the Puget Sound Harvesters Association (gillnetters) argued the 2012 commercial season in Puget Sound was illegal as it did not provide gillnets the same opportunity to fish as purse seiners. The court found that the Department's position that the non-selective nature of gillnets that had higher mortality for bycatch than seines was justification for refusing the gillnetter's request for more fishing opportunity when it passed the season regulation. All in all the total of all three made for a really really bad day for commercial salmon harvesters.

If you want a copy of the decision just PM me and I will get it to you. The budget draft is running in another thread so take a look.


beer banana banana banana Its at least a three banana day
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/14 02:45 PM

I was not talking about the NT gillnetters.......................
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/14 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Well yesterday was interesting! The Director resigned, the first budget proposal was presented and the Thurston County Court just upheld the lower decision in which the Puget Sound Harvesters Association (gillnetters) argued the 2012 commercial season in Puget Sound was illegal as it did not provide gillnets the same opportunity to fish as purse seiners. The court found that the Department's position that the non-selective nature of gillnets that had higher mortality for bycatch than seines was justification for refusing the gillnetter's request for more fishing opportunity when it passed the season regulation. All in all the total of all three made for a really really bad day for commercial salmon harvesters.


Sounds kinda like a trifecta to me....
Posted by: CedarR

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/14 05:09 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Sounds kinda like a trifecta to me....


One man's trifecta is another man's trifucta. Good to be aligned with truth, justice and wisdom for once!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/14 12:00 PM

Recently WDF&W provided documents regarding the recent reduction in Natural Origin Recruits ( NOR / Wild ) Chinook for streams entering Grays Harbor approved by PFMC. Boiled down this is for the Humptulips and Chehalis Basins and is for the accumulative total of both. WDF&W's position and Commission directive that separates the Humptulips and Chehalis Basins for harvest has not been recognized by the Quinault Nation so we have a issue that needs resolution. Dry reading to be sure but for those that choose to monitor the scientific rational for decisions that effect the salmon resource in Grays Harbor the documents are informative. One thing about it is that the reduction was not conservation driven but rather established a new Maximum Sustained Yield ( MSY ) for Chinook stocks. As the PFMC document is rather long I cannot post it up so if anyone wants a copy PM me and I will send it on to you.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/16/14 10:57 AM

I received the comments below on the QIN proposal and PFMC reduction for the Grays Harbor Chinook escapement goal. I found the comments to be very interesting and well thought out.



There is so much about this issue, and as it pertains across all species.
First, it will be very difficult to directly challenge the analysis. There are established methods and they will be used. Consequently, the answer they get is mathematically defensible. Rather, there is a philosophy that needs to be discussed by WDFW. The following questions need to be dealt with, but ultimately it is a policy choice. And since QIN wants a lower goal.

1. The EDT analysis that CBFTF had done for Grays Harbor identified 12, 692,956 square metres of Fall Chinook spawning area. Giving a pair of Chinook 100 square metres (way more than necessary) gives you 126,930 redds, or 250K+ fish just to use all the habitat. Specifically ask why WDFW does not plan to utilize the available spawning area.

2. If WDFW/QIN choose not to utilize the spawning area (a policy choice) will they identify the non-used areas and direct WDFW-Habitat that HPA's not condition applications for Chinook protection.

3. For Puget Sound chum, WDFW set an escapement goal (purportedly MSY) in the late 1970s. In the 1980s and 90s escapements were significantly higher. In at least one case an order of magnitude. When Ricker curves were run on the wild stocks, in each and every case, the "MSY" goal that was calculated was higher. The goals were left unchanged. The point is that significant increase in escapement can increase MSY.

4. Need to realize that MSY is a somewhat ephemeral concept. Ford Arm coho, in SE AK, is managed at a constant 60% exploitation rate. Because of changes in stream productivity brought about by pink spawners the harvest of fish has ranged from 1,000 to 8,000. At no pinks, the 1,000 catch and approx. 600 spawners was "MSY". At 2 kg per square metre pinks they had 5-8,000 harvest and escapements of 3-5,000 spawners. Again, MSY. So, I would insist that rather than calling whatever they come up with "MSY" that they call it some sort of "sustainable escapement goal".

5. The escapement goal they come up with is only as good as the data. Especially the range of data. If all of the escapements that they look at are (say) under 10,000 then there is no way they will call 250K as MSY. It is terminology and this is a good place to start.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/16/14 11:21 AM

Steve Thiesfeld asked that we spread the word on the opener today.



Good morning everyone,

I’ve heard some rumors that the local paper indicated that marine area 2-2 opened this morning. Just a reminder, the only part of area 2-2 that opened today is the part north of Sand Island towards the Humptulips River. The Chehalis River also opened above Highway 101. All other areas are still closed.

Please help spread the word.

Thanks.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/18/14 02:04 PM

The link is to WDF&W Commercial landings for Willapa. The news is 3240 Chinook / 248 Coho which is the best commercial dip in fishery in recent years. Couple that with the screaming that the gillnetters put forth that they were not getting opportunity one must wonder what reality they live in.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

Edit: They upped the Chinook count a little more yesterday.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/21/14 11:10 AM

Just so all know with out getting myself shot, Willapa is heating up. It appears by Commercial landings that a bunch of fish showed in the last day & a half of the three day dip in fishery. From reports it appears they are still building up but still a lot of Columbia fish in 2T yet and as they peel out the Willapa fish arriving will fill the void. Enjoy guys and it is long overdue!

Well in Grays Harbor no news as to how WDF&W matches up the requirements of the Grays harbor Management Plan and the proposed net seasons. The issue of the Humptulips Wild Coho not making escapement for 23 years is going to come home with a bit of drama somewhere before the Commercial CR 103 is filed. How bad off are we? I do not know as Region 6 has not released the 2014 Harvest Model fully functioning. Yes we have the model but the Summary Tab which allows you to see the impact of all the fisheries has been locked up. ( not useable ) What is known is there is no way no how NOR Humtulips Coho ( wild ) will make escapement before any harvest QIN or Non Treaty. So we have a problem as the GHMP directs that harvest be set with the intent of making escapement.

This guys is a complex issue that with the new GHMP cannot be ignored as WDF&W did for nearly 30 years. The best description I have seen is " WDF&W screwed the pooch so long that there is going to hell to pay". This issue has been right out in the open but most have not taken the time to get their arms around the issue. That the Rec WAC is in place is true but not the Commercial and both can be modified. The Commercial CR 103 is still to come and it is a simple Emergency Rule on the Rec side to change things. So as I have posted before that Grays Harbor has a really big issue and it resides in the Humptulips NOR Coho. ( wild spawners )

This dance is going to be interesting to watch play out as there is not a pain free way out, only varying degrees of pain.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/22/14 09:45 AM

The following is a C&P of a article from the Olympian. Pretty much lays out the issue on culvert repair mandated by the courts. This budget dance for the coming biennium is going to be a dance for the ages!

The Olympian:

Imagine you are driving on the freeway, returning from a long trip, longing with all your heart just to be home. Suddenly you are forced to a complete stop because the freeway is broken and you are facing a 10-foot cliff. There’s no way forward, and as cars pile up behind you, no way back.

That’s pretty close to what a salmon experiences when, returning to its native stream from its long journey out to sea, it confronts an impassable culvert under a highway. Every cell in its body is consumed by the desire to go upstream; that is the life goal of every salmon. If it can’t go upstream to spawn, it can’t perpetuate its species.

According to the Washington Department of Transportation, there are 1,987 barriers to fish passage in the state highway system. As of 2013, 285 fish passage projects have unblocked 971 miles of potential upstream fish habitat. But a U. S. District Court injunction has mandated that 1,014 more be corrected by 2030.
Failing to correct culverts that block fish passage violates the treaty rights of tribes whose way of life depends on healthy salmon runs. Treaties are, by definition, the supreme law of the land. We like to think that the days of breaking treaties with Indian tribes are in the past, but the sad fact is we’re stilling doing it – and the result is the same as it has always been: broken treaties threaten the survival of tribal culture and livelihood, as well as the extinction of wild salmon.
Culvert repair is part of the state’s transportation budget – or would be, if the legislature could muster the political will to actually pass a transportation budget, which it has repeatedly failed to do. And even if and when a transportation budget is passed, there will be intense pressure to put the transportation needs of people ahead of the needs of fish and treaty rights.

The Washington Department of Transportation estimates the cost of complying with the federal court injunction – which applies only to tribes in Western Washington – at $2.4 billion, or $310 million per biennium. In the current biennium, they will spend $36 million. At this rate, it will take centuries, not decades, to complete this work.

Secretary of WSDOT Lynn Peterson wryly describes the federal court injunction as “Transportation’s McCleary decision,” a reference to the state Supreme Court order for the Legislature to fully fund public education, even if it means taking truly drastic action, such as closing down other state agencies. When a federal court orders the state to do something – in this case, obey treaties – the state surely ought to heed the injunction.

We understand the Legislature’s dilemma. Voters hate taxes. Legislators like to get re-elected. But when both state and federal courts rule that we’re not meeting our obligations to the next generation of children or of salmon, it ought to be a wake up call. Both legislators and voters must recognize that it’s time to move beyond our own self-interest, and to do what’s right for our children, the tribes, and the salmon.

Read more here: COURTS & CULVERTS
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/22/14 11:00 AM

Just to give the Leg some options, maybe the court could tell WA to fix the culverts by 2030, with annual budgets of $310+million or give all anadromous salmonid harvest to the Tribes. Give the Leg a choice. If they choose to take the NI share of salmon as unfixed culverts, development, closed hatcheries, lower taxes then fine.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/22/14 12:45 PM

Would this be a good time to start making the Tribes subject to the same gas, tobacco, and liquor taxes as the rest of us (at the very least off reservation lands)? I don't think that would violate any treaty rights.... They benefit from the same highways blocking fish passage - shouldn't they share in the pain of fixing them? I'll admit this wouldn't come close to bridging the budget gap, but it wouldn't hurt the cause a bit.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/14 03:50 PM

Time for strange one of the week. One of the guys spotted a dead fish in the Wynoochee and upon inspection it turned out to be a Chum. Bright showing light stripes it is way early to say the least. In addition others have spotted them with the clear water. So what gives? The run is usually last of October first week of November and they come through the bay regardless of flows. The movement on the tides has been unusual as the fish that showed really did not look like Chinook ( which should be around ) or Coho. So we have the answer but it is a strange one.
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/14 04:16 PM

Summer chum stray. . They are in hood canal and other PS rivers right now..granted I don't think the GH area has a summer chum run at all or if it ever even did but that's not to say they can't be strays from the wrong side of the mountains
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/14 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Time for strange one of the week. One of the guys spotted a dead fish in the Wynoochee and upon inspection it turned out to be a Chum. Bright showing light stripes it is way early to say the least. In addition others have spotted them with the clear water. So what gives? The run is usually last of October first week of November and they come through the bay regardless of flows. The movement on the tides has been unusual as the fish that showed really did not look like Chinook ( which should be around ) or Coho. So we have the answer but it is a strange one.




Not unheard of. I caught a chum, colored, in the lower Nooch mid-August several years ago. Could be as simple as a messed up biological clock that told it to enter a month or two early.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/14 05:46 PM

iv'e seen them in the nooch mid august before... one year there was a small school of them hanging out in the deep hole..
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/14 10:11 PM

Might be a small population of summers. Just because they aren't "officially" recognized doesn't mean they don't exist. And, as noted above, fish stray. Which is how areas get colonized.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/14 02:10 PM

Recently some have inquired as to how to make a Public Document Request. ( PDR ) It is rather simple really and then not so simple all at the same time. So here are my guidelines I developed for myself in the past two years.

First: Ask once politely in writing for the information you need. Direct the correspondence to the Regional staffer you feel has the information. Wait two weeks.

Second: Again ask politely in writing for the information you need. Direct the correspondence to the Regional staffer you feel has the information. Wait three weeks.

Third: Write a PDR request for the information and the example below has the contact person and address. Now keep it simple and as direct as possible but one needs to make sure you do not leave a gap ( wiggle room ) or you can bet your sweet bippy they will be misunderstanding or reinterpreting your request. Not the PDO officer below but rather the staff that did not want to respond in the first place. Another issue with WDF&W is the fact that when the state legislature appropriated funding for implementing the PDR process it appears they did the minimum possible ( and I mean minimum ) to comply. This has now created the issue for WDF&W staff to even find the electronic documents requested. Paper documents? The farther back in time your request goes the greater the difficulty as WDF&W did not code or utilize a tracking system for documents.

Now one does not want to throw to wide of a loop as then you will get a paper blizzard. What is a paper blizzard? You get the documents your really after buried among hundreds to thousands of other documents to sort through which is known as " dumpster diving ". The agency your requesting information from does not have to make it easy for you.

My final rule is get somebody to help / look over your work. For years I used my wife, now my brother. Two sets of eyes are better than one and even better if you know a retired agency staffer who will help you out and I have that one three times over.

It is your right as a citizen to require a government entity to make documents available to the public ( the exception being attorney / client documents ) but one should not abuse the right. On the other hand you're not required to accept blindly the utter BS that comes out of agency staffers and lord those folks know how to shovel fertilizer! One final thing is all state documents are Microsoft programs ( a few exceptions like Adobe exist ) so if your a Mac person get ready as the PC v Apple thing is still hanging around! Oh almost forgot. Make sure your complete contact information is provided on the request. ( cell / home phone / email / snail mail )



June 19, 2014

Theresa Gibbs
Public Disclosure Officer
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1099
1111 Washington Street S.E., Olympia, WA 98504


This is a request for public records. Please forward to me in electronic form any and all communication records of any kind that were created, transmitted or received by the Department, its staff, or the Fish & Wildlife Commission related to the following:

1. Development, adoption or implementation of the new fisheries policy for Grays Harbor that was adopted by the WDF&W Commission (POL-C3621) that were transmitted or received from the date of adoption (February 8, 2014) to July 19, 2014;

2. The creation, drafting, filing, or processing of the 2014 Grays Harbor fall commercial fishing season that were transmitted or received from March 6, 2013 to July 19, 2014.

3. Co-management in Grays Harbor with the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) of fishing harvest including, but not limited to, any tribal or non-tribal seasons proposed or considered by either the Department or the QIN that were transmitted or received between January 1, 2013 to July 19, 2014.

“Communication records” includes, but are not limited to, any voice mails, text messaging, emails, letters, meeting minutes, conversation notes, created, transmitted, received, or acquired.

Feel free to contact me if you have a need for any clarification.

Sincerely




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/14 04:52 PM

A reminder for all. Tomorrow at 1:00 to 3:00 at the Region 6 offices in Montesano is the hearing for the Grays Harbor CR 102 Commercial Season WAC. This is the last time one has a opportunity to put your comments into the legal record regarding the Grays Harbor gillnet season.

A public hearing will take place on August 26, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Region 6 Fish and Wildlife Office, Conference Room
48 Devonshire Rd., Montesano, WA 98563
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/27/14 01:46 PM


The Commission will have a conference call meeting Thursday and for many item B regarding the 2015 budget is important. So here is the press release.



Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife


Fish and Wildlife Commission
SPECIAL MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT MEETING via CONFERENCE CALL
Agenda

WHEN: Thursday, September 4, 2014 – 8:30 A.M.

WHAT:
A. Advisory Committee to the Commission for Persons with Disabilities Member Selection for Open Positions – Decision
The Commission will consider candidates for open positions on the Advisory Committee for Persons with Disabilities. Panel members will present the results of candidate interviews and make recommendations for final selection.

B. 2015 Operating Budget Request - Decision
Department staff will brief the Commission and request approval for the agency’s operating budget proposals.

C. 2015 Legislative Proposals – Decision
Department staff will brief the Commission and request approval for the agency’s 2015 legislative proposals.

D. Meeting Minute Approval – Decision
The Commission will consider approval of meeting minutes.
• August 15, 2014 – conference call

E. Wolf Management Update – Briefing
Department staff will brief the Commission on recent wolf management activities.

F. General Discussion
The Commissioners and Director will discuss recent activities and items of interest.

*WHERE:
This meeting will take place by telephone conference call. The public may listen to the discussion on speakerphone by coming to the Commission Office at the Department of Fish and Wildlife headquarters, Natural Resources Building, 5th Floor, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia or one of the Regional Offices. If you plan to come to one of the offices to listen to the conference call please contact Commission staff at (360) 902- 2267 so we can ensure adequate space is available.







Upcoming Meetings
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/29/14 11:12 AM

The information below was provided by Brandon and he is working to get funding to upgrade the South Monte boat launch. The attachments I can send anyone if they would like to have them just send a PM to me or Brandon. I have not reviewed the information completely yet but at first look it appears to be a worthy effort.


I have attached the proposed improvements we would like to make to South Montesano. I have also attached a "rough draft" of a presentation just to give you a better idea of what the proposed project looks like and what the RCO Grant panel will be scoring. The main features that we are revamping is a brand new double boat ramp that is protected by a concrete articulated mat known as "armor flex." The new style ramps that we want to install are a vast improvement in design, longevity, and durability compared to the current ramps. Also, another main feature of the site redevelopment is the installation of a new CXT vault toilet.
As you will see in the pdf attachment of the rco presentation, there are hardly any words on the slides. That is how RCO wants the slides to look and my job is to "present" the slides so all wording is by mouth rather than written. I will give you a breakdown of what is happening in each slide. I hope this provides you with the information you're seeking.

Slide #1- Title
#2- Map
#3- Current ramp condition is very poor, especially during low tides
#4- Another view of the current ramps
#5- A shot of the busted culvert that we will replace to improve drainage of the parking lot
#6- A graph showing visitor use (before fishing season. These numbers will sky rocket soon.) Also, the current toilet
#7- An arial view of the site and its close proximity to the amenities provided by the town of Montesano
#8- The existing site as it stands today
#9- The proposed site plan with an example of the new toilet and new ramp
#10- Cost benefit of making these improvements (again, this is a rough draft)
#11- How the improvements will improve overall boating experience ( the grant category is "Boating Facilities Program," so the goal is to prove that the project will increase the boating experience and attract more boaters, which in return, creates more revenue for future projects.)
#12- A timeline to show we are ready to take on this project

Again, thank you for your interest in this project. If I can do anything else for you, please let me know.
Respectfully,
Brandon Troyer
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/29/14 02:46 PM

As the dance over the fall salmon season continues the following comments were submitted. I will look around for some commercial input but I think that will have to wait until the Concise Explanatory Statement is released addressing comments from citizens regarding the Non Treaty Commercial CR 102. The one thing that is clear at the minute is Grays Harbor has a new conservation driven management plan and the QIN view that they have court directed to access to 50% of hatchery plus wild for the total of Grays Harbor combined and do not recognize the separation of the Humptulips and Chehalis Basins. Two trains traveling at high speed on the same tracks in opposite directions. Going to be one hell of a collision someplace some how, soon.


Dear Mr. Thiesfeld:

RE: Revised comments to GH Commercial Proposal


The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy offers the following as a supplement to the comments filed earlier related to the Department’s proposed commercial gillnet season in Grays Harbor. We provide additional comments, revise an option, and add an additional recommendation for consideration while maintaining our position the proposal is contrary to legislative mandates and the new policy passed recently by the Commission.

The new policy for Grays Harbor adopted by the Commission states any season set by the Department must intend on reaching escapement goals for natural spawning and hatchery Chinook in the Chehalis after consideration of the impacts of both, tribal and non-tribal seasons. Therefore, the maximum impacts of the season cannot rise beyond a level where the fish available for harvest drops below zero as a minus number of fish remaining reflects the number expected to be short of the escapement goal.

In its previous presentation on the proposed NT net season for Grays Harbor, the Advocacy raised the issue that the harvest model showed the combined harvest of all users resulted in only 184 natural spawning Chinook and -120 hatchery fish remaining for harvest for a combined number of 63 left above the escapement goal. Since the Commission policy states the season has to intend on reaching escapement goals for hatchery and wild Chinook, the minus number of hatchery fish found in the harvest model shows the season proposed by the Department is not intended to reach escapement goals and the Department is fully aware of that fact. Additionally, the Advocacy felt that the use of an assumed 90% compliance rate for selective fishing and an assumed catch by the Chehalis Tribe tied to the court set formula of its treaty rights was flawed and held great potential to underestimate the harvest impacts far beyond the 63 fish remaining. If corrected, the Advocacy believes the harvest model would likely show a minus figure for both natural spawners and hatchery and the season was not expected to reach escapement goals.

On the Friday before the hearing set for Tuesday, August 26, 2014, the Department provided the public with a revised season model with changes to the summary tab. While the Department improved its presentation by listing the changes it had made, the email cover for delivery did not provide any rationale for the changes or disclose the effects of said changes. The Advocacy has not had the time or information available to confirm the rationale or effect of the changes.

However, in our attempt to do a review of the changes we have located what Advocacy believes at

this point are flaws or errors in the model that if confirmed, likely further underestimate the impact of the commercial season proposed on Chehalis Chinook. The problem could exceed the 63 fish number by a significant amount on its own. This new concern, in combination with the 2 concerns listed previously reinforces the Advocacy's believe that the commercial season proposed does not rise to the standard of the new policy that requires the season adopted have an intention of meeting escapement goals.

The problem with these assumptions and potential modeling errors are truly significant. As an example, consider the results if the Department inserted the Chehalis Tribal assumption in a similar manner for the QIN. If the Department "assumed" the Quinault season would only result in impacts tied to the formula in U.S. v- Washington (Boldt) of 50% of the available harvest across the bar, the harvest model would reduce the expected QIN impacts on Chehalis Chinook for this proposed commercial season by 4,270 fish. The 63 fish in the model would grow to 4,333 remaining above the escapement goal. Add the modeling error and Chehalis tribal assumption and that number could grow significantly further. The problem is simply underestimating commercial nets seasons only serves to create "paper fish" in the model and while the model is “tricked” into accepting the season proposed, paper fish cannot spawn in the gravel.

In the Advocacy’s earlier presentation, Option 2 stated “The only other means available to convert the season into a proposal we could support is to remove the fishing in either week 40 or 44. This would lower the number of impacts on natural spawning Chinook to provide a buffer against harvest undermining the escapement goal for the Chehalis.” Now that the Advocacy has been provided the revised summary tab in the planning model, we amend this option to say, “….into a proposal we could support is to remove the fishing in both week 40 and 44.

If adopted, the proposed season will likely create controversy and distrust between the public and either the Commission or tribal co-management

The Advocacy has steadfastly tried to avoid the annual allocation battle between the nets and the poles. However, a primary goal of the Advocacy is to encourage all the citizens to manage and share natural resources for the benefit of future generations. The proposed season sets the stage for a controversy that will have lasting impacts on the public image of the Department and Commission. It will also likely further complicate the troubled relationship between non-tribal fishers and the co- managers representing the interests of the tribes. As a result, the Advocacy has no choice but to comment on the Department’s proposed allocation, which comes in the form of the proposed non- treaty net season.

The proposed season by the Department creates an overwhelming share of the harvest to the commercial sector. While federal courts have mandated the Department honor tribal fishing rights, the non-treaty commercial fisheries holds no such right to fish. The Department’s legislative
mandate states, “In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state1.”

Since the tribal fishers are also citizens of the state and large segment of the fishing industry, the economic well-being and stability of the industry is assured by the tribal commercial seasons without



1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012

the installation of yet a third gillnet season into the same river. The recreational sector has repeatedly pointed out a net is a net regardless of a tribal affiliation or not. More importantly, the tributaries of Grays Harbor simply don’t have enough fish available this year to fill those non-treaty nets without undermining the effort all have engaged in trying to find season that meets escapement goals.

The Department’s proposed season fails to recognize the effect of the Boldt decision and tries to once again “shoe-horn” a non-treaty gillnet season into the already crowded calendar. In doing so, similar to the experience in nearby Willapa where no tribal nets are in play, the Department is in essence promoting an allocation between nets and poles that is extremely lopsided in favor of commercial nets. Combined, the harvest model provided by WDFW shows the Department is promoting a season that will result in the three net seasons taking 79.4% of the Chinook, 76.8% of the Coho and 97% of the Chum in Grays Harbor and its tributaries.


Harvest Sector
Chinook
Coho
Chum
Commercial Nets (Tribal & Non-Tribal)
8,845
54,663
23,495

Recreational
2,299
16,506
732

Commercial Percentage
79.4%
76.8%
97.0%

Recreational Percentage
20.6%
23.2%
3.0%


If adopted, the current NT net season is destined to create tensions between the recreational sector and either the Commission or tribal fishers if not both. Especially if the Department decides to utilize emergency rules to close down recreational opportunities to protect escapement goals as the season progresses.

It is noteworthy that the Department seems to have spent much of its effort trying to “wiggle through cracks” to avoid the policy in an effort to maximize a season for the non-treaty nets. At the same time, the Department reported on numerous attempts to get meetings with the Quinaults whom were apparently not overly excited about sitting down with the Department. Not all that surprising since the obvious purpose of the meeting appeared to be an attempt to convince the tribal managers to pony up some of the tribe’s fishing rights so the Department could use their fish to extend the season for the non-tribal nets. Regardless, the tribe simply stayed the course and remained on its long announced season set to match its treaty rights. To argue that the QIN somehow “sucked up all the state’s fish” is simply not correct.

The stage is now set for the phase commonly known as “the search for the guilty” which will begin immediately upon the Department announcing inseason adjustments that cut back recreational opportunities to protect natural spawning stocks. That will be followed by the next step “Prosecution

of the innocent” when the finger gets pointed at the Commission for passing the policy or the tribes for insisting on fishing to the limit of their court awarded treaty rights.

The Advocacy believes the real root of the problem rests within the Department, not the Commission or the tribal interests. WDFW’s season setting procedures and its historical reliance on using the NT commercial gillnet season to equalize harvest between tribal and non-tribal fisheries has created a large level of distrust for the Department.

This year is a prime example. The Commission policy was passed on February 8, 2014. The QIN provided its proposed season to the Department in April. The Department then set the recreational season limiting the impacts of the recs to insure room would be available for the non-treaty commercial nets. From that point forward the Department has been in a “full court press” trying to provide the maximum season possible for its commercial license holders.

To this day, neither the QIN nor the recreational sector actually knows what the non-treaty net season will be. Then once adopted, whether inseason adjustments will be used to extend the NT commercial season even further is unknown to any outside the Department. Any consideration of conservation during this process by either the recreational sector or the tribal co-management was likely limited as the historical management practice of the Department has been “all paper fish must die”. Those that considered giving up some of their harvest impacts were taught those fish would not get back to spawning grounds but rather used to expand the season for the NT nets.

Lower returns of natural spawning Chinook in the Chehalis and Coho in the Hump create a shortfall early in the season and then later in the season. Then the shortfall spreads through both major tributaries. As a result, the tributaries of Grays Harbor simply don’t have enough fish for three commercial net seasons concentrated where all those troubled stocks must travel.

The risk that the commercial non-treaty net season will over-fish the gravel or create confrontation between the public and either the Commission or tribal co-managers creates a negative that far exceeds the small economic value delivered to a handful of commercial license holders. The commercial license holders have the ability to use their commercial license in the Columbia where the opportunity is one of the largest returns in history and in addition, use their recreational license to fish local waters the same as all the rest of the citizens.

Recommendation #3

The Advocacy adds a third recommendation to its initial presentation and grants this recommendation its highest priority.

The insistence of the Department to try and install such an ill-advised season has created a “mine- field that is difficult to cross” for the Commission, public, and tribal co-managers. As a result, the Advocacy recommends the following actions in 2014:

1. As quickly as possible, announce elimination of the non-treaty commercial gillnet season in Grays Harbor for 2014 and redirect the commercial NT fleet to the Columbia;

2. Revisit the recreational season to determine if the recreational season could be amended or modified to increase harvest by the pole as a means to increase harvest within the state’s

sector and balance the scale with the tribal sector while utilizing the ability of recreational fishers to fish selectively, move geographically, and modify gear to limit impacts on troubled wild spawning stocks that have been failing to reach escapement goals.

The bottom line is any imbalance in the fishing between the state’s sector and the treaty tribe sector should not be laid at the feet of the QIN, as it simply hasn’t changed it practices. The Department has the tool (recreational season) it needs to enable the non-tribal side an ability to increase harvest while still avoiding troubled stocks. Such is simply not available if WDFW tries to continue using a sledgehammer to drive a square peg (non-selective NT nets) into a round hole (not enough fish to go around). If it moves in this direction, the Department takes the high road and assures the QIN that it will not attempt to undermine its treaty rights by moving any fish they leave on the table over to the non-treaty nets.

While the commercial sector will question our position and likely continue to claim we favor the recreational sector, this recommendation is directed toward encouraging the Department to use the tools available within each sector that provides the ability to maximize harvest while still attaining escapement goals. In a time with limited fishing opportunity, the sector that can fish selectively with the least impact on struggling stocks is the appropriate selection. The sector that utilizes gear type with the highest level of geographical mobility for avoidance and the least mortality of bycatch that are encountered should be rewarded by increased catch. Granting seasons to those who choose not to fish selectively creates a disincentive to adapt and evolve fishing gear and technics.

The Advocacy has a stated goal of helping the Department restore public confidence in the processes used to set seasons. Adoption of this third commercial net season at this point in time paints the Department into a corner regarding its conservation mandates. The recent PDR request by Advocacy found no preparation by the Department for a procedure to use inseason adjustments to rein in the NT nets if the combined harvest appears to be undermining escapement goals. To the contrary, the PDR located drafts showing the Department has revised and enhanced its ability to use inseason adjustments to curtail the recreational season as it did last year in the bay rec fishery. If the recreational sector that started out with a small piece of the harvest is suddenly asked to hang up its poles while the nets are in the river, the reaction will be extremely negative. One example would be curtailing rec opportunity in the Hump to protect natural spawning Coho. In the Chehalis, the same for the Satsop or above Oakville to protect Chinook.

The Advocacy believes this recommendation will minimize the potential for public outcry and finger pointing. It sets the stage wherein it’s up to the QIN to decide whether to meet all of us in the middle of the road and talk through any differences of opinion on conservation standards. The long-term value of this factor should not be overlooked. The public, whether a tribal or non-tribal citizen, needs and deserves to see improvement in the co-management process created under U.S. v- Washington.



Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/01/14 10:26 AM


I thought I would post up this bit from FTC as most folks do not know were we are in this season setting thing. So ..........

As we progress down the road to the fall salmon season many have asked if the seasons are set. In a word NO. A number of issues are out and about creating a rather confusing landscape of issues. So here are a few to chew on.

Humptulips Natural Origin Recruits ( NOR / wild ) Coho: The new Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) requires that harvest be managed for NOR spawners and the Humptulips NOR Coho have not made escapement for over 23 years or more. In past years the both the state & QIN counted the hatchery strays as part of the NOR escapements which the GHMP says is not allowed. This year before harvest the Humptulips NOR Coho would not make escapement so both the proposed QIN, Non Treaty Commercial, and Rec harvest proposed for Humptulips NOR Coho violate the GHMP. We have a problem.

Add to the mix that the Quinault Indian Nation ( QIN ) does not recognize the removal of the hatchery strays for NOR spawners and you have a big disagreement. Couple this with the fact that on the Satsop that WDF&W has depended on the hatchery strays to make escapement for NOR Chinook & Chum in the Satsop and you have the agency counting escapement two different ways. We have a problem.

If the water was not muddy enough then add this. The QIN have been supporting the Humptulips hatchery with $25,000 in funding to replace the lost state funding last budget cut. I really doubt that would have happened if the QIN had been advised that while they help pay the bills the new GHMP would not allow them to harvest their share. We have a problem.

3/5 Penalty Box: Simply put the GHMP directs that if you have failed to make escapement on a stock ( Chinook / Coho / Chum each cumulative for the Chehalis Basin individually ) you can have no directed harvest. In addition the GHMP did not have the 3/5 start date as 2014 but rather directed 2009 has the starting point. Well we failed to make the 3 / 5 so no keeping Chinook and Catch and Release only. That was easy but not what is next.

The QIN petitioned and documented to the Pacific Fisheries Management Council ( PFMC ) a rational for reducing the Chinook escapement goal for NOR Chinook. Well surprise PFMC accepted the lower escapement goal meaning 6996 fish available for harvest with the states share being 3498. Add that the QIN does not accept 3 / 5 applying to their fisheries and we have the start of a problem.

So the QIN presented to WDF&W their proposed season in the first week of April and at this point WDF&W had several options available to pursue. One option would be go back to the Commission identify the issue and ask the Commission to change the 3 / 5 start date to 2014 to allow a inriver and bay recreational retain Chinook fishery. The combined bay and inriver recreational fisheries could have taken the state's share of the Chinook but WDF&W chose not to take this approach. At this point it must be understood that legal processes must be adhered to and it would have required the Commissions blessing and hearings but it was doable in May & June dependant on the Commission's decision.

Instead agency staff devoted their efforts into trying to shoe horn in a non treaty net commercial season. So now it is August and the QIN have no idea of what the actual state Rec & Net seasons will look like. The opportunity for the Commission to utilize the formal process has passed, the NT Nets Chinook impacts are limited by the GHMP ( thank god ) and the state's share of harvest of Chehalis Chinook will likely not be harvested by the state fishers, as the proposed NT Chinook impacts are at the GHMP limiter for NT Commercial. The GHMP limits the impacts on Chinook by the NT Nets " Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook when the impact of the recreational fishery is equal to or greater than 4.2%. The impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery may be less than 0.8% when conservation concerns for natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook result in a less than 4.2% impact rate in the recreational fishery." Simply put WDF&W just cannot get its arms around the thought that the Rec fishers CAN utilize the state's share of Chinook. The QIN DID NOT take part of the states share but rather just accepted the gift of additional Chinook in their harvest as the state refused to utilize the Recs to access harvestable Chinook. We have a problem.

The Harvest Model: I am not sure one can even explain this unholy piece of crap and what has happened. Let us try this. Will the QIN take more than its share? Yes. Did the QIN do anything wrong? Nope they just proposed a season and waited, and waited, and waited for the state. Are the QIN being unreasonable? Heavens yes but they are not required to be reasonable. Did the state have options? Yes outlined above.

So again what happened? Well first the QIN staff can read folks and they aren't stupid so once the GHMP was approved by the Commission they simply found the US v Washington / Boldt boundaries and started there as they have for years. WDF&W spent its efforts on attempting to shoe horn a NT Net season which did not fit rather than turn loose the Rec fishers. So frankly many will point to the QIN as the problem and while they do NOT help the situation ( and made it worse ) it was WDF&W's rejection of a viable Rec option that steered the fish to the QIN harvest.

To make it worse the harvest model does not reflect the fish caught before any user. If you change the NT Nets schedule as I did dropping them in seven days a week twice the NT Net numbers change but not the QIN. Think of it this way. If the Rec fishers are allowed to take 3500 Chinook in the model the QIN harvest would be less for Chinook as they were removed before reaching the 2A QIN fishers but it is not reflected by the model. One way or the other fish are being counted twice or more and charged to the QIN harvest. At this minute nobody outside of the QIN and hopefully WDF&W staff know what the true impacts of the proposed combined seasons are. We have a problem.

So what we have is the QIN will get more than its share, which it will be unless you want NT Nets in the river resulting in seven days a week gillnetting OR allow the Rec's to harvest the fish. This refusal by WDF&W to recognize the value of the Rec fishery and pander to commercial interest pretty much sets the stage. The other issue is this " Indian v White Guy " thing. The refusal of WDF&W to accept the court mandated QIN and Chehalis Tribal fisheries as the commercial fisheries is killing us. WDF&W in April had options and again the agency CHOSE this outcome by refusing to recognize the value of the Rec fishers.

So it is August and the QIN appear to be coming out a head in the numbers by default as the states side to failed access its share. That the GHMP would result in issues as it was implemented was always there as we transitioned to a conservation driven harvest plan not supported by the QIN. The Commission was very forthright and at the hearings stated that it was going to be both difficult and painful. It did not have to be as painful as it will be but again WDF&W chose this scenario. We have a problem.

QIN Seasons: http://quinaultindiannation.com/fishingregs.htm
Posted by: RB3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/02/14 09:06 PM

Impressive season...
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/14 11:31 AM

Pretty frustrating to read the QIN schedule. It's only a little worse than last year, but at least last year we got almost all of September to fish without nets in the river. As Rivrguy pointed out in the post above, they're only doing what the law allows them to do when WDFW refuses to allocate vacated impacts to the recreational side.

Really don't like the 5-day QIN fishery in mid-October. Haven't seen them go beyond 4 days during what they call their salmon season in recent memory. Disappointing, to say the least.

Also not fond of the fact they are allowed to retain white sturgeon. Questionable ethics, IMO, considering the generally depressed state of the Columbia stocks these days.

My assessment is that while the QIN may be operating legally, they're not doing so with any legitimate concern for conservation.

Depending on whether there is a NT commercial season in GH, this may still be a better year for sport opportunity (overall, on coho) than last. We can still hope for that....
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/14 12:04 PM

I was told yesterday that in the next TWO weeks that the sports fishing season could see a major cut back.. anyone hear that????
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/14 12:22 PM

I haven't heard anything with regard to what might happen, but it feels like something might be coming. One scenario that's not hard to imagine would be a partial or full closure of the rec bay fishery in 2-2 to protect NOR Humptulips Coho. That's the one rec fishery (besides the wide open one on the ocean, that is) with a potential for incidental impact to that limiting stock. That would also do the most to spite the sport fisherfolk who have put in most of the work on the new GHMP....
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/14 03:30 PM

Just came out.....

Fishing Rule Change
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Sept. 3, 2014

Change to boundary in North River closure area in Willapa Bay

Action: Closed to recreational fishing in waters north of a line from Toke Point channel marker 3 easterly through Willapa Harbor channel marker 13 (green) then, northeasterly to the power transmission pole located at 46°43.19'N, 123°50.83'W are closed.

Location: Willapa Bay Marine Area 2-1.

Effective dates: Immediately, through Sept. 20, 2014.

Species affected: Salmon.

Daily limits: Daily limit six fish, of which no more than three may be adult salmon. Release wild chinook.

Reason for action: The Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet had been published prior to rules being adopted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Other information: Anglers should refer to the Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet for other ongoing fishing opportunities.

Information Contacts: Mike Scharpf (360) 249-1205, Mike.scharpf@dfw.wa.gov or Steve Thiesfeld (360) 249-1201, Steve.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov .
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/14 04:13 PM

ok now im wondering whats going to change in the Chehalis basin?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/14 04:50 PM

They also corrected the retain Chum error in the pamphlet ( you can keep them ) and took the nets from retain all to tangle net. The landings thus far indicate that the NT Nets went way into the natural escapement.

On GH something will give to be sure as the seasons put forth so far violate the GHMP. After that no one knows outside WDF&W what the guys & gals in blue are going to do.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/09/14 02:40 PM

A agency maintenance worker is attempting to seek funding to redo the South Monte boat launch. Brando Troyer is the gentleman's name and he could use some support. He e mailed me his project description and the plans so if anyone is interested in supporting his effort PM me and I will forward the information. It is a worthy effort.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/14 09:20 AM



The E mail below is notification of a " research " fishery in Willapa along with the attachment which is the flyer for commercials. Do I see anything wrong with it? Not really except for this itty bitty thing. This was the same thing Ron Warren & Kirt Hughes did a bit back in 2T with five or so boats and then wella next year the entire commercial fleet was put in to 2T. So take it with a grain of salt as not being honest is a long standing tradition with WDF&W staff. Oh yes almost forgot. WDF&W staff DO NOT regard the withholding of information that would lead one to the correct impression rather than the one they would like you to have as being dishonest so your choice here. From my seat I think Steve is being forthright but remember he is only a phone call or e mail from a superior and wella everything put out is BS. So I will run with it but with this disclaimer. What is written below IS NOT the whole story and let us wait and see how long it takes for them to put out the whole story.



The Department of Fish and Wildlife has been interested in advancing the use of alternative, selective commercial fishery gear throughout the state. During this year’s North of Falcon meetings, we received 2 requests for the ability to fish with traps in Willapa Bay. Under current state law, the agency cannot issue permits for traps except under an “experimental” or “emerging” fishery. There is a fair bit of work to implement these types of fisheries and I have been unable to complete that work this summer.

However, we still have an opportunity to gather some useful information from this year. One piece of information that would be helpful to collect for moving forward with selective gear, is the wild to hatchery ratio and stock composition in the area with the highest production of hatchery Chinook, the Nemah River. To that end, the Department is seeking to collect that data from Chinook around the mouth of the Nemah River. This research project is certainly a small step towards understanding how alternative gear could fish in Willapa Bay. But it is a positive step.

The Department will be seeking interest from commercial fishers to collect Chinook in the area east of a line from Needle Point to Ramsey Point, very near the mouth of the Nemah River. We will be conducting this project on Friday, September 12th from 5 am to 5 pm. The project will be conducted by one boat only. That boat will utilize small mesh gill net gear to collect Chinook. All unmarked Chinook will be placed in a recovery box and released. The project will cease if 20 unmarked Chinook are captured (and released). A WDFW employee will be on board as an observer.

We are seeking interest from commercial fishers and will randomly select one fisher from qualified fishers that express interest. Please see the attached document for more details. Interested fishers should contact myself or Ron Warren ((360) 902-2799) by noon on Thursday, September 11.

I realize that this is very short notice and that most of the commercial fleet is on the water as I type this. I apologize for the rush. Feel free to share among the interested parties. I look forward to folks support as we move forward and make at least a small step towards selective gears. We did have an opportunity to discuss this proposal with the Willapa Bay Salmon Advisors and received the support of those that were part of the discussion.

Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,

Steve Thiesfeld



AND THE FLYER:

Nemah Research Project

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking a commercial gillnet fisher to take part in a research project for salmon at the mouth of the Nemah River in a limited portion of Willapa Bay.

Due to the number of fish returning to the Nemah River, the department can conduct this research project in waters that historically have been closed to fishing.

WDFW is using this opportunity to better understand the salmon stock composition for the area east of a line from Needle Point to Ramsey Point. A portion of this area has been closed to commercial fishing for an extended period.

A WDFW observer, who will accompany the commercial fisher, will note whether each fish caught is a hatchery or wild salmon, take scale samples to determine age, and collect coded wire tags.

Commercial fishers will need to use shorter and shallower gill nets suitable for fishing in shallow waters. This may include shallower draft boats.

The research project will be conducted up to 12 hours, 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Friday, September 12 or until a maximum of 20 wild fish are encountered. Interested fishers should contact Ron Warren at ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov with their proposals by September 11, noon 12 p.m., or if fishers have questions you can contact Ron at (360) 902-2799.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/14 12:47 PM

Just a couple of thoughts . . .

Are wild coho expected to be in the area in any abundance? I'm guessing not since Willapa has traditionally been managed as a hatchery wipe out fishery with little to no regard to wild salmon.

I think the gillnet boat will have to fish very tight to the mouth of the Nemah, rather than the broader limit of Needle Point to Ramsey Point if they actually intend to avoid wild Naselle chinook. I don't have a WB chart, but chinook would be expected to hug the edge of the thalweg channel which could lie inside the specified fishing boundary line.

Then there is this over-riding thought: WDFW needs to come to terms with a long-term management outlook for WB. Having it both ways - hatchery wipe out and wild stock preservation - is mutually exclusive. Keep with tradition, managing for hatchery stocks and end up with ESA listings, or actually manage for wild stocks, where hatchery fish supplement harvestable numbers, rather than replace wild fish. Pretending they can split the baby and have it survive is delusional.

Sg
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/14 01:24 PM

Does the public have legal recourse to get a neutral, non-WDFW party on the boat as a co-observer? It's a State-sponsored project....

My (admittedly cynical) prediction is that the outcome of this research will be some undisclosed number (probably relatively small, since the Nemah is basically a hatchery factory) of wild Chinook released, in varying condition, while harvesting several hundred hatchery Chinook and Coho, with a few Chum thrown in for good measure.

The report will likely look something like this:

"Wild Chinook encounters did not reach the 20 allowed in the parameters for the project. The small number of wild Chinook encountered were released in vigorous condition. The small wild encounter rate suggests that the Chinook migrating through this area are almost entirely of hatchery origin. It stands to reason that the surrounding areas of Area 2T will have similar compositions. These findings indicate that an immediate, emergency gillnet opener in Area 2T, for the remainder of September, would be a prudent measure to remove hatchery fish from the system before they have an opportunity to spawn with the apparently depressed wild stocks."

I guess my point is that this "research" has already been conducted, or at least that the outcome is fairly predictable. Almost as predictable as WDFW finding creative, new ways to maximize opportunity for the commercial sector....

As regards Theisfield, my assessment has been that he's much more engaging and forthright than his recent predecessors have been, but as Rivrguy gently suggests, I've long suspected that the decisions being announced by District 17 staff have been and continue to be made by a higher authority. Initially, I singled out the Director, but the more I see of the relationship between the WDFW Commission and the outgoing Director, the more I tend to think they're all put there to create an impression that there is a public influence on the process. The reality seems to be something other than that. As usual, following the money (campaign contributions; not revenues) will probably reveal who's really in charge.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/14 03:48 PM

Pretty certain you could manage WB completely for wild chinook stocks and still end up with ESA listing. I think there probably just isn't enough real chinook spawning habitat flowing into WB, nor likely any real wild chinook remaining if there ever where many.

Norther river & smith creek as a genetically independent chinook stream, please . . .

Now managing it for a wild coho would be a completely viable and exciting prospect if anyone actually cared about wild coho.

I find it fascinating that WDFW makes it a priority to do research projects like this, but can't be bothered to do stock surveys to give us the mark rate on caracasses in the naselle or north, let alone genetic testing to characterize what their "wild" stock might be.

BTW, I too endorse Thiesfeld overall. Transparency is day compared to his predecessor's night. Not so fond of the management of WB overall or the WB NOF process, but agree it's not likely Thiesfeld's call.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/14 04:26 PM

mmmmmmm, not saying I have concerns about WDFW observers but why not use a "GoPro", with an WDFW observer to do a video????? For a investment of about $500.00, it would sure show how fish were handled.....would help eliminate many of ideas about how fish are handled and do the recovery boxes do what they are supposed to do.

How about it WDFW and Gillnetters????????.....if everything is above board, jump into this new technology, let the general public see what goes on, during a day of netting.

Posted by: Swifty27

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/14 07:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Just a couple of thoughts . . .

Are wild coho expected to be in the area in any abundance? I'm guessing not since Willapa has traditionally been managed as a hatchery wipe out fishery with little to no regard to wild salmon.

I think the gillnet boat will have to fish very tight to the mouth of the Nemah, rather than the broader limit of Needle Point to Ramsey Point if they actually intend to avoid wild Naselle chinook. I don't have a WB chart, but chinook would be expected to hug the edge of the thalweg channel which could lie inside the specified fishing boundary line.

Then there is this over-riding thought: WDFW needs to come to terms with a long-term management outlook for WB. Having it both ways - hatchery wipe out and wild stock preservation - is mutually exclusive. Keep with tradition, managing for hatchery stocks and end up with ESA listings, or actually manage for wild stocks, where hatchery fish supplement harvestable numbers, rather than replace wild fish. Pretending they can split the baby and have it survive is delusional.

Sg


I nominate Salmo

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
September 10, 2014
Contact: Steve Thiesfeld, (360) 249-1201
WDFW seeks nominations to new
Willapa Bay salmon advisory group
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking nominations through Sept. 22 for membership on a new ad hoc advisory group that will assist in developing a draft policy for managing salmon in Willapa Bay.
Up to five qualified individuals will be chosen to serve on the new policy group, which will also include the current members of the existing Willapa Bay salmon management advisory group.
The new salmon policy advisory group will meet three times a month for the next five months to develop recommendations that support conservation objectives and improve sustainable salmon fishing opportunities in Willapa Bay.
Specific issues addressed in the policy will include management objectives for salmon stocks, fishing season structures, and sharing of fishing opportunities between the recreational and commercial fleets.
"We'd like to establish a group of new and current advisors to make sure we have a broad range of expertise and experience as we develop this policy," said Jim Scott, assistant director of WDFW's Fish Program. "This is an important step forward in our effort to further refine the management of fisheries and hatcheries to help ensure we meet conservation objectives for wild salmon populations."
Nominees for the policy advisory group do not have to be affiliated with an organized group. Nominations must be submitted in writing with the following information:
• Nominee's name, address, telephone number and email address.
• Relevant experience and reasons for wanting to serve as a member of the advisory group.
• Nominee's effectiveness in communication.
• Name and contact information for any individual or organization submitting a nomination.
Nominations must be received by Sept. 22. Nominations may be submitted to Cathy Davidson by mail: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA, 98501; or email at Cathy.Davidson@dfw.wa.gov . For more information, contact Steve Thiesfeld at (360) 249-1201.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/14 07:31 PM

Geoduck,

I have little WB knowledge, but I agree that the basin is no haven for chinook. The Naselle may have some habitat intact enough to propagate a self-sustaining chinook population, but I am uncertain. And North R and Smith Ck as distinct chinook stocks doesn't pass the straight face or chuckle tests.

The more I ponder it, the more I think WDFW, the state, and sport fishermen would be better off if both WB and GH were managed for wild coho only with no hatchery coho supplementation. Coho are very resilient, and as the forests grow back and are managed under the new forest regulations, I think wild coho management would provide a higher return on investment than with hatchery coho in the mix. Hatchery coho just provide a convenient excuse for continued over-harvest of wild salmon. I guess the same can be said for GH hatchery chinook too.

I nominate Drifter to review the test fishery video.

Sg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/14 07:49 PM


Willapa has few Coho issues it is Chinook & Chum. As to North River Chinook it is the last native stock and Smith Cr got blasted environmentally in the 80's so that is a weak link. But North River? Head to SASSI or former staff and it is a viable stock.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/14 09:16 AM


The 9th Circuit Appeals Court just came down with a decision that involved WDF&W Enforcement staff. The decision is a shocker to read in particular the conduct of the officers. It is 27 pages long so a full C&P is out but I will try to grab a couple of pages. If you want the document please simply PM me. So here goes .......


FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-35837
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05197- BHS


OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding


2 TARABOCIDA V. ADKINS
Argued and Submitted
April 7, 2014-Seattle, Washington Filed September 9, 2014
Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Hawkins



SUMMARY*

Civil Rights

The panel reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court's summary judgment and remanded in an action brought by four commercial fishers who alleged that officers from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife illegally stopped and searched their automobile on March 23, 2007, and harassed them throughout the years because of a personal vendetta.

The panel held that it was clearly established on the date of the automobile stop that plaintiffs had a Fourth Amendment right not to be stopped by Fish and Wildlife officers while driving on a highway absent reasonable suspicion they had engaged or were about to engage in unlawful activity. The panel held that the stop, which lacked any basis in suspicion of unlawful behavior or statutory

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

TARABOCIBA V. ADKINS

3.authority that would render it permissible under the administrative search exception, violated plaintiffs' clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The panel therefore held that officers Michael Cenci and Dan Chadwick were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim.

The panel affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim on the grounds that the district court correctly deemed this claim untimely.


AND:


TARABOCHIA V. ADKINS 5
Taking the facts, as we must, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Grave/et-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2013), from 2000 until the date of the stop at issue, Captain Cenci and other WDFW officers have, among other things: followed the Tarabochias in their automobile on multiple occasions; detained Joseph and Matthew, including Joseph on one occasion for an hour and a half only to let him leave without citation; confronted the Tarabochias aboard their fishing vessel with a knife in hand and accompanied by at least six other WDFW officers; intentionally swerved into their automobile while both cars were driving on a public road; followed Alex and Bryan to school on an almost daily basis; verbally threatened to "get" Joseph and Alex on unspecified charges; and charged the Tarabochias with at least twenty-seven "criminal counts, in at least [eleven] court cases, in four [different]jurisdictions," many of which charges were dismissed prior to trial, none resulting in conviction. After a March 2006 incident, which resulted in charges that were later dropped, WDFW officers started spreading unfounded rumors that Joseph posed a risk to officer safety.

Given this history, the Tarabochias became fearful of WDFW officers, and in 2006 Joseph requested a meeting with the local prosecutor and the director of the WDFW to address the family's concerns. According to the prosecutor, when Captain Cenci and another WDFW officer arrived at the meeting, Cenci immediately tried to frisk Joseph despite what the prosecutor considered a lack of any evidence that he posed a threat. Finding Cenci 's behavior "outrageous," the prosecutor prevented Cenci from carrying out the frisk, and the officers left the meeting.

On the morning of March 23, 2007, the Tarabochias were driving in their pickup truck, which was loaded with a tote containing recently caught salmon, along a state highway and a public road when WDFW Sergeant Dan Chadwick and Captain Cenci stopped them.3 Approximately a half an hour beforehand, Captain Cenci had observed the Tarabochias from afar while he conducted a field inspection in an area of the lower Columbia River where commercial fishers regularly tie up their boats and unload recently caught fish. A portion of this area is near the Tarabochias' home.

Sometime that morning, a newspaper reporter accompanying Captain Cenci as a ride along passenger notified Cenci that he had observed the Tarabochias load salmon into the tote on the back of their pickup truck. Cenci called Sergeant Chadwick, who was also in the general area and relayed this information. Although the officers suspected the Tarabochias had salmon on their truck, it is undisputed that they had no reason to believe these salmon had been taken in violation of applicable fish and game laws.

The officers decided not to inspect the fish at the dock, but instead decided to pull the Tarabochias' truck over once on the highway' to check for compliance with fish and game laws. All four Tarabochias left the area of the field inspection in their pickup truck loaded with the tote of salmon. Sergeant

3 The facts indicate that the WDFW officers began to follow the Tarabochias on the highway and then followed them onto a public road. Because we find this distinction irrelevant to our constitutional inquiry, we refer to the place of the stop and search as a "highway."

4 The officers assert they did so because of safety concerns based on an earlier encounter Captain Cenci had with Joseph two days beforehand.


TARABOCHTA V. ADKINS 7

Chadwick, who had been parked along a state highway, saw the truck pass by him. At that time, he began to follow the Tarabochias and, after the Tarabochias had exited off the highway onto a public road, he activated his emergency lights to effectuate the stop. The Tarabochias initially failed to stop, but Captain Cenci, who had been following behind Sergeant Chadwick, pulled his automobile in front of the Tarabochias, and caused them to stop. Officers Brett Hopkins and Brad Rhoden soon arrived on the scene to lend assistance.5

The Tarabochias refused to exit the automobile or open the doors until sheriff's deputies arrived because of their past experience with the WDFW officers. Once someone the Tarabochias recognized as a member of the Wahkiakum County Sheriff's Office arrived (about twelve minutes later), the Tarabochias opened the car doors, and the WDFW officers arrested Matthew and Joseph. The officers proceeded to inspect the salmon in the tote, which inspection failed to reveal any fish and game violations.

Joseph and Matthew were booked, cited for, among other things, "avoiding a wildlife field inspection," and released. A Washington state district court for the County of Wahkiakum later dismissed all charges, finding the stop, search, and arrests unlawful since the officers had acted contrary to state law and to the Washington state constitution

5 Because the complaint does not allege and the record does not indicate that Officers Hopkins or Rhoden took part in the decision to stop and search the Tarabochias' automobile or that they participated in the alleged "vendetta," even construing the facts in the light most favorable to the Tarabochias, there is insufficient basis to hold either of them liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court is therefore instructed to dismiss the complaint against them with prejudice.

in stopping and searching the Tarabochias' automobile. On appeal, the superior court upheld this decision, although without reaching the constitutional issue, and reaffirmed that at the time Captain Cenci ordered the stop of the Tarabochias' automobile, he did not have "any reason to believe" the Tarabochias' truck contained "evidence of a violation of law or rules[.]"

The Tarabochias filed their pro se federal district court complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in March 2010, alleging that WDFW officers Dan Chadwick, Brett Hopkins, Brad Rhoden, and Mike Cenci violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by stopping and searching their automobile on March 23, 2007, and harassing them throughout the years.6 The district court initially granted summary judgment to the officers on the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment claim, but denied them summary judgment on the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. Relying on a California state court decision, the district court held that qualified immunity precluded the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim since "the law regarding warrantless stops by WDFW officers was not clearly established" at the time of the stop.

In September 2011, the court granted the Defendants' second motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the § 1983 statute of limitations barred the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. This appeal followed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/14 09:26 AM

Lot of pages in-between but here is the conclusion and the last paragraph ( highlighted in red ) is the most damning.


IV. CONCLUSION

We recognize the importance of Washington state's interest in promoting the conservation of its fishery and its ability to closely regulate the commercial fishing industry in a manner to further this interest, including by statutorily authorizing tailored warrantless administrative searches. However, the WDFW officers did not conduct their suspicionless stop and search of the Tarabochias' automobile pursuant to any statutory authority. Such suspicionless automobile searches and seizures of commercial fishers, absent express statutory authorization, subject them to "unfettered governmental intrusion," Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663-the principal evil against which the Fourth Amendment protects.

In light of the foregoing, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to Officers Hopkins and Rhoden, and reverse the grant of qualified immunity to Officers Michael Cenci and Dan Chadwick and the related summary judgment dismissal of the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment claim. We remand

14 The Tarabochias' reliance on A.D., 712 F.3d 446, in support of their argument that the March 2007 stop can be analyzed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is misplaced. Unlike in Fontana, 262 F.3d 871, in A.D. we had no occasion to consider the question now before us.

TARABOCHTA V. ADKINS 27
for further proceedings on this claim. Finally, we affirm the dismissal of the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim.

REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED. Costs on appeal to Appellants.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/14 12:02 PM

Rivrguy:

That read was both excruciating and fascinating at the same time. I can imagine a few ramifications associated with this decision, but I'm curious to know which possibilities in particular are most alarming to you. Are you thinking this could eventually establish a Fourth Amendment basis for making it illegal for enforcement officers to board commercial vessels for regulatory inspections? Perhaps that, once on land, commercial fishers will no longer be subject to searches by enforcement, even where just cause (suspicion) exists?

I'm just finishing my morning coffee, so I need even more help than usual....
Posted by: rojoband

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/14 12:42 PM

Sounds like Cenci should go...reminds me of a letter Rivrguy posted a couple months back that was sent to the commission about more of Cenci's past inappropriate dealings.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/14 02:55 PM

I will try to cherry pick some info and post as the opinion is 27 pages long. That said it is the documented harassment of these guys for nearly 14 years ( started in 2000 ) by WDF&W enforcement and the fact the agency dismissed them as wackos and let it go on. I mean the officer actually veered across lanes attempting to run the kid off the road in the agency vehicle ON duty. Then intimidating the kids by following the kids to school. Whatever started the thing it is clear as hell they targeted and threatened these kids with violence.

As I read it the court said WDFW are not be responsible for their employees violating law and made the officers financially responsible for any damages and settlement cost. $$$$$$ If that was me my laundry would be seriously stained when I read the courts opinion.

MORE:
I. BACKGROUND

The facts underlying this case stretch back to the year 2000 and culminate in an automobile stop on March 23, 2007. Appellants Matthew and Alex Tarabochia, 1 along with their brother, Bryan, are the sons of Joseph Tarabochia,2 a longtime commercial fisher. The Tarabochias allege that beginning sometime in 2000, Captain Michael Cenci and other Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ("WDFW") officers began a "personal vendetta" against them. The WDFW officers insist they were engaged in proper law enforcement activities against fishing scofflaws. The district court was able to resolve these facts in the officers' favor. We are not.

1 Due to their failure to list all four original plaintiffs on the Notice of Appeal, Matthew and Alex are the only Appellants in this case. See Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1988) (use of "et al." does not confer jurisdiction over appeal of plaintiff not listed in notice of appeal).

2 We refer to the Tarabochias by their first names throughout this opinion for clarity.

TARABOCHIA V. ADKINS 5
Taking the facts, as we must, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Grave/et-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2013), from 2000 until the date of the stop at issue, Captain Cenci and other WDFW officers have, among other things: followed the Tarabochias in their automobile on multiple occasions; detained Joseph and Matthew, including Joseph on one occasion for an hour and a half only to let him leave without citation; confronted the Tarabochias aboard their fishing vessel with a knife in hand and accompanied by at least six other WDFW officers; intentionally swerved into their automobile while both cars were driving on a public road; followed Alex and Bryan to school on an almost daily basis; verbally threatened to "get" Joseph and Alex on unspecified charges; and charged the Tarabochias with at least twenty-seven "criminal counts, in at least [eleven] court cases, in four [different]jurisdictions," many of which charges were dismissed prior to trial, none resulting in conviction. After a March 2006 incident, which resulted in charges that were later dropped, WDFW officers started spreading unfounded rumors that Joseph posed a risk to officer safety.

Given this history, the Tarabochias became fearful of WDFW officers, and in 2006 Joseph requested a meeting with the local prosecutor and the director of the WDFW to address the family's concerns. According to the prosecutor, when Captain Cenci and another WDFW officer arrived at the meeting, Cenci immediately tried to frisk Joseph despite what the prosecutor considered a lack of any evidence that he posed a threat. Finding Cenci 's behavior "outrageous," the prosecutor prevented Cenci from carrying out the frisk, and the officers left the meeting.

On the morning of March 23, 2007, the Tarabochias were driving in their pickup truck, which was loaded with a tote containing recently caught salmon, along a state highway and a public road when WDFW Sergeant Dan Chadwick and Captain Cenci stopped them.3 Approximately a half an hour beforehand, Captain Cenci had observed the Tarabochias from afar while he conducted a field inspection in an area of the lower Columbia River where commercial fishers regularly tie up their boats and unload recently caught fish. A portion of this area is near the Tarabochias' home.

Sometime that morning, a newspaper reporter accompanying Captain Cenci as a ride along passenger notified Cenci that he had observed the Tarabochias load salmon into the tote on the back of their pickup truck. Cenci called Sergeant Chadwick, who was also in the general area and relayed this information. Although the officers suspected the Tarabochias had salmon on their truck, it is undisputed that they had no reason to believe these salmon had been taken in violation of applicable fish and game laws.

The officers decided not to inspect the fish at the dock, but instead decided to pull the Tarabochias' truck over once on the highway' to check for compliance with fish and game laws. All four Tarabochias left the area of the field inspection in their pickup truck loaded with the tote of salmon. Sergeant

3 The facts indicate that the WDFW officers began to follow the Tarabochias on the highway and then followed them onto a public road. Because we find this distinction irrelevant to our constitutional inquiry, we refer to the place of the stop and search as a "highway."

4 The officers assert they did so because of safety concerns based on an earlier encounter Captain Cenci had with Joseph two days beforehand.


TARABOCHTA V. ADKINS 7

Chadwick, who had been parked along a state highway, saw the truck pass by him. At that time, he began to follow the Tarabochias and, after the Tarabochias had exited off the highway onto a public road, he activated his emergency lights to effectuate the stop. The Tarabochias initially failed to stop, but Captain Cenci, who had been following behind Sergeant Chadwick, pulled his automobile in front of the Tarabochias, and caused them to stop. Officers Brett Hopkins and Brad Rhoden soon arrived on the scene to lend assistance.5

The Tarabochias refused to exit the automobile or open the doors until sheriff's deputies arrived because of their past experience with the WDFW officers. Once someone the Tarabochias recognized as a member of the Wahkiakum County Sheriff's Office arrived (about twelve minutes later), the Tarabochias opened the car doors, and the WDFW officers arrested Matthew and Joseph. The officers proceeded to inspect the salmon in the tote, which inspection failed to reveal any fish and game violations.

Joseph and Matthew were booked, cited for, among other things, "avoiding a wildlife field inspection," and released. A Washington state district court for the County of Wahkiakum later dismissed all charges, finding the stop, search, and arrests unlawful since the officers had acted contrary to state law and to the Washington state constitution

5 Because the complaint does not allege and the record does not indicate that Officers Hopkins or Rhoden took part in the decision to stop and search the Tarabochias' automobile or that they participated in the alleged "vendetta," even construing the facts in the light most favorable to the Tarabochias, there is insufficient basis to hold either of them liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court is therefore instructed to dismiss the complaint against them with prejudice in stopping and searching the Tarabochias' automobile. On appeal, the superior court upheld this decision, although without reaching the constitutional issue, and reaffirmed that at the time Captain Cenci ordered the stop of the Tarabochias' automobile, he did not have "any reason to believe" the Tarabochias' truck contained "evidence of a violation of law or rules[.]"

The Tarabochias filed their pro se federal district court complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in March 2010, alleging that WDFW officers Dan Chadwick, Brett Hopkins, Brad Rhoden, and Mike Cenci violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by stopping and searching their automobile on March 23, 2007, and harassing them throughout the years.6 The district court initially granted summary judgment to the officers on the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment claim, but denied them summary judgment on the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. Relying on a California state court decision, the district court held that qualified immunity precluded the Tarabochias' Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim since "the law regarding warrantless stops by WDFW officers was not clearly established" at the time of the stop.

In September 2011, the court granted the Defendants' second motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the § 1983 statute of limitations barred the Tarabochias' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. This appeal followed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/14 06:36 PM

I would urge all to listen to the audio of the 9/4/14 Commission meeting. Items B & C being the important ones and they are interesting. Budget / prioritization of revenue for fishers / hatchery reductions. ( Naselle & Nemah going down in the budget ) So take the time as it gives you a idea of direction things are headed. For the fun of it if it all happened what is my reaction? Holy sh-- comes to mind.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/audio_sep0414.html
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/14 03:35 PM


This post and the next will be about the budget ( WDFW ) and direction. Sorry about the formatting but a bit of a bear to bring in formatted but here is a link.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/agenda_sep0414.html


Meeting dates: September 4, 2014 Conference Call

Agenda item:
2015 Proposed Operating Budget Requests - Decision

Presenter(s):
Owen Rowe, Budget Officer, Technology and Financial Management
Background summary:
In September of every even-numbered year, state agencies submit their second supplemental operating budget proposals to make final course corrections to the current biennium and their biennial operating budget proposals with planned spending changes for the next two fiscal years to the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and the Legislature.

Second supplemental budget proposals are reserved for technical corrections, and emergent issues that arise at the end of a biennium.

Biennial budget proposals are requests for spending adjustments over the next two fiscal years. The 2015-17 biennium begins July 1, 2015, and ends June 30, 2017.

There are two types of budget requests: maintenance level which seek to maintain current service levels, and performance level requests that may represent revised strategies, new work, or differences in program direction.

This year, the OFM has mandated that state agencies submit 15 percent state general fund reduction options as part of the Governor’s budget process. These budget reduction options will be submitted as formal decision packages.
Policy issue(s) you are bringing to the Commission for consideration:
N/A
Public involvement process used and what you learned:
N/A
Action requested:
Commission approval of the Department’s proposed 2015 Supplemental and 2015-2017 Operating Budget Request to ensure timely transmission of the Office of financial Management.

Once approved, the request will be submitted to the Office of Financial Management for consideration and inclusion in the Governor’s Proposed 2015-2017 Biennium Operating Budget.
Draft motion language:
I move to approve the Department’s proposed 2015 Supplemental and 2015-2017 Operating Budget Requests as presented by staff.



Justification for Commission action:
RCW 77.04.055(6), “The commission shall have final approval authority for the Department’s budget proposals.” The Fish and Wildlife Commission sets policy for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and is responsible for approving Department budget request for submittal to the office Financial Management.


Communications Plan:
N/A


Form revised 12/5/12



Title Program ML/PL Fund FY15 $000s FY15 FTE
1 Legal Services Adjustment BSP ML GFS/WLS 300
2 Maintaining Technology Access BSP ML GFS/WLS 400
3 WILD Transaction Fee Tech. Adj. BSP ML 104 WLS 300
4 L&I Rate Technical Adjustment BSP ML Big 4 0
5 Federal Funding Adjustment BSP ML Federal 8,100
6 Hatchery Utilities Fish ML 7 different 92
7 Food for Fish Hatchery Production Fish ML GFS/WLS 267
8 Wildfire Wildlife ML 001-1 GFS 805
10,264 0
Subtotal GFS: 1,286
Subtotal WLS: 801
Subtotal all other: 8,177

3 of 5

$000s FTE
Title Program Fund FY 16 FY 17 FY 16 FY 17 Linked to
Maintenance Level

1 Lease Rate Adjustment & Pt Whitney Correction BSP Big 4 30 30 rev
2 Maintaining Technology Access BSP Big 4 200 200 rev
3 L&I Rate Technical Adjustment BSP Big 4 0 0 rev
4 Federal Funding Adjustment BSP Fed 3,000 3,000
5 Boldt Legal Services BSP GFS 35 33
6 Hatchery Utilities Fish 7 different 47 47 fee incr
7 Food for Fish Hatchery Production Fish GFS/WLS 321 380 fee incr
8 Protect Wild Salmon through Marking Fish GFS/Fed/GF-PL 175 180
9 Enhancing Puget Sound Rec Fishing Fish 04M-PSRFE 114 126
10 PILT and Land Assessments Wildlife GFS 505 535
11 Wildfire Costs Wildlife GFS 305 305

Performance Level Subtotals ML 4,732 4,836 0 0
12 Enhance Recreational License System BSP WLS 1,200 1,200 Trans. Fee
13 Vancouver Relocation Lease CAMP Big 4 129 129
14 Fish & Wildlife Radio-Over-Internet Enforcmt GFS/WLS 74 74
15 Marijuana on State Lands Enforcmt GFS 144 144
16 Recover Puget Snd Steelhead Fish GFS 563 341
17 Tracking Puget Sound Fish Health Fish ELSA 817 709 2.5 2.5
18 Lower Columbia Hatchery Production Fish GFS 154 154
19 PILT Fund Sources Wildlife GFS 514 514
20 Investigate/Manage Elk Hoof Disease Wildlife WLS 125 125 1.0 1.0 Elk Raffle

Legislation-Related Packages with Budget Impact Subtotals PL 3,720 3,390 3.5 3.5
21 Recreational Fishing Fees Fish/Enf WLS 2,093 2,093 7.3 7.3 Rec fee bill
22 Commercial Fishing Fees Fish/Enf GFS/WLS 1,015 1,015 3.7 3.7 Comm fee bill
23 Managing Aquatic Invasive Species Fish 09N, 14G 1,294 1,834 6.0 6.0 AIS bill
24 Commercial Shellfish & Public Safety Enf WLS 615 615 4.0 4.0 Excise tax bill
Subtotals Other Leg Pkgs 5,017 5,557 21.0 21.0
Total of all packages: 13,469 13,783 24.5 24.5
Big 4: GFS: 2,345 2,429 4,775
GFS- General Fund-State WLS: 5,247 5,252 10,500
Fed- General Fund-Federal Other: 5,876 6,101 11,977
GF-PL General Fund Private/Local WLS- State Wildlife Account 27,252


2015-17 Biennial: 15% Reduction Options --FWC Conference Call Sept. 4
BY PROGRAM



Title

Pgm Target *

Proposals
$000s


+ CAMP's Hatch Maint

+ BSP =
portion

Total Bien.
$000s


FTEs ***
1 Reduction of 8 Enforcement Officers ENF ($1,996)
($336) ($2,332) (10.6)
Enforcement Subtotal ($1,996) ($1,996) ($336) ($2,332) (10.6)
2 Reduce HPA Permitting HAB ($2,536)
($427) ($2,963) (17.3)
Habitat Subtotal ($2,487) ($2,536) ($427) ($2,963) (17.3)
3 PILT Reduction WILD ($700) ($700)
Wildlife Subtotal ($700) ($700) ($700) 0.0
4 George Adams Hatchery Reduction Fish ($150)
($25) ($175)
5 Hoodsport Hatchery Reduction Fish ($227) ($38) ($265) (1.3)
6 Close Minter Hatchery Fish ($866) ($17) ($100) ($983) (3.2)
7 Close Nemah Hatchery Fish ($437) ($21) ($74) ($531) (2.3)
8 Close Naselle Hatchery Fish ($678) ($32) ($114) ($824) (3.8)
9 Close Samish Hatchery Fish ($604) ($29) ($102) ($734) (3.2)
10 Puget Sound Commercial Salmon Fishery Fish ($487) ($82) ($569) (5.0)
11 Grays/ Willapa Commercial Salmon Fishery Fish ($248) ($42) ($290) (3.6)
12 Reduce Puget Sound Shellfish Fisheries Fish ($387) ($65) ($452) (2.7)
Fish Subtotal ($4,159) ($4,084) ($98) ($641) ($4,823) (25.1)
Reduce Hatchery Maintenance ** CAMP ($98) ($98)
CAMP Subtotal ($98) ($98) ($98) 0.0
Central Administration ** BSP
($1,404)
($1,404)
BSP Subtotal ($1,454) ($1,404) ($1,404) 0.0

Grand Total
($10,894)
($10,818)
($10,818)
(53.0)
* These are the targets distributed to programs on July 1 & 24; originals with 1st updates.
** CAMP's and BSP's reductions are spread proportionally to the relevant proposals. They will not be stand-alone packages.
*** FTE figures include the program's reduction plus proporational amount of BSP's 15 FTE reduction.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/14 03:40 PM



The direction chosen by the Commission is a break from the past so it is nearly mandatory reading.

Commission Budget Policy 2015-17
(Draft revised 09/1/2014)

Reduction in General Funds and Increase in License Fees

The Department’s share of General Funds - State (GF-S) has declined dramatically over the past five years, decreasing from $110 million in 2008 to $61 million in 2014. Once again this year, the Department was directed to prepare and submit a budget with additional GF-S reductions of 15%, or roughly $11 million. The cuts presented in that submission are distributed over the activities that are largely supported with GF-S: enforcement, habitat protection, native fish recovery, and fish management activities associated with commercial fisheries.

Over this same period, the share of Department costs supported with sport fishing license revenues has grown. License fees were increased three years ago and now represent the largest single portion of funding. The Department now faces increased costs of maintaining existing services. In addition, we see the potential of additional cuts in future biennia to allow the state to meet its K-12 educational obligations under the McCleary decision. The Department also faces the prospects of additional reductions in federal funding that support hatchery production and critical fishery sampling and monitoring activities. If it is to maintain and expand opportunity for recreational fishing, the Department must pursue additional fee increases.

Approach for Sport Fishing License Fee Increases

The Commission recognizes the benefits of sport fishing across the state in generating funding for agency activities well beyond fishery management cost. Deposited in the Wildlife Account, user fees support such things as native fish recovery, fish production, and a variety of costs associated with management of the fisheries.
It is the policy of the Department to ensure that recreational license fees are used for the benefit of the sport fishery. To be successful, the Department is committed to working closely with the sport fishing community to define the new fee structure and to identify specifically the use of the new revenue created from the new fees.

The Commission recognizes that increased fees can be counterproductive. Increased fees can lead to declines in sales. To counteract that response, the Department must develop specific proposals that result in increased sport fishing opportunity. The Commission believes that it would be beneficial to look for ways to make practical commitments to expand sport fishing opportunities at the same time that it pursues a course during this Legislative Session that avoids the need for additional license increases in the next two biennia.

Cost Benefit Analysis and Budget Decisions: Salmon Fishery Activities
The Director will provide a report to the Commission that includes all the available information relative to the costs of providing and managing sport and commercial fisheries including enforcement, monitoring, and hatchery production costs. The Director will include in his report a breakdown of the revenue sources that support the activities (GFS, federal, local, DJ). Within existing resources, the Director will also report to the Commission the Department’s best estimates of the economic benefits and license revenues that are derived by the state from each major salmon fishery, e.g. Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River.
It is the policy of the Department that consideration be given to the comparable economic and agency revenue benefits of respective fisheries as various cuts, fee increases, and policy changes are proposed and discussed by budget decision-makers.

Promote Selective Fisheries
The Commission adopted policies that support hatchery and harvest reform and realigned management in a number of specific fisheries to promote more selective harvest practices. The Director will ensure that the Department’s biennial budget submission includes elements that significantly advance selective fisheries and hatchery reform measures.

Equitable Sharing of the Costs of Management
In light of continued reduction of GF-S, the Commission directs the Department to seek means to recoup the costs of hatchery production and management of commercial fisheries from the participants in the commercial fisheries or reduce agency activities in support of these fisheries. The cost of managing and maintaining commercial fisheries has long been funded with general fund revenue. Commercial licenses provide very limited revenues to offset management costs -- roughly 4% of the costs of these fisheries. Unlike sport fishing license revenue, funds from the sale of commercial salmon licenses largely go directly to the state treasury. The sizable reduction in general fund revenue that the Department has experienced over the last two biennia has left it without the financial means to continue providing the existing commercial fisheries the hatchery fish that sustain them. The Director will include in his legislative requests submission a proposal that is designed to raise new revenues from commercial license holders that will help offset the costs of providing commercial salmon fishing opportunities.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/14 07:02 PM

Who'd a thunk that budget reductions may be the key to retiring obsolete commercial fisheries that have been sustained by General Fund "welfare" fishing appropriations?

The more I think about it, the best sport fishing outcome for sport fishing in Grays Harbor and Willapa bay might be the closure of salmon hatcheries in those drainages and the elimination of the NT net fisheries that exist because of that hatchery production. Of course there wouldn't be any chinook production of significance in WB without a hatchery, so maybe operate one chinook hatchery with sport fishing license revenue.
Posted by: cohoangler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/14 10:51 AM

SG - I agree with your first premise, but disagree on the second.

I don't fish GH at all, but I fish the Naselle Rv several times a year. If eliminating the Nasellle state hatchery also eliminates the gill net fishery, that would be a win-win for the wild fish of the Naselle River.

That river is a huge producer of both wild coho and chum, even with the nets. In fact, in some years WDFW allows the retention of three adult salmon including one wild coho. Production is high likely because coho and chum get past the nets. But the Chinook are the target species so both wild and hatchery get caught.

Without the nets, I believe the numbers of Chinook returning to the Naselle would not decrease at all, provided the commercial fishery is no longer operating and the hatchery is closed. All fish would be wild, which may not allow a huge sport fishery, but given the potential of that river, my sense is that salmon production would be high enough to support a modest recreational fishery in most years. But the Naselle River could never support a commercial fishery without the hatchery.

Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/14 12:29 PM

Cohoangler,

I'm not sure we disagree. My point is that without the NT net fisheries and without the hatcheries, sport fishing could continue to be quite productive, mainly for coho. I don't know that there would be any terminally harvestable chinook. Do you think the Naselle chinook would support the WB sport fishery in the absence of hatcheries and NT gillnets?

Sg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/14 04:08 PM

SG after running things all over the model in the past your look comes close I think. So if one was to reduce Chinook and Coho production, booted the nets out of 2T, further reduced commercial impacts on NOR fish by limiting time on the water in the other areas, the REC fishery would be fine. The budget proposal does most of that if it comes to pass then you have the agencies addiction to commercial harvest in Willapa. That would be the wild card. In the case of Coho one can not model all the hatchery & wild ( NOR ) Coho without wiping out the Chum and NOR Chinook so it makes zero sense to maintain that level of production.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/18/14 11:31 AM


About the fishing thing. Well looking forward to what is up this forecast jumped out. http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi It looks like around the 25th we have a front coming in. It seems to pick up the most rain in the upper Chehalis so time will tell if we get enough rain to get a large movement early like last year. The QIN have a two day set starting Sunday so things should drop off a bit but if we continue to get the water temperature down things will pick up.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/14 10:35 AM


The WAC CR 103 for the NT Nets is out. Not sure if WDF&W has it on the website yet but if anyone would like it just do the PM bit and I will forward it on.

Also the thing where the gillnets are laid out stuck on the mud or tied to a object was addressed. The credit for this goes to Softbite who stayed with the issue for FIVE years and never gave up. Good job !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/14 11:59 AM

Driving into Aberdeen this morning, tribal nets everywhere.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/14 12:17 PM

With this rain, they're probably catching a "few."
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/14 03:32 PM

Forgive the formatting & typos but this post is the notes of a preseason meeting between WDFW and the QIN. A bit brief to be sure but you can get the jest of what QIN staff positions are.



4-1-2014

QIN – Ed, Junior, Tyler, Jim
Quinault– all the –ations, upper Quinault, sockeye. impacts from logging and farming.
Queets – un-employment.
Climate and changing climate issues concern us; building capacity to better.
Need to ensure that the fish prosper to ensure that our communities prosper.
Forecast wild chinook 3,575 878 indicators
Coho 1408 – 8,465W 10,338H
Wk 36-40 5d/wk, 41-2, 42-1, 43-2 (large mesh wk 42-43) 47 – 2, 2, 50-5d/week
Sport 6% chinook, 5% on coho
Esc. 2,169 W Chin 593 ind. (2,762T); coho 5,846W; 5,247H
Meet escapement goals for Chinook and coho
GH
Cheh
39, 2, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 2, 5, 5
Hump
39, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5
Week Chehalis Humptulips
QIN WDFW QIN WDFW
39 2 0 4
40 3 0 3
41 4 0 3
42 4 0 3
43 2 2 3
44 2 3 1
45 1 3 2
46 2 2 3 2
47 5 0 5 3
48 5 0 5 2

4-5-2104 - Ed, Reggie, Junior, Tyler, Jim – Steve, Kirt, Chad

EJ - Uncomfortable about modeling these fisheries – general concern about escapement; we are well aware. Without Hoh v Baldrige. QTA had all pursued that. Backbone of river by river, run by run. Implemented by PFMC and PST.
Dealt with habitat, sometimes you don’t get to fish, we have experienced that. Three stock that have aligned and we brought our request of how to is it. Looks like, with what we have laid on the table that we are in good shape – always aware of escapement and on the mark.
ST – yesterday with our constituents – concern for escapement; conservative and error on the sides of the fish. Low chinook escapements, low numbers of wild coho.
EJ – don’t see the concern in the ocean. The state has yet to move off of your high number. Good shape compared to elsewhere. Cannot help that you’re being lead down this pristine path about conservation. What other tools are being offered to use?
ST – taking significant action to meet the needs of the fish. Marching orders.
EJ – Marching orders are not correct – sector allocation, has nothing to do with us. Conservation concern is unwarranted. Been in the game a long time, you have managed that system for hatchery production. MSF comes along and now there is a concern. Habitat loss, mitigated with hatchery fish. Given history and looks to me like now we are meeting the criteria. Precision, reason and benefit of HR management. We are a lot better at it today than years ago. Crazies finding Grays Harbor, dam in the upper Chehalis, fecal coliform, etc., Public Policy is mis-guided.
[Quinault Beach Resort?]
Reggie – Ocean, monitoring, in-season…
EJ – caucus
Modeling – ocean option (1408) wondering where we are going. Comfort at low TD and fishing below the goal. We are proposing fisheries that keep is above the goal.
We desire having an agreement.
GH POLICY discussion – Phil, Ron, Steve, Chadwick, Kirt – Ed, Reggie, Junior, Tyler, Jim
EJ – Comfort level of escapement, conservation creeps in to the conversation. FWC policy, staff has read, interoperating the inputs of our staff – we make objectives. We are in good shape. Our outcomes do not raise issues, to us it is a perpetuation of life styles, and for many these fisheries are their living; what even they got to do to survive. We are all about better data, more data, more precise. Steve has done a good job of representing what he has been instructed to do. Where are we at?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/29/14 07:03 PM


I thought some will find this letter interesting reading. It is one person's view but it is from a individual that has spent years trying to restore natural spawning stocks in the Willapa Bay tributaries.



Dear Editor,

Washington Fish and Wildlife Department (WDFW) - Commissioners have recommend the closing of Willapa Bay’s Nemah and Naselle State salmon hatcheries, in their 2015 biennial budget request.
The WDFW Commissioners have acted in a rational and thoughtful manner. On Sept 4, 2014, the WDFW Commissioners adopted their policy for WDFW budget cuts. This was necessary as a directive was received from the Governor’s office to cut the capital budget across the board by 15% or about $11 million for WDFW (cuts in future biennia is to allow the state to meet its K-12 educational obligations under the McCleary court decision).

I have listened to the commissioner’s budget discussion and read their policy budget document. They have approached their decision using a metric for the department as a cost/benefit ratio measurement for sports and commercial fishery. This metric evaluates the departments’ costs to support a commercial and separate cost for a sports fishery, and what is the income to each of these as a benefit.

Recently the commissioners had raised the sports licensing fees. They report it will be necessary to be raised again, to support the sports fishing cost/benefit ratio. At the Commissioners meeting on Sept 4, 2014 it was reported there was a general consensus among the sports fishers groups… ‘They agree to an increase in license fees’…but,

In the Willapa 90% of the salmon harvest is by commercial fishers, which is being subsidized by the sports fishers. The sports fishers are adamant they do not wish to continue to subsidize the commercial harvest.

In Summary: if the Commercial fishers want to continue their harvest they will need to pay for it, if not the Nemah and Naselle hatcheries will be closed.

I have written several letters about the poor management of Willapa Fishery by WDFW. Over the years I have worked with Commercial and Sports fishers groups, they have both worked very hard to be a part of salmon recovery in the Willapa, and have committed their time and treasure for salmon recovery. There has never been a rational and dependable policy of “conservation” by WDFW for Willapa salmon stocks. As a result the salmon stocks have been overharvested. Most of the 746 salmon bearing streams in the Willapa now don’t have salmon; hatcheries alone cannot support the salmon populations in the Willapa.

WDFW has lots of slogans or bumper stickers about “Conservation”. But the only conservation they are interested in is their own jobs.
Millions of dollars have been spent by well meaning groups to recover salmon, and the Willapa Bay habitat has been greatly improved, and now could support a great deal more salmon if properly managed by WDFW. WDFW has consistently developed fraudulent data to show that more harvestable salmon exist, and then over harvest that amount with insufficient escapement of brood-stock returning to our many streams.

With the overharvest of brood-stock there is not sufficient returning fish for spawning, and the returning salmon are not sufficient to support the nutrient levels in the streams which is necessary for salmon to complete their life cycle. Without an honest estimate of salmon stocks in the Willapa, rational decisions cannot be made on the management of the stocks.

I applaud the WDFW Commissioners for their courage in taking this deceive action, this will help in returning Willapa Bay to a sustainable fishery. I hope this will be the first step which will lead to a new Willapa Salmon Plan for sustainable salmon, and hopefully a new WDFW management team. There is no reason that a well managed Willapa salmon fishery utilizing the new restored habitat could not be utilized which could support a sports and commercial fishery. But new WDFW management is required. Hopefully the WDFW Commissioners can now use this wise decision to direct a new Willapa Salmon Plan be developed with new WDFW leadership. Willapa Bay now has the habitat to support a larger population of salmon stocks; the limiting element for more salmon in the Willapa is WDFW management. The goal should be to make the restored habitat (746 streams) into the historical hatcheries that supported much larger salmon stocks.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/29/14 08:21 PM

I will take a copy of this letter to the Advisory Group which will be helping the agency draw up the "new and improved" Willapa Plan.

First order of the day should be changing the priority of the plan from a salmon harvest management plan to a salmon conservation plan.

This is one basin where ALL of the cards lie in the lap of WDFW. There is no running for cover for blunders under the guise of tribal co-management. WDFW owns it ALL.

Wasn't too long ago that Phil Anderson publicly gave the Region 6 Staff a grade of D- in "managing" Willapa Bay. I have confidence the new Fish Program leadership will do much more to change that.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/14 09:32 AM

Some more on Willapa. The link is to WDF&W's Commercial page and has the harvest numbers up. The nets so far have taken 12,700 Chinook & 54,429 Coho with more to go. It was modeled to around 7718 combined H&W for Chinook and 21,187 H&W Coho. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html Here is the rub and it is a goody. The preseason forecast had Coho about 2 to 1 ( give or take a bit ) wild over hatchery. I have been told that WDFW staff have been tracking the mix / harvest and the NOR ( natural origin / wild ) are only coming up at 12%. What this means is simply that the Coho run proportionality ( H+W ) has been lost. Region 6 has zero idea if a massive overharvest has occurred and failure to make escapement for Willapa Coho is a distinct and likely possibility.

Now compare this to last year when Region 6 shut down the Grays Harbor Rec bay fishery with ZERO data to back it up. Strange how this agency works do not you think?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/14 10:18 AM

Nah. This actually answers WDFW's dreams. They are managing to get all the evil hatchery fish out of there. Significantly fewer on the gravel. They kept the gillnetters, and by extension the Leg, happy.

Since the wild escapement will likely be above the perpetuation floor (at its most extreme a single pair) what's the harm? Get the wild fish out of the way and we can have fisheries without the bothersome release rates, recovery boxes, selective rules. Back to the Good Old Days of "whack 'em and stack 'em".
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/14 08:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
A agency maintenance worker is attempting to seek funding to redo the South Monte boat launch. Brando Troyer is the gentleman's name and he could use some support. He e mailed me his project description and the plans so if anyone is interested in supporting his effort PM me and I will forward the information. It is a worthy effort.


Really, this money should be spend to redo the ramp at Johns River. The ramp at south Monte is a nice 3 laner and all three are good.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/14 10:51 AM

Many have tried and tried to get information out of WDF&W and failed. This results in either giving up or a Public Document Request which the agency spends a lot of time whining about. So all can gain some insight read the thread bottom up and I have highlighted a sentence that fairly well sets the tone for just why in the hell nobody believes these guys.

From: Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW)
To: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Subject: RE: Letter
Attachment(s): 7

Mike, attached are several documents for your use in responding to Hamilton’s letter.
The first attachment is my additions to your letter.
The next 3 are short one-page documents that I wrote up a while ago and thought might be helpful.
Maybe after talking with Ron or Kirt and getting some of the other questions asked like by-laws for advisory groups, are they public, and intent of not only the group but the documents that resulted that you’ll be able to put enough together.Keep it simple with the least amount of details that you can get away with.



From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:21 AM
To: Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW)
Subject: FW: Letter

Morning,
Attached is a letter Dave sent to the Commission. Also attached is a response letter I started, but I don’t know much about the details of the GH framework or the tier system or Advisory Board requirements. Kirt has put a high priority on this, would you please help complete the response I’ve started. My thought process is to give a quick summary for the framework and tier system, then discuss the responsibilities of an Advisory Board.
Please provide me something ASAP.

Thanks




From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 7:30 AM
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Subject: FW: Letter

We’ll need to develop a draft response to this one and assure we answer questions/address issues identified in the first letter as well.

Ron Warren - Region 6 Fish Program Manager 48 Devonshire Rd, Montesano WA 98563
phone: 360-249-1201; fax: 360-249-1229; cell 360-791-3945

Commitment-Accountability-Teamwork-

Professionalism-Integrity- Trust

email: Ron.Warren@dfw.wa.gov

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/about/regions/region6/


From: Scott, Jim B (DFW)
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 7:14 AM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Subject: FW: Letter

From: hamilton.dave@comcast.net [mailto:hamilton.dave@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 10:57 AM To: Director (DFW); Scott, Jim B (DFW) Subject: Letter

Attached for your review is a pdf file of a letter dated 12/1/2012 addressed to the commission.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/14 11:11 AM

Wow. That's nice.

Better still is the motto in Ron's email signature. Practice what you preach comes to mind....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/14 11:30 AM


As a rule information I obtain in a PDR is made available to all with the only exception of ah .......... how about personal disagreements between staff. As one of the individuals in my previous post is part of this e mail attachment I felt it was relevant. In addition the actions of the staff in questions really do affect the Rec & Commercial users & the fish I felt this should not be held back but made public.

From: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
To: Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW)
Subject: Work plan

Barb,

This email is to clarify my understanding of what you agreed to work on during our discussion yesterday afternoon.

1. Read and respond to emails (and I hope you will also read and respond to phone calls and mail correspondence, though we did not discuss it)

2. Visit Tokeland to research where we can place the head collection freezer and Voluntary Trip Report forms; as discussed, we need a space with an electrical outlet and the owner’s agreement for us to use the outlet. Report to me what you find and your recommendations. By the way, I spoke with Curt Holt this morning and he suggested we use a combination lock where the combination can be changed. Curt also offered to find out what a freezer costs to run per month so that we can offer to pay that amount.

3. Schedule the fish friendly class for commercial fishers in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor as needed, teach the class, and report back to me the dates you will teach the class and afterward, the number of people that attended.

4. Write a draft advisory announcement for both Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor and email it to myself and Kirt for review (Kirt will pass it to Ron for review). After we have ok-ed it, send it out. Develop a selection process with input from myself and Kirt Hughes, then notify people if they have been selected or not, and let me know when this task has been completed.

As mentioned in my email that was sent yesterday to Kirt and Ron with a cc to you, you are refusing to work on any large (longer than a day) projects and will only work on short term projects that you agree to do. You stated that this is because you are waiting for Ron to provide you with a list of your work tasks for the year. I appreciate your candor and the time you spent discussing the commercial fishery and steelhead management with me yesterday afternoon.
Thank you also for dropping by a hard copy of the commercial gillnet observer sheet. It is clear that you have a lot of knowledge about these projects and it is unfortunate that you will not be participating. Please also be clear that your refusal to do work assigned by me constitutes a refusal to complete assigned work from your chain of command. –Your insistence that Ron make the decisions about work tasks and provide you with a list of your and my work duties is akin to if I were to demand from Jo Wadsworth or Jim Scott that they provide to me a list of both my and my supervisor’s duties.

Because you refuse to work on these projects, including working with me to divvy out tasks and setting up a boat for the Grays Harbor on board observing, and because the work is high priority, I will be the lead for the commercial sampling and steelhead management, and I will keep my supervisor, Kirt, up-to-date on the progress, including strategies and employee needs to get this work accomplished without an area biologist. For example, I have asked Rick Ereth to work on setting up a boat for the Grays Harbor on board observing during the month of July and I am planning a meeting with Rick and Curt to discuss how we can most efficiently accomplish the commercial sampling this year. I do not know what work (other than the four tasks listed above) you will be doing, but hopefully we can find something you will agree to do when I return from vacation on July 7th. I also want to be very clear that your decision to refuse my direction fits under “refusing to perform assigned tasks or actions” that was discussed with you in your Expectation Memo on February 9, 2011. This memo further states that you are expected to “… complete assigned work from your chain of command, ” and, “Please be aware that failure to meet these expectations can result in disciplinary action, including suspension, demotion, and termination.”
Finally, please be aware that your refusal to follow direction from your chain of command will be discussed in your annual and interim reviews on July 12th.

Respectfully, Charmane
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/14 12:10 PM

Team player, eh?

NOT!

J F C ! ! !

Someone needs to be $h!t-canned for ineptness and NON-performance.

Just sayin.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/14 02:35 PM

She needs to be fired for insubordination. Another turd in the punch bowl.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/14 04:04 PM

Region 6 would be better without her.........Taxpayers of the State deserve better........IMO
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/14 09:28 AM

Those who followed the new GHMP may find this interesting. It is a simple paper addressing issues both Rec and Commercial in setting the Grays harbor 2014 salmon seasons that was utilized by Region 6 staff.


Grays Harbor Fisheries Issues

Commission Intent:
• Did the Commission intend to allow a 5% impact if a stock was not meeting its escapement goal.
o If yes, we are meeting that intent for all natural-origin stocks.
o If the intent is that there are no allowable impacts, we are not meeting that intent for Humptulips natural-origin coho.
The recreational sector has the vast majority of the impacts on Humptulips NOR coho.
Impacts occur in both the marine area and the river.
All fisheries in the marine area, including recreational and commercial fisheries in 2 A-D, have Humptulips NOR impacts.
Recreational impacts in the river occur until late January and possibly even into February. Therefore steelhead fisheries also impact Humptulips NOR coho.
It would be arbitrary to close commercial fisheries while leaving recreational fisheries open.
• Hatchery escapement is not predicted to be met for Chehalis River hatchery Chinook.
o Commission policy says we will meet escapement for hatchery fish.
o The Chehalis hatchery stock is integrated and we could collect additional wild broodstock. We have enough over the escapement goal available, but it cuts our margin down to 63 fish over goal.
o We are within our harvestable share for this specific group (Chehalis hatchery)?
o Would Quinault reduce fisheries to meet hatchery escapement?
o Would we close fisheries to meet hatchery escapement?
o The recreational sector has the majority of the impacts on Chehalis hatchery Chinook.

Proposed alternate commercial schedule.
Commercial sector has provided an alternative schedule.
The alternate schedule meets the policy criteria for natural-origin stocks and is quite similar to the schedule we proposed.
We were more conservative in the modeling of the alternative schedule because they proposed some 8-hour day fisheries and we don’t have experience with them. We modeled them as 12-hour.
The alternative schedule would not start until October 22, whereas our proposed schedule starts on October 1.

In-Season Management
Policy says we will do in-season management.
Advocacy indicates we need to provide details of our in-season management protocol in the CES (will ask Grossman).
At least 3 possible options:
o Take action (closure?) if they exceed modeled impacts by a set level, e.g. 0%, 10%, 25%, etc.
o Take action if they hit the modeled amount plus any unallocated impacts (e.g. 184 harvestable Chehalis NOR Chinook were not allocated to fisheries).
o Utilize in-season update to determine a minimum expected escapement and hold them to that level.
Hasn’t been done before.
Would we go the other way if ISU shows a low run?

Gill Net Release Mortality
Advocacy continues to challenge the 90% compliance.
Is a compliance incentive day warranted, as we did on Willapa Bay?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/14 12:52 PM

The post below are minutes of a meeting between the QIN & R-6. Not a huge amount of meat on the bone but it does allow one to get a glimpse of how the QIN view things.

4-1-2014

QIN – Ed, Junior, Tyler, Jim
Quinault– all the –ations, upper Quinault, sockeye. impacts from logging and farming.
Queets – un-employment.
Climate and changing climate issues concern us; building capacity to better.
Need to ensure that the fish prosper to ensure that our communities prosper.
Forecast wild chinook 3,575 878 indicators
Coho 1408 – 8,465W 10,338H
Wk 36-40 5d/wk, 41-2, 42-1, 43-2 (large mesh wk 42-43) 47 – 2, 2, 50-5d/week
Sport 6% chinook, 5% on coho
Esc. 2,169 W Chin 593 ind. (2,762T); coho 5,846W; 5,247H
Meet escapement goals for Chinook and coho
GH
Cheh
39, 2, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 2, 5, 5
Hump
39, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5
Week Chehalis Humptulips
QIN WDFW QIN WDFW
39 2 0 4
40 3 0 3
41 4 0 3
42 4 0 3
43 2 2 3
44 2 3 1
45 1 3 2
46 2 2 3 2
47 5 0 5 3
48 5 0 5 2

4-5-2104 - Ed, Reggie, Junior, Tyler, Jim – Steve, Kirt, Chad

EJ - Uncomfortable about modeling these fisheries – general concern about escapement; we are well aware. Without Hoh v Baldrige. QTA had all pursued that. Backbone of river by river, run by run. Implemented by PFMC and PST.
Dealt with habitat, sometimes you don’t get to fish, we have experienced that. Three stock that have aligned and we brought our request of how to is it. Looks like, with what we have laid on the table that we are in good shape – always aware of escapement and on the mark.
ST – yesterday with our constituents – concern for escapement; conservative and error on the sides of the fish. Low chinook escapements, low numbers of wild coho.
EJ – don’t see the concern in the ocean. The state has yet to move off of your high number. Good shape compared to elsewhere. Cannot help that you’re being lead down this pristine path about conservation. What other tools are being offered to use?
ST – taking significant action to meet the needs of the fish. Marching orders.
EJ – Marching orders are not correct – sector allocation, has nothing to do with us. Conservation concern is unwarranted. Been in the game a long time, you have managed that system for hatchery production. MSF comes along and now there is a concern. Habitat loss, mitigated with hatchery fish. Given history and looks to me like now we are meeting the criteria. Precision, reason and benefit of HR management. We are a lot better at it today than years ago. Crazies finding Grays Harbor, dam in the upper Chehalis, fecal coliform, etc., Public Policy is mis-guided.
[Quinault Beach Resort?]
Reggie – Ocean, monitoring, in-season…
EJ – caucus
Modeling – ocean option (1408) wondering where we are going. Comfort at low TD and fishing below the goal. We are proposing fisheries that keep is above the goal.
We desire having an agreement.
GH POLICY discussion – Phil, Ron, Steve, Chadwick, Kirt – Ed, Reggie, Junior, Tyler, Jim
EJ – Comfort level of escapement, conservation creeps in to the conversation. FWC policy, staff has read, interoperating the inputs of our staff – we make objectives. We are in good shape. Our outcomes do not raise issues, to us it is a perpetuation of life styles, and for many these fisheries are their living; what even they got to do to survive. We are all about better data, more data, more precise. Steve has done a good job of representing what he has been instructed to do. Where are we at?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/14 12:39 PM


On a fishing note we have rain coming so I think one might want to take a look at the 10 day forecast. http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi

And the projected flows. http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ Now for the Chehalis it is Porter you want to watch as the upper tribs are all in by the time the river hits the Porter gauge and it is about 2 days for the Porter crest to make Aberdeen. It only takes about I day for the Satsop and Wynoochee to make tide water but they clear much faster so the guessing game of where, when and how to fish is about to begin.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/14 02:28 PM

let it rain!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/14 12:32 PM


NOAA is moving the rain coming in to later in the week so some might want to track it. Below is more information regarding the lowering of the GH Chinook escapement goal.


TO: Susan Farlinger Robert Turner
Chair Commissioner Vice-Chair Commissioner
Fisheries and Oceans Canada United States Section

CC: Pete McHugh, Kris Ryding, Kirt Hughes, Mike Scharpf, and Curt Holt,
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Gary Morishima, Larry Gilbertson, Rick Coshow, Jim Jorgersen, and Tyler Jurasin,
Quinault Dept. of Natural Resources

FROM: Chinook Technical Committee, Pacific Salmon Commission

DATE: February 14, 2014

SUBJECT: Biologically Based Escapement Goal for Grays Harbor fall Chinook, Washington

At its bilateral meeting February 11th, the Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) was presented a new maximum sustained yield escapement goal for naturally spawning adults for Grays Harbor fall Chinook, and reviewed nearly final documentation of it supplied by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN). The CTC accepted escapement goal of 13,500 adults will be used to evaluate management actions for consistency with the Pacific Salmon Treaty objectives of rebuilding and sustaining healthy Chinook salmon stocks.

The escapement goal is based on spawner-recruit relationships using estimates of production resulting from naturally spawning fish in the Chehalis and Humptulips river basins from brood years 1986 through 2005. The CTC considers the data and methods documenting the escapement goal of 13,500 to be sound and biologically-based. Further details will be summarized in TCCHINOOK (14)-02, Appendix D.

The CTC recommends some minor modifications to the final report, but does not expect these to affect the escapement goal more than 5% and does not anticipate that further review by the CTC is required as a result of incorporating the following suggestions:

1. Tabulate adult spawners and recruits (excluding jacks) by brood year for each river basin (Chehalis and Humptulips) and for the total Grays Harbor production, to facilitate independent analyses and reproducibility.

2. Further clarify the rationale for using the Queets exploitation rate indicator stock.

3. Cite the Little Hoquiam River mark-recapture study supporting the use of 2.5 fish/redd.

4. Explain the analyses exploring marine survival indices or other environmental covariates and why none were used, i.e., that there was no correlation with residuals.

5. Include, where available, estimates of stray rates and percentage hatchery origin by basin, and associated coefficients of variation.

6. Document the proportion of reaches not surveyed.

The CTC appreciates the work done to provide this improved metric and the effort to address 1) the list of desired elements for documentation, as listed in TCCHINOOK (99)-3, and 2) whether the analysis met the recommended data standards for biologically-based escapement goals, as listed in CTC Technical Note 1301 in TCCHINOOK(13)-1.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/14 10:07 AM

Coffee Talk a morning local talk radio program on KBKW a Aberdeen Radio station recently had Rep Blake on its morning show. The subject of the Willapa Fisheries was brought forth by a caller at 9:30 in Part two and it is interesting not so much for what is said but rather how the facts were put forth OR NOT, depending on your view. Coffee Talk I have known Brian for many years and have respect for many of his efforts especially early in his career taking on DNR and that crowd of elitist but in Willapa not so much. Frankly his unending support for a harvest scenario based upon maximizing commercial harvest over citizens who foot the bill is rather ridiculous to say the least.



Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/14 04:08 PM

What we have here ( courtesy Steve Thiesfeld & Mike Scharpf ) are the QIN catch as of last week. Forgive the formatting loss but I have given up on getting 10 different ways of things to agree with PP. Mike is trying to get the info up on the WDFW website so a sneak preview. It looks like the runs as modeled are holding up but the QIN actual catch would have been greater without the early rain. One thing more. The QIN fishers were limited to max 6 1/2 in. mesh and most are using 5 1/2 in. which is a tangle net for Chinook reducing the number of Chinook harvested.

From Steve & Mike:

Just a quick update on the Grays Harbor QIN fishery. As of 10/9 coho catch is 30% above predicted catch is 2A/D and 10% above in 2C. Chinook catch in all areas is about 15% below predictions (so very close to predictions), and chum is too early for any evaluation. I’ve requested mark sampling data, but that hasn’t been provided yet.
Catch to date (through wk 41):
2A/D 2C
Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
Coho 21,843 28,569 3,320 3,667
Chinook 4,122 3,525 963 786
Chum 838 486 106 83
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/14 06:10 PM


Here are the Willapa Plan redo meetings.

October 15, 2014
Contact: Steve Thiesfeld, (360) 249-1201
Public meetings scheduled to discuss
Willapa Bay salmon management
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has scheduled seven public meetings this fall and winter to discuss and develop a new draft policy for managing salmon fisheries in Willapa Bay.
The policy, along with the previously adopted Columbia River and Grays Harbor policies, will provide regional guidance on hatchery and harvest reform and will align fishery management with conservation and economic objectives. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, is scheduled to consider adopting the draft policy in February.
The Willapa Bay salmon fisheries are extremely valuable and popular, said Steve Thiesfeld, regional fish program manager for WDFW.
“We need the public’s help to identify fishery objectives and develop a policy that will ensure sustainable fisheries," he said.
The public meetings include an open house, three public workshops and three Willapa Bay salmon management advisory group meetings. The advisory committee discussions are open to the public, and those in attendance will have an opportunity to comment at the end of each meeting.
The public meetings are scheduled for:
• Oct. 25 – WDFW fishery managers will host an open house from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Oct. 27 – Willapa Bay Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School Library, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Nov. 1 – WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 4-7 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Nov. 13 – Willapa Bay Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Nov. 20 – Willapa Bay Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Dec. 6 – WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Jan. 17 – WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond Elks Lodge, 326 Third St., Raymond
At the Oct. 25 open house, the public will have the opportunity to learn about commission policies and Willapa Bay salmon management activities, including hatchery production, stock status and harvest.
“We’ll focus our initial conversations with the public on conservation and fishery objectives, including economic and season goals for commercial and recreational fishing for Willapa Bay salmon,” Thiesfeld said.
WDFW fishery managers are scheduled to brief the Fish and Wildlife Commission on the development of the draft policy during the commission's November meeting in Olympia.
Thiesfeld said WDFW will develop a range of policy options that will be discussed during the December commission meeting in Olympia. The commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the draft policy options during its January meeting.
The commission is scheduled to make a final decision at its February meeting. For more information on meeting times and places, visit the commission’s webpage at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html .
Throughout the process, WDFW will periodically update its website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/ with more information on the development of the draft policy.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW News Releases & Weekender mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html
Posted by: fp

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/14 06:40 PM

Anyone know how many of Blake's relatives gillnet the Willapa?

fp

quote=Rivrguy]Coffee Talk a morning local talk radio program on KBKW a Aberdeen Radio station recently had Rep Blake on its morning show. The subject of the Willapa Fisheries was brought forth by a caller at 9:30 in Part two and it is interesting not so much for what is said but rather how the facts were put forth OR NOT, depending on your view. Coffee Talk I have known Brian for many years and have respect for many of his efforts especially early in his career taking on DNR and that crowd of elitist but in Willapa not so much. Frankly his unending support for a harvest scenario based upon maximizing commercial harvest over citizens who foot the bill is rather ridiculous to say the least.



[/quote]
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/14 01:38 PM

This is a e mail sent out to the many folks tracking the Willapa plan redo by Steve Thiesfeld R6 Fish Program Manager. More to follow I am sure.


Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to forward this news release to you reminding folks that the we are beginning the process of a Fish and Wildlife Commission policy for Willapa Bay salmon.

I’ve heard that some folks are concerned that this news release doesn’t mention the ad-hoc committee and we had a previous news release soliciting additional folks for an ad-hoc committee as we move forward in this process. The “Advisory Committee” meetings mentioned in the news release are indeed for the Ad-Hoc Committee. I apologize for that oversight in the wording. If you are an existing member of the Advisory Committee, you are already on the Ad-Hoc Committee. Four to five additional people will be added to create the Ad-Hoc Committee to attend the meetings identified below.

By now, you are probably asking, “what happened to the folks that applied to the Ad-Hoc Committee”? I have been running behind on many of my duties and haven’t been able to get final confirmation of the additional members. I am hopeful that we will have signed letters of appointment to the selected folks by the end of the day tomorrow via email. So if you applied, please be patient a little bit longer.

Finally, I want to let folks know about the Open House. We are trying to prepare information for the open house and are anticipating a very different arrangement than our normal public meetings. Our intent is to have numerous stations available for folks to visit and gather information on salmon and fisheries in Willapa Bay. My preliminary list of stations would be along the lines of:

1. RCWs and Commission Policy that guide salmon management.
2. Stock status of salmon in Willapa Bay (abundance and management objectives).
3. Hatchery production in Willapa Bay and Hatchery Reform principles.
4. Historical and current fisheries in Willapa Bay.

We have had some internal discussion about the best way to move forward through this process. We are very concerned that folks are going to move directly to the issue of allocation. To try and head that off, we asking folks to come to the Open House prepared to talk about conservation and fishery objectives. What do you want to see for the bay? Perhaps you feel that we need to accelerate achieving the spawning goal for natural-origin Chinook. Perhaps you want to see a particular catch per angler trip in the recreational fishery. Perhaps you want to see a predictable commercial fishery schedule. Perhaps a particular economic value of the recreational and/or commercial fishery. At each station, you will have an opportunity to provide input, hopefully in the form of objectives, for WDFW to consider as we move through this process. We will record everyone’s input on flip charts for all to see.

I hope this clears up any confusion about the Ad-Hoc Committee and the process of developing a Commission policy for Willapa Bay salmon. Again, my apologies for the oversight in the news release and delay in the appointments. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email me.

Cheers
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/14 07:38 PM

Well here you go folks the additional 4 WDFW picked to work beside the Willapa Advisers that Region 6 picked in recent years. If the goal was get a broad cross section of Willapa citizens to participate in a process that will most certainly effect many in the future ( and the fish ) it safe to say that IS NOT what WDF&W did.

I’m very pleased to forward your appointment letter to the Willapa Bay Ad-Hoc Salmon Advisory Committee. The Ad-Hoc Committee will consist of the existing Willapa Bay Salmon Advisors and 4 new appointees. New appointees are:

Dean Antich, South Bend Products
Tim Hamilton, retired consultant petroleum industry
Brian Kraemer, research associate professor, medicine, UW
Paul Philpot, Pacific County Economic Development Council

Existing Willapa Bay Advisors include:

Marlisa Dugan, recreational angler and campground owner
Francis Estalilla, recreational angler
Steve Gacke, recreational angler
Lance Gray, commercial fisher
Steve Gray, commercial fisher
Allan Hollingsworth, retired commercial fisher
David Hollingsworth, commercial fisher
Bob Lake, commercial fisher
Andy Mitby, commercial fisher
Bob Mulhauser, recreational angler
Norm Reinhardt, recreational angler
LeeRoy Wisner, recreational angler

The first public meeting will be an open house on October 25th in Raymond. We will the follow that up with the first Ad-Hoc Committee meeting on October 27th. I’ve attached the news release with the meeting locations and dates so you can mark your calendar.

I look forward to working with you over the next four months to find solutions to the annual concerns over salmon in Willapa Bay. Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have questions or concerns.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/14 12:29 PM

On fishing we are about to have serious rain but it will not be even up all over. http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ Hit the precipitation forecast button then 240 hr precipitation button and you will see the forecast totals. Olympic side is going to rumble but the Chehalis not nearly as much so I do believe the East County & Lewis County guys are going to get conditions that seldom come around this time of year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/14 11:36 AM

I thought I would post up the Willapa Plan redo schedule again. It will be a long process to be sure but if you have concerns over the direction of fish management in Willapa I would urge you to participate as much as possible.


October 15, 2014
Contact: Steve Thiesfeld, (360) 249-1201
Public meetings scheduled to discuss
Willapa Bay salmon management
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has scheduled seven public meetings this fall and winter to discuss and develop a new draft policy for managing salmon fisheries in Willapa Bay.
The policy, along with the previously adopted Columbia River and Grays Harbor policies, will provide regional guidance on hatchery and harvest reform and will align fishery management with conservation and economic objectives. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, is scheduled to consider adopting the draft policy in February.
The Willapa Bay salmon fisheries are extremely valuable and popular, said Steve Thiesfeld, regional fish program manager for WDFW.
“We need the public’s help to identify fishery objectives and develop a policy that will ensure sustainable fisheries," he said.
The public meetings include an open house, three public workshops and three Willapa Bay salmon management advisory group meetings. The advisory committee discussions are open to the public, and those in attendance will have an opportunity to comment at the end of each meeting.
The public meetings are scheduled for:
• Oct. 25 – WDFW fishery managers will host an open house from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Oct. 27 – Willapa Bay Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School Library, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Nov. 1 – WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 4-7 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Nov. 13 – Willapa Bay Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Nov. 20 – Willapa Bay Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Dec. 6 – WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Jan. 17 – WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond Elks Lodge, 326 Third St., Raymond
At the Oct. 25 open house, the public will have the opportunity to learn about commission policies and Willapa Bay salmon management activities, including hatchery production, stock status and harvest.
“We’ll focus our initial conversations with the public on conservation and fishery objectives, including economic and season goals for commercial and recreational fishing for Willapa Bay salmon,” Thiesfeld said.
WDFW fishery managers are scheduled to brief the Fish and Wildlife Commission on the development of the draft policy during the commission's November meeting in Olympia.
Thiesfeld said WDFW will develop a range of policy options that will be discussed during the December commission meeting in Olympia. The commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the draft policy options during its January meeting.
The commission is scheduled to make a final decision at its February meeting. For more information on meeting times and places, visit the commission’s webpage at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html .
Throughout the process, WDFW will periodically update its website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/ with more information on the development of the draft policy.
________________________________________
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/14 11:49 AM

In both Grays Harbor & Willapa many have complained that WDFW simply sets a season and lets it run on " auto pilot " regardless of the outcome as to escapement. Now WDFW has consistently claimed otherwise from the CES for the yearly fishing WAC to court documents. Well sometimes in the PDR process it takes a while to sort through to find the relevant document and that was the case with this issue. I will highlight the relevant verbiage.

From: Hughes Kirt M (DFW)
To: Fishing Regulations (DFW), gibsonjohn222@gmail.com
CC: Warren Ron R (DFW), Anderson Jon (DFW), Aho Randy T (DFW),
Scharpf Mike M (DFW)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:14:25 -0700
Subject: RE: Aug 17 Rule Change Westport

Thanks for your inquiry. Please recall that the Ocean Areas are managed separately from the inland Marine Area of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.
The Ocean Areas are managed on a quota system which requires significant monitoring and in-season estimates of catch. Marine Areas 2.1 and 2.2 are managed on fixed season. Because of this the Ocean regulation are subject to change with some regularity as managers walk a fine line between ensuring that the quota is attained without going over. In fixed season management we establish the regulations before the season and stick with them. We do this by using average harvest rates and the assumption that these averages will be similar for the coming season. So in answer to your question, no, the Marine Area 2.2 will not change from a one Chinook daily bag to two.

From: Fishing Regulations (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:01
PM
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Cc: Warren, Ron R (DFW); Anderson, Jon
(DFW); Aho, Randy T (DFW)
Subject: FW: Aug 17 Rule Change Westport



For you!!!



What are the chances on this???



Thanks,



Jeff



From:
Sent: Thursday,
August 16, 2012 2:33 PM
To: Fishing Regulations (DFW)
Subject: Aug 17
Rule Change Westport



Will Area 2-2 change With Area 2 retention of 2 Chinook?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 12:05 AM

The ocean seasons are set based on forecast and estimated harvest rates.
The bay seasons are set based on forecast and estimated harvest rates.

Why is it assumed that the estimates in the inside fisheries are "better" than the outside. What is the track record of achieving escapement targets and catch estimates between the two areas?
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 12:49 AM

The track record of achieving escapement is dismal and leaves many scratching their heads as to how certain people still have a job.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 08:54 AM

Well just when you think things are moving along you get a ringer. Guess what guys? WDF&W violated the three net free day rule in the Chehalis. I have spoken to Region 6 (R6 ) Manager Steve Theisfeld and he immediately accepted responsibility or fell on the sword if you will. That Mr. Theisfeld has staff issues is well known but frankly it is the fact that it even happened that is so offensive. It simply shows that inside Region 6 District 17 we have a long way to go to get a group of individuals that actually follow rules and direction. The issue was missed because R6 provided the combined schedules in the model then changed the schedule in the CR 103 without saying a bloody word to anyone. So much for trust.

Oh yeah almost forgot I did not catch the screw up but rather figured out the details. Credit the inriver fishers stuck behind 6 & seven days a week gillnets in past years. They count and it was not adding up and they started yipping away! Good job guys.

From the GHMP:

Page 3 Item 8
Recreational and WFDW-managed commercial fisheries shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur. If the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 11:30 AM

Quote:
Page 3 Item 8
Recreational and WFDW-managed commercial fisheries shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur. If the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week



There's the loophole right there Riverguy.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 12:17 PM

You know I am not so sure of the loophole but rather total disregard of Commission policy. Staff would have to be both blind & deaf not be able to read the GHMP and understand the verbiage in the GHMP. It is direct and rather straight forward. So Eric I think I will go with total disregard of Commission directives but only because there was not a loophole unless one regards staff back conduct as a loophole. Ah .............. then again maybe staff regard no consequences for bad conduct as a loophole. Good point! My thoughts have been sent to the Commission and are below.

Commissioners below is the text of a post I made on a bulletin board. Simply put Commissioners Region 6 flagrantly violated the section of the Grays Harbor Management Plan outlined below. I regard it as a serious breach of trust that needs to be addressed. I am sure in the near future you will get many reasons why this happened but my response will be simple. It should never happened in the first place and if this conduct continues it will cast doubt on the validity of the Commission.
Dave

Well just when you think things a moving along you get a ringer. Guess what guys? WDF&W violated the three net free day rule in the Chehalis. I have spoken to Region 6 (R6 ) Manager Steve Theisfeld and he immediately accepted responsibility or fell on the sword if you will. That Mr. Theisfeld has staff issues is well known but frankly it is the fact that it even happened that is so offensive. It simply shows that inside Region 6 District 17 we have a long way to go to get a group of individuals that actually follow rules and direction. The issue was missed because R6 provided the combined schedules in the model then changed the schedule in the CR 103 without saying a bloody word to anyone. So much for trust.

Oh yeah almost forgot I did not catch the screw up but rather figured out the details. Credit the inriver fishers stuck behind 6 & seven days a week gillnets in past years. They count and it was not adding up and they started yipping away! Good job guys.

From the GHMP:
Page 3 Item 8

Recreational and WFDW-managed commercial fisheries shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur. If the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 12:30 PM

Theisfeld needs to man up and show some leadership. Someone needs to be held accountable immediately, and "falling on the sword himself" does not fix the problem.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 12:50 PM

Exactly!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Eric
Quote:
Page 3 Item 8
Recreational and WFDW-managed commercial fisheries shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur. If the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week



There's the loophole right there Riverguy.


That's no loop hole.

If possible means just that. If possible, the state fishery may go in.

If NOT possible, they're left to sit high and dry on the beach.

If the QIN schedule makes it impossible for the state fishery to fit in within the constraint of the mandated escapement window of 3 consecutive days in a calendar week, then the state does NOT fish.

PERIOD.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 02:24 PM

Makes total sense. I should have recognized that and stand corrected!

With that notion, it really DOES show Region 6's disregard for commission policy. Not good.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/14 02:54 PM

It will be interesting so see what, if anything, Fish Program, WDFW Admin, or the Commission will do about this.

My guess is the odds on "little or nothing" are pretty short.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/14 11:23 AM


Well the first two meetings in the process to create a new Willapa Management Plan are done. The first was a "open house " for the public. Second was for the AD HOC Committee created by the agency to " advise " them. Strange as it sounds both meetings were very similar as both were informational only and the agency took input, sorta, maybe, kinda. So here we go from my notes.


October 27, 2014 AD HOC Willapa Advisers

* Right out of the door the Commercials wanted to know just why WDFW had added five individuals to the AD HOC group rather than just use the past " advisers." Which by the way are dominated by non local Rec and commercial fishers.

* Region 6 Manager Steve Theisfeld gave a run down on the process and explained it well I think. No support from the commercials here. In addition Steve said the current Willapa Plan had not been formally adopted. Now that I am not sure of as staff ( including the Director ) has said it was so a little drama. Steve outlined mandates that govern WDFW which are laws passed by the legislators and are RCW's. The other leg is the Washington Administrative Code ( WAC ). From these directives WDFW sets time / place / manner of harvest.

* Next up Steve outlined the internal agency processes. The Commission creates broad guidelines and the agency develops actions to implement and comply with Commission Direction.

* The HSRG Guidelines to be implemented by 2015 were addressed as was the directive to protect wild stocks. The gillnetter position articulated was Willapa has no native or wild or natural origin recruits so kill them all. No need to conserve.

At this point Steve asked each member of the AD HOC Committee to put forth the single most pressing issue in their view. So here we go.

* Manage Resource for ALL citizens equitably.
* Raise as many fish as possible and harvest all so no surplus. ( wipe out )
*Viable runs of NOR fish in all major Willapa streams including Bear R.
*Develop a plan that is sustainable.
* Research and develop alternate gear. ( not supported by the commercials )
* Increase Rec opportunity by limiting commercial time on the water.
* This is a load of BS and confusing.
* Want Willapa to be the poster child for how to raise fish and harvest them.
* The need exist to evaluate the component stocks.
* Sustainable harvest.
* Large scale hatchery and harvest no need for NOR or Wild stocks.
* Maximum hatchery production especially Chum.
* Maximum sustainable economic value for harvest while meeting conservation objectives.
* Address ocean interception. Ron Warren explained the issue and pretty much painted a gloomy picture. One of the truly low points as no recognition that WDF&W HAS LET THIS HAPPEN.
* Commission will have the final say on the plan and not the AD HOC advisers.
* No single recommendation to the Commission but rather a menu to choose from.
* Willapa hatchery practices and production problematic.
* Selective fishing methods with alternate gear. ( again not supported by commercials )

So there you are my notes from the AD HOC Committee meeting, meeting #2 of the Willapa Management Plan process.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/14 11:54 AM

This is letter that came in my e mail and as it is written by a Willapa resident and Rec fisher so I thought I would put it up. Some very good points in it, especially the reduction in Chinook size. Most folks do not stop and look at the issue from a purely unbiased view. I remember Harry Senn asking me two questions as a learning exercise. How do you turn a robust hatchery stock into a smaller not so robust fish. Answer is use a large net that allows a much higher percentage of small fish into escapement. Next was how do you turn a robust Coho stock into a infamous non biter fish? Answer is you reuse the stock generation after generation ( this applies to wild stocks also ) and harvest the aggressive fish by Recs which will get you a uncooperative Coho. Cause and effect thing.

Anyhow the letter is a interesting perspective.

February 22, 2013

Fish and Wildlife Commission Members,

WDFW policy has diminished many recreational fishing opportunities all over the State by allowing commercial over harvest, Willapa Bay is an example. For many years it was a struggle but both commercial and sport fishers got a decent season at the annual salmon meetings. During this period the commercial season usually started in mid September. If there was a large run forecast they might get one or two days before mid September. It seemed to be maximum harvest because they went 6 consecutive years without chinook egg take goal at the hatcheries.

In 2010 things changed dramatically, WDFW dispensed with any pretense of fairness. They held private meetings with the gill netters before each of the last two meetings. They ignored pleas by the sport fishers and the Westport Chamber of Commerce and increased the gill netting significantly. Sport fishing dollars are very important to the businesses of the surrounding area. People come from all over Washington and the U.S. to fish Willapa Bay.

At this time they also ruled that commercial and sport fishers could keep only hatchery salmon. The hatcheries started with chinook stock from the river they are on. There is no native run to protect. There is no good reason for this rule. We feel they are trying to discourage sport fishing. It is especially hard for children to release the biggest fish they ever caught. It is a terrible waste of food when you add up sport fishing wild release mortality and gill net mortality of the salmon which they figure at 45% for every wild fish netted and released. In 2010 over 1000 wild chinook and more than 9500 wild coho were wasted. This rule and the increased netting is not conserving naturally spawning fish, it is decimating them.

It is also a big waste of money. WDFW spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on studies and then ignores them. What they are doing on Willapa Bay is not sustainable. In 2011 WDFW increased the gill netting further. 2009 commercial chinook catch was 6,471, 2010 was 9,039 including special permit “test fishery” and wild mortality. In 2011, the total commercial kill was about 21,600, this is more than three times the last ten year average of 6,422. Commercial fishers threw overboard 2700 dead or dying wild chinook. In 2009, commercial fishing hours before Sept 15 were zero, in 2012 they were given 144. They took 9726 chinook plus mortality. We have had some good run size but this is way beyond common sense.

At the last 2011 salmon meeting there were few sport representatives. They felt their presence was meaningless after their 2010 experience. The WDFW also changed the location of a Willapa and Grays Harbor meeting without proper notification. We thought this was their way of saying we weren’t wanted. We want to stress that these are good, very competent, very knowledgeable people. Prior to 2010 we felt that we were treated fairly and had a good relationship with the department. We feel they must be responding to political pressure.

Another problem is the chinook salmon are getting smaller with intensive gillnetting. The small fish slip through the nets, altering the genetics. Sport fishers would like to see them pick the bigger fish to reproduce at the hatcheries to counteract this. They would need a surplus to do this. The DFW says they need diversity but this is a false diversity because of this straining effect. We sincerely hope you can help with these problems.
Posted by: JustBecause

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/14 12:02 PM

First this:
"At this time they also ruled that commercial and sport fishers could keep only hatchery salmon. The hatcheries started with chinook stock from the river they are on. There is no native run to protect. There is no good reason for this rule."

Then:
"In 2010 over 1000 wild chinook and more than 9500 wild coho were wasted. This rule and the increased netting is not conserving naturally spawning fish, it is decimating them."

Then:
"Commercial fishers threw overboard 2700 dead or dying wild chinook"

I'm confused...
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/14 05:01 PM

JustBecause,

It is confusing. The hatcheries on Willapa Bay tributaries generally used the chinook native to their home stream as hatchery broodstock, except Nemah because it had few native chinook. Then since the 1960s Willapa Bay has been managed as a terminal area hatchery stock wipe out fishery. This imposes very high harvest rates on whatever native wild salmon stocks remained, basically extirpating them. Wild chinook in Willapa are the product of hatchery chinook spawning in the natural environment. These are the wild chinook being impacted in the sport and commercial fishery. WDFW is trying to restore a wild chinook run in the Naselle River, but it isn't a good fit with the management model that is trying to have all the hatchery surplus chinook harvested in gillnets. They've got something of a "can't get there from here" situation going on.

Hopefully less confusing now.

Sg
Posted by: JustBecause

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/14 05:32 PM

So let me see if I understand.

The Willapa Bay hatchery Chinook came from the native Chinook populations within each of the tribs, except for Nemah. There are still Chinook in the Willapa, mostly hatchery fish or progeny of hatchery fish, which came from the native populations. So how are the fish that are now produced (hatchery and natural) in the Willapa basins non-native again?

Also, the Naselle Hatchery is no longer releasing millions of Chinook salmon. Additionally, the fisheries have changed in the last few years to reduce the Bay harvest rate on Naselle Chinook.

Also, I'm not confused about what goes on in the Willapa, it's more my confusion with other people understanding of it.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/14 07:17 PM

JustBecause,

No one is saying Willapa chinook are not native. They are preponderantly native all right. Just as they are preponderantly hatchery origin, with some wild that are the offspring of hatchery chinook spawning in the natural environment.

Confusion is easy, especially when so many folks are not careful with their descriptive language when speaking and writing about various salmon populations.

Sg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/31/14 04:59 PM

In recent days the rumor mill regarding the Non Treaty Gillnetters screaming their lungs out that fish making it to the hatchery or gravel being and being wasted ( not killed and sold by them ) has been out and about. A number of folks have been tracking this issue and for my part I was waiting for the end of October hatchery escapements to be posted. Well they have and this total load of BS is outlined below in my letter to the Commission. I imagine at some point in time the NT Commercials fishers will emerge from the darl ages but I am not going to hold my breath.


November 1, 2014

WD&W Commission
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1099
1111 Washington Street S.E., Olympia, WA 98504

Commissioners,

I am writing to update the Commission regarding another success of the recently implemented Grays Harbor Management Plan. ( GHMP ) It resides in the Wishkah River sub basin and some history is required to fully explain the success.

The Wishkah River is a Southern Olympic stream that flows into the Chehalis at Aberdeen near the 101 Bridge or downtown Aberdeen. With a long history usage dating back to the time of pioneers it had declined to such a state of affairs that by the 1990's the local community and then Senator Brad Owen ( our current Lt. Governor ) was able convince the former Northwest Renewable Resource Center to use it for a pilot program to restore Chinook & Coho. The pilot project became Long Live the Kings ( LLTK ) located at what is the Mayr Hatchery. While the LLTK project did have some success it struggled do to a very high exploitation rate by both Tribal and non tribal nets. It was a victim of its location as tribal and non treaty commercial fishers pretty much corked off the river for years.

With the GHMP requiring 3 net free days ( 4/3 ) myself and others wondered just how the Wishkah would perform. Would the window of non net time be enough to overcome the ravages of the past and neglect by WDF&W? My bet was on yes / maybe but the answer appears to be resounding yes, which came as a somewhat of a surprise. Just as its location worked against the river for years it reversed with 4/3. How one can ask and the answer again is location. In the Chehalis tidewater reach all three species of salmon stage going into a holding pattern after transitioning from salt to fresh water waiting for the fall rains. The river staging reach primarily runs from the 101 bridge to what is known as Pump House ( former water intake for the unfinished Satsop Nuclear Plant ) about 15 miles upstream. In this reach the Quinault Nation has its commercial fishers as well as the NT Commercial at the lower end of tidewater. The combination of the two commercial fisheries and WDF&W's steadfast refusal to modify the Non Treaty harvest to allow protection of the Wishkah needed due to its unique location was most devastating to the fish and Recreational fishers.

So what does this have to do with 4/3 and the Wishkah? Well frankly everything. Wishkah fish do not stage in the Chehalis as the fish from most the Chehalis tributary streams do but rather in the tidewater reach of the Wishkah itself. Simply put they are able avoid the harvest levels applied on the other Chehalis tributaries because of the location of the mouth of the Wishkah River on the Chehalis main stem as 4/3 allows fish into the Wishkah tidal staging reaches. The difference this makes can be seen in the 2014 hatchery returns as of October 30, 2014. Bingham and Satsop Springs on the East Fork Satsop have had a combined return of approximately 11,893 Coho as of October 30th while Mayr Hatchery on the Wishkah has had returns of 9,729 Coho. Commissioners the production of Mayr Coho is fraction of that of the two facilities on the Satsop and the difference in returns is simply the exploitation rate applied by the QIN and WDF&W managed NT commercial fisheries on the mainstream Chehalis River. The benefit of restricting NT Commercial harvest to the Wishkah River has been dramatic and undeniable with the hatchery returns. Additionally the number of Wild Coho reaching the spawning reaches will benefit just as much or more. I am sure the NT commercial gillnetters will complain and call this a waste but frankly Commissioners the NT Commercial concept of the only good fish is a dead fish, in a gillnet, in a tote, being sold ended with the new GHMP.

In closing Commissioners the tide water reach of the Wishkah was once the best " Mom & Pop " recreational fishery in the Chehalis Basin. If a boat floated folks put it in the river and trolled the tidewater. Not much skill needed just a rod, spinner and something that floated with a motor! I believe the Wishkah will continue to rebuild with 4/3 and return substantial benefits to the local recreational community. Just as importantly Commissioners 4/3 has emerged as the safety net for the Wishkah Wild Salmon stocks that have been brutalized by the Chehalis Basin combined Maximum Sustained Yield ( MSY ) harvest modeling that resulted in overharvest of the Wishkah and several Chehalis tributary streams for so many years.

I am not sure what one can or should say to the Commission at this point except thank you. Your courage and vision of implementing the GHMP and 4/3 is paying dividends far beyond expectations.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/31/14 05:28 PM

You gotta love this! After allowing the NT Nets in Willapa to take nearly 68,000 blowing the harvest model apart with more season to come WDF&W now looks to the Recs to conserve? You gotta be joking! Ah your tax dollars at work.


WDFW FISHING RULE CHANGE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov

October 31, 2014

Reduce retention limit to no more
than two wild coho in Naselle River

Action: Only two wild coho many be retained as part of the daily limit.

Effective dates: Nov. 1, 2014 through Jan. 31, 2015.

Species affected: Salmon.

Location: Naselle River from Hwy 101 Bridge to the Crown Mainline (Salme) Bridge.

Daily limits: Daily limit six fish. Up to three may be adult salmon, of which only two may be wild coho. Release wild Chinook.

Reason for action: Provide additional protection for the late wild coho.

Other information: Anglers should refer to the Sport fishing Rules 2014/2015 pamphlet edition, Fishing in Washington, for other ongoing fishing opportunities.

Information Contact: Mike Scharpf (360) 249-1205, Mike.scharpf@dfw.wa.gov or Steve Thiesfeld (360) 249-1201, Steve.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov .
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/14 10:45 AM


Just when you think it is safe to go in the water, this:

The CES said they were changing the reg from the CR 102 to incorporate G------- request to cut bag from 3-1 and they moved down to 2. However, the CR103P filed with the language didn't have the changes in it and the bag limit remained at 3 in the WAC itself and the pamphlet that had already gone to print. Now, just like they did with Ross's retain one chum problem that is a mirror of this latest event, they use an E-reg to get the WAC rule to reflect the CES and that decision. Here we go again with Dist. 17 staff having problems processing the regulatory paperwork.

Now OK after they violated 4/3 in GH now this in Willapa. Gotta love jobs with no performance standards!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/14 03:52 PM

They have standards and expectations. That's why they are still there. they meet or exceed expectations.

You're just looking for different standards.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/14 12:40 PM

Well this was meeting #2 for the public. The meeting went OK I guess but staff struggled to communicate with a lady who by name is associated with a gillnetters family. Nice lady I guess but it was like watching the agency explain the world in 2014 to someone who just woke up and thought it was 1930. This is expected I guess but lord there are days when I hope the citizens associated with the NT Net Commercials catch up not to this century ( I have given up on that ) but someplace midway through the last. Oh well ................. here ya go and keep in mind these are my notes from my perspective!

Willapa Management Plan Public Meeting Nov 1, 2014

Introductions Staff & the public participants

Review AD HOC Committee meeting.

Objectives:
*Side tracked to how come the reduction from 3 to 2 on the Naselle for Recs.
*On to newspaper add comparing Gillnetters to coal strip mining. Again the lady from the gillnetters family was upset.
* Did review the objectives kinda / sorta / maybe.

Process:
*The information provided to the WDF&W Commission Fish Committee was provided to the public.
*Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld outlined the process thus far and what the future meetings schedule will look like.
*Not all the meeting sites for the Commission meetings have been secured and are a work in progress.
* The Commission meeting 11/8/2014 is at the NRB Building in Olympia and off we went again all over the world.

Summary of poll taken at the first public meeting:
*Citizens labeled the questions misleading ( which they were ) and wondered if accuracy even existed. ( real low point here folks as staff really stank up the place on this bit. Poll was pure BS )
* Chum management and the definition of aggregate to Recs ..... this one just took off all over the place and was basically wasted time.

Commercial input on poll:
*The use of ex vessel value to define commercial seasons and the commercials want 900,000 a year. For those not familiar ex vessel is the value of the catch of the fleet. Now this one went everyplace but the jest was the commercials wanted a maximum guaranteed value to their catch. Just so all know under the current Director that is how Willapa is managed.
*From the Rec perspective the agency pretty much just run them off with the manner they set seasons.
*The process is bizarre and one can hardly believe what they see.
*Strong objections to ex vessel value being a objective.

Recreation input on poll:
*Support alternative gear 75% to 100% Rec / zero to 10% Commercial.
* NO 2T Commercial anytime anyhow.
*Economic value of Rec fishers is misrepresented. Steve Theisfeld did his best to explain but pretty much fell on deaf ears.
*In new plan split Willapa into two management zone ( similar to GH and the Chehalis & Humptulips ) North Willapa / North River / Smith Creek & South Naselle / Nemah / others. Remove commercials from 2T for good.
* Present a true Rec value in harvest.

Apparitional Objectives ( wish list ) This went NOT well as conflict while civilized showed the huge gap between Rec & Commercial views:
* Chinook in current hatchery configuration are a no go.
*Coho & Chum maybe OK but issues all over.
*Harvest to be divided 60 commercial / 40 Rec on Coho & Chinook
*Move run timing for Coho two weeks later. Came from a commercial and sorta speechless on this one.
* Change Chinook run timing from the same commercial.
* Enhance Rec opportunity.
*Nutrient Enhancement should be a priority.
*Make Forks Creek ( Willapa ) primary stream.
*Forks Creek has a weir and a second upstream that could be refurbished. Now the but .. . no weir on main stem river ( Willapa ) and Chinook swim right by Forks Creek.
* Substantial funding needed to address straying issue on Naselle & Willapa.
*If Forks Cr. ( Willapa ) is primary stream then Commercials out of U & 2T.
*Split Willapa North & South / No 2T Commercial / reduce Forks Cr. production up Naselle.
*Commercial fisheries do not decrease or effect Rec fisheries.
*If split is done Commercial cost ( fuel burn ) would rise making it uneconomical.
*Ron Warren outlined several issues and why Naselle was primary stream. Also explained that surplus hatchery fish are not wasted. Funds generated go to RFEG's and they use it as seed and matching funds to get substantial funds that are utilized primarily for habitat restoration.
*Commission should not make a decision based upon the information provided thus far.
*RW Outlined current plan and explained that a large amount of information is still to come before a Commission decision.
*RW Still working on 2010 plan but it was never formally adopted by the Commission.
*This one needs emphasis: That staff make the Power Point presentation for the 8th Commission meeting public PRIOR to the Commission meeting the 8th so folks can reveiw and prepare prior to the meeting.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/14 10:33 AM

As things go around a lot of stuff comes through my e mail and I found this bit that went to Fish Program's Jim Scott. Now it is about the open meetings act and WDF&W's desire to usually ignore it. Back up to the Cabezon bit on the North Coast or just the normal out of site negotiations with commercials. My PDRs produced a lot of documents with the commercials more or less helping staff figure out their seasons. Again many feel this violates the open meeting laws. Now it gets really interesting when you realize the same applies to meetings with the Quinault Nation regarding setting seasons. So read away and draw your own conclusions but I think WDF&W is about to have some more legal problems.

So here is the C&P:

Below a news article about a judge's recent ruling citing the Liquor Control Board for violations of the open meetings law by holding meeting with local officials and stakeholders behind closed doors out of the public's view as it develops WACs. My reading of the article finds the court ruling aligns with our long-stated position that the Dept's historical used of "advisers" and meetings with officials and advocates with a stated interest outside public view while engaged in a rule making process is contrary to the standards of transparency. I further point to the adoption of emergency rules at the request of one or more of these "advisers" which has been a common practice of the Department. Then, right beside those two actions comes meetings, etc. behind closed doors with tribal co-managers wherein the public is again blocked from view during the decision making process.

Since the Department has been delegated the decision authority on season setting from the Commission, it is the decision making entity as were the Liquor Control Board members in this instance and the ruling is applicable in my view as follows:
RCW 42.30.030
All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
RCW 42.30.020
(1) "Public agency" means:

(a) Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature;
(2) "Governing body" means the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.

When promogating policies, rules and setting seasons, it is my view that the open meeting law applies the Director and Fish Program staff.

I only seek to share information of potential interest. No response to this communication is requested.




Judge: Liquor board broke open meetings law
By GENE JOHNSON
Associated PressNovember 3, 2014


SEATTLE — The Washington Liquor Control Board broke the state's open public meetings law 17 times as it began working on rules for the recreational marijuana industry, a judge ruled.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller issued the ruling Friday in a case brought by Arthur West, a critic of the legal pot law. The judge said that although the board broke the law, it didn't take any actions at the meetings that would warrant throwing out the marijuana rules it eventually adopted.

The meetings at issue came in the first three months of 2013, soon after voters approved Initiative 502. As the three board members — Sharon Foster, Chris Marr and Ruthann Kurose — traveled around the state holding public hearings about the legal marijuana rules, they also sometimes met quietly with local police, officials and prevention groups.

"In the early months following passage of I-502, there were many questions about what legalization meant for local communities," board spokesman Brian Smith said in an email Monday. "When Board members traveled around the state to hold public forums, they took time to meet with representatives of local government, law enforcement and the prevention community, typically at their request. At these meetings, LCB staff shared the proposed timeline for implementation, explained the process the agency would use for gathering feedback and Board members listened to any concerns."

West said the private nature of the meetings obscured the information the board was working with as it developed the rules, which covered nearly every aspect of the new legal pot industry, from what constitutes a serving size of marijuana to what sorts of security systems licensed pot businesses must have.

"The rest of us didn't get to participate in those meetings or find out what was said," West said. The judge said she would hold a hearing later this month about whether the board members broke the law knowingly. If they did, the board members could each be liable for penalties of $100 per violation, said Michele Earl-Hubbard, a Seattle open-government attorney who is not involved in the case. Judges around the state have been reluctant to void actions taken by agencies over violations of the open meetings act, Earl-Hubbard said. "It doesn't incentivize anybody to follow the law," she said.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/11/03...1#storylink=cpy
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/14 12:47 PM

"It doesn't incentivize anybody to follow the law" sums it up pretty well. They (WDFW, other agencies, whomever) will keep on doing whatever they want until forced to stop. Since it costs money to take them them to court, they are betting that they won't get sued.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/14 03:05 PM


Well today was the Commission meeting and Willapa was on the Agenda with a public input time after WDF&W's Steve Theisfeld presentation on past and present Willapa fisheries. Steve did a descent job of putting things in perspective. The Commission did set some priorities and direction the effort to redefine goals and objectives which I will put up after getting my notes in order. So below is my testimony I submitted today.


Good morning Commissioners I would like to bring forward several issues in the Willapa Plan restructure effort underway.

First Commissioners is the fact that in the past decade the Willapa communities have sacrificed much to restore salmon. From RMZ setbacks, to reduced timber harvest it has cost them millions of dollars, lost jobs and no economic stability. Controversial in the beginning, most have come to accept the need to restore salmon but Commissioners there is an issue. Those that shouldered the steep price of environmental reform actually thought " salmon restoration " meant that once again salmon would return to the home streams. This has not been the case in many places in the state but in Willapa it has been particularly egregious as harvest impacts have continued to go unabated and in some cases increased. We have an over harvest / under escapement issue in Willapa that must be addressed if the promised " salmon restoration " is to be real reform.


The second issue I wish to address is the simple fact, despite much talk and grandiose plans, little has changed with the hatchery production issue. From HSRG to the 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Initiative, and many other conceptual ideas, all direct the agency in the direction of salmon recovery. In Willapa these directives have and continue to be simply ignored. WDF&W verbiage says compliance yet resulting actions paint a far different picture. The current Willapa Plan was supposed to be the answer but it only made things worse. Commissioners the current plan simply failed in all aspects to address hatchery reform or failing escapement of wild stocks. Again the end result being in most cases only making the problem worse. The failure of WDF&W to comply and embrace hatchery reform and natural spawning populations reform in the Willapa is glaring. I urge the Commission to simply confront this issue head on and not skirt it. If this is not done the issues in Willapa will continue to worsen and again return to the Commission for resolution.


My last issue Commissioners is the understanding that the Commissioners have a desire for solutions and not the usual finger pointing and posturing. To accomplish this task the Commission must clearly and without confusion set the direction is to proceed. Frankly if one thought the Grays Harbor Management Plan was difficult to achieve then Willapa can be labeled nearly impossible.
Simply put Natural Origin Recruit Chinook ( NOR ) are declining due massive overharvest, hatchery Chinook straying is substantial, far above any acceptable level in the Willapa, and North River, the last Willapa stream with and any resemblance of the natural order, is not protected. Returning NOR Coho are in a massive decline to near critical levels due to extreme overharvest. Chum stocks have suffered virtually the same overharvest as Chinook & Coho.


So Commissioner tell us the direction and parameters that both the agency and citizens are to utilize in the drafting of the new Willapa Plan. It is the necessary first step.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/14 03:28 PM

Steve Theisfeld started things out with a presentation to the Commission outlining issues and history in Willapa fisheries. Then the Commission Fish Committee put forth guidance in rather short order. So here it is and more to come but at last we know the direction we are headed. Keep in mind these are my notes from my perspective so hopefully I did not miss anything.

1. The Commission Fish Committee would like to see multiple options and review them prior to presentation to the AD HOC Willapa Advisers. ( and public )

2. Prioritize Chinook for Recreational fishers. Coho & Chum for commercial.

3. A option should be divide Willapa into two regions. North to be for Rec and South Commercial.

4. Alter hatchery production so Willapa ( Forks Creek hatchery ) is Chinook and Coho and Chum are South hatcheries.

5. Need to look at Chum enhancement.

6. To look at user funded programs such as Alaska Private Non Profit ( PNP ) for similar programs for the South Bay.

7. The Willapa hatcheries will comply with HSRG guidelines.
Posted by: Canyon Man

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/14 04:16 PM

The whole discussion can be watched here...

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014110018
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/14 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Canyon Man


No go for me......Says "Stream not found"......guess maybe I'll head out and find a river to fish.....

Go Hawks!!!!!!!!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/14 07:23 PM

Not sure why the two streams for the recent WFWC public meeting are NOT functioning. Every other video on the recent archive page plays just fine.

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwsearch&recent

Things that make ya go HMMMMMM.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/14 11:08 AM

TVW still does not have the video issue resolved, lord luv a duck!

Also Ron Warren provided the Power Point presentation that Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld utilized at the November 8th meeting. It is a reasonably descent presentation and if you would like it simply e mail me.

So if you have that and can view the video of the Commission meeting one gets a feel for what the process will look like.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/14 03:49 PM

Video up and running...

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014110018

Cue up to 9:20 for Thiesfelds briefing/presentation to the commission

1:03:30 for the start of public testimony.

1:29:40 for the Fish Committee's recommendations/guidance
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/14 10:50 AM

If you watch the video footage I would urge you to listen to the presentation on Open Public Meeting Act requirements. As FTC is about the citizens right to know I regard it as a lynch pin in reforming WDF&W when we get a new director. ( ain't gonna happen with Mr. Anderson ) Anyway the videos volume is a bit bad at the end but really zero in on when the attorney lays out the history AND the key three sentences that the courts have zeroed in on.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/14 09:53 AM



The AD HOC Advisor meeting is tonight at the Raymond high school but remember the public can comment at the end but not fully participate. Do not panic the last two meetings are public and it will the non advisers run at it. Also the preliminary option draft has been circulated. I doubt I can C&P it but e mail me & I will forward it.


Nov. 13 - Willapa Bay Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/14 09:56 AM

Formatting & color coding left but at least you can get an idea. From Steve Theisfeld:

Hi Everyone,

We have been working hard since the Commission meeting on Saturday to develop some options based on the guidance provided by the commission in order to move forward in our process. We had a conference call with the Commission’s Fish Committee this afternoon and they approved us presenting four draft “straw dog” options to the ad-hoc committee tomorrow. I have attached those to this email.

We would appreciate your consideration of these options and look forward to hearing some feedback from folks tomorrow. We were directed to be open to other options and will also be discussing potential for other options. However, they instructed us to limit the options to 6 total.

If you weren’t able to attend the Commission meeting last Saturday and want to get up to speed, the presentation is here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/11/nov0714_11_presentation.pdf; and the video is located here: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014110018. Be advised, given the full nature of our agenda, I am not intending to rehash the presentation nor the Commission’s guidance. We really need to roll up our sleeves and work towards solutions.

We also hope to have a very, very, preliminary draft policy to begin chewing on tomorrow. Recall that we hope to have a draft policy for the Commission’s consideration for their December 13th meeting. Pending their approval and suggested modifications, the draft policy would be made available for a 3-week public review process.

Here is a tentative agenda for tomorrow night.

Welcome and Introduction
Review Ground Rules
Review Options Document
Comments and Feedback
Other potential Options
Review Preliminary Draft Policy.

I look forward to a productive meeting tomorrow.

Cheers

Steve Thiesfeld


Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy - Options
Draft November 12, 2014

Aspirational Objectives
The aspirational objectives describe the suite of outcomes that we will strive to achieve through the development of the policy. They are intended to inspire the development of innovative strategies and promote the assessment of trade-offs between options. They are not entitlements, and it may not be feasible to simultaneously achieve all of the aspirational objectives.

Conservation
Chinook – Alternative 1
Spawners: Meet Naselle and North spawner goals in 10 years Broodstock Management: Meet watershed-specific HSRG standards in 10 years

Chinook – Alternative 2
Spawners: Meet Willapa and North spawner goals in 10 years Broodstock Management: Meet watershed-specific HSRG standards in 10 years

Coho
Spawners: Meet Willapa Bay aggregate goal Broodstock Management: Meet watershed-specific HSRG standards

Chum
Spawners: Meet Willapa Bay aggregate goal in 2017 Broodstock Management: Meet watershed-specific HSRG standards

Recreational Fisheries
25% increase in catch within 5 years relative to 2009-2013 average

Commercial Fisheries
$900,000 average ex-vessel value


Strategies
The strategies describe alternative fishery and hatchery management options. They will be compared to current management (referred to as the Base) with respect to achieving the aspirational objectives.

In the following options, the “A” and “B” sub-options are identical except that the “A” series always has the Naselle and North as Primary Chinook populations and the “B” series always has the Willapa and North as Primary Chinook populations.


Synopsis:

• Current hatchery production
• Time and area priorities per guidance
• Commercial fisheries begin 9/15
• Commercial limited to only 2 days per week in 2T and 2U beginning 9/15
• No directed commercial chum fisheries until spawner goal achieved



Policy Component Proposal
Species Priority • Chinook: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through Sept. 14.
• Coho, Chum: Commercial priority.
Area Priority • Areas 2T, 2U: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through Sept. 14; maximum of 2 commercial fishing days/week in remainder of season.
• Areas 2M, 2N, 2R & 2P: Commercial fisheries after Sept. 14 scheduled to meet conservation objectives.
Chinook Primary Populations Naselle River & North River(current)
Hatchery Production Hatchery Chinook Coho Chum
Forks 3.2M 0.3M 0.3M
Nemah 3.3M - 0.3M
Naselle 0.5M 1.4M 0.3M
Chum Streamside Incubation Boxes 200,000 (current)
Chum Fishery Management No commercial fisheries Oct. 15-31 until spawner goal achieved


Synopsis: Differences from Option 1A are highlighted in red.

• Shift primary Chinook designation from Naselle River to Willapa River
• Shift Chinook production from Forks Creek Hatchery to Naselle Hatchery
• Time and area priorities per guidance
• Commercial fisheries begin 9/15
• Commercial limited to only 2 days per week in 2T and 2U beginning 9/15
• No directed commercial chum fisheries until spawner goal achieved



Policy Component Proposal
Species Priority • Chinook: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through Sept. 14.
• Coho, Chum: Commercial priority.
Area Priority • Areas 2T, 2U: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through Sept. 14; maximum of 2 commercial fishing days/week in remainder of season.
• Areas 2M, 2N, 2R & 2P: Commercial fisheries after Sept. 14 scheduled to meet conservation objectives.
Chinook Primary Populations Willapa River & North River
Hatchery Production Hatchery Chinook Coho Chum
Forks 0.4M 0.3M 0.3M
Nemah 3.3M - 0.3M
Naselle 3.3M 1.4M 0.3M
Chum Streamside Incubation Boxes 200,000 (current)
Chum Fishery Management No commercial fisheries Oct. 15-31 until spawner goal achieved


Synopsis: Differences from Option 1A are highlighted in red.

• Decreased Chinook production at Nemah, increase Chum and coho
• Increased streamside incubation boxes for chum
• Time and area priorities per guidance
• Commercial fisheries begin after Labor Day in 2M and 2N only, limited to 3 days per week between Labor Day and 9/14
• Commercial fisheries begin 9/15 in remaining areas
• Commercial limited to only 3 days per week in 2T and 2U beginning 9/15
• No directed commercial chum fisheries until goal achieved, except 2M and 2N beginning 2018



Policy Component Proposal
Species Priority • Chinook: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through Labor Day weekend.
• Coho, Chum: Commercial priority
Area Priority • Area 2T, 2U: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through Sept. 14. Maximum of 3 commercial fishing days/week in remainder of season.
• Areas 2M & 2N commercial priority with maximum of 3 commercial fishing days/week after Labor Day weekend through Sept. 14. After Sept. 14 scheduled to meet conservation objectives.
• Areas 2P & 2R: Commercial fisheries after Sept. 14 scheduled to meet conservation objectives.
Chinook Primary Populations Naselle River & North River
Hatchery Production Hatchery Chinook Coho Chum
Forks 3.2M 0.3M 0.3M
Nemah 0.5M 0.4M 3.0M
Naselle 0.5M 1.4M 0.3M
Chum Streamside Incubation Boxes 400,000 (twice current level)
Chum Fishery Management • Areas 2T, 2U, 2R, 2P – no commercial fisheries Oct. 15-31 until spawner goal achieved
• Areas 2M, 2N – commercial fisheries directed at returning Nemah Hatchery adult return no earlier than 2018.


Synopsis: Differences from Option 1A are highlighted in red.

• Shift primary Chinook designation from Naselle River to Willapa River
• Shift Chinook production from Forks Creek Hatchery to Naselle Hatchery
• Decreased Chinook production at Nemah, increase Chum and coho
• Increased streamside incubation boxes for chum
• Time and area priorities per guidance
• Commercial fisheries begin after Labor Day in 2M and 2N only, limited to 3 days per week between Labor Day and 9/14
• Commercial fisheries begin 9/15 in remaining areas
• Commercial limited to only 3 days per week in 2T and 2U beginning 9/15
• No directed commercial chum fisheries until goal achieved, except 2M and 2N beginning 2018



Policy Component Proposal
Species Priority • Chinook: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through Labor Day weekend.
• Coho, Chum: Commercial priority
Area Priority • Area 2T, 2U: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through Sept. 14. Maximum of 3 commercial fishing days/week in remainder of season.
• Areas 2M & 2N commercial priority with maximum of 3 commercial fishing days /week after Labor Day weekend through Sept. 14. After Sept. 14 scheduled to meet conservation objectives.
• Areas 2P & 2R: Commercial fisheries after Sept. 14 scheduled to meet conservation objectives.
Chinook Primary Populations Willapa River & North River
Hatchery Production Hatchery Chinook Coho Chum
Forks 0.4M 0.3M 0.3M
Nemah 0.5M 0.4M 3.0M
Naselle 3.3M 1.4M 0.3M
Chum Streamside Incubation Boxes 400,000 (twice current level)
Chum Fishery Management • Areas 2T, 2U, 2R, 2P – no commercial fisheries Oct. 15-31 until spawner goal achieved
• Areas 2M, 2N – commercial fisheries directed at returning Nemah Hatchery adult return no earlier than 2018

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/14 11:44 AM

Well last nights Willapa Adviser AD HOC meeting went ............. well it went. Commercials were having substantial difficulties in getting their arms around the direction set at Saturday's Commission meeting & HSRG guidelines. On the Rec said I would say most but not all had the same difficulty just different points to object to. From the public view I watched a group folks that were serving as Advisers in this process struggle to comprehend what was happening. I take that back they had and idea what was happening just little understanding of why. Hell there were more members in the public section that have made the meetings and went to the Commission meeting that had a better grip on direction than the AD HOC!

One last thing and this is a heads up to Willapa fishers ( fresh & marine / local & Traveling Wilburys ) and the need to pay attention. In the future all fisheries are going to be governed by Natural Origin Spawners ( NOS ) so pay attention. Commercial / Rec marine / Rec freshwater will rapidly eat up any impacts available. There are not enough to go around and this is going to get mean. So Rec guys realize there needs to be a process that insures that either marine or fresh water do not take a inappropriate share of the impacts. Hell it started last night when one adviser did not think a break out was necessary. Now he fished the marine but believe me I know fresh water locals who are pretty much bent on similar approaches. So Rec get your bloody house in order and DO NOT start down the road of one Rec screwing the other Rec, you will ALL loose in that one.

So here are my notes and remember they are my notes from my perspective.


November 13, 20124 AD HOC Adviser Meeting

Steve Theisfeld ( ST ) opened the meeting.
Introductions around the room and ground rules.

*Right out of the door things got side tracked by a Commercial bitching about not being notified on a Grays Harbor season day.
*ST outlined Commission guidance and process.
*ST outlined that the Commission outlined the "straw dog " options.
*ST outlined direction and HSRG reform.
*Commercial questions on why concerns on North River Chinook.
*Questions on changing from Naselle to Willapa as the primary stream. ( in options )
*Discussion on "aggregate " of stocks for escapement.
*Commercials oppose September 15 exclusion in 2T & U or Chinook priority for Rec fishers and DOWN Hill as we went into a MAJOR bitch session. Ron Warren ( RW ) drawn into it also.
*ST declares meeting break. Several Commercials clearing the moon in one giant leap.

* Look at alternate gear / agency would like new ideas.
*Again Commercial objections to the September 15 lock out 2T and need to change the fish returning run timing.
*Again Commercial opposition to options.
*Commercial wanted to use this year's season as a option.
*Rec's limited on catch by WDF&W rules that reduce fishing productivity. Deck is stacked.
*ST back to options and what can be done to improve fresh water opportunity.
*Streamline process on options.
*Requested to look at starting fish trap but no response from WDF&W.
*Rec gave up 60% of fishable area on Naselle to save Chinook. How's that working?
*Hatchery / wild no need to separate utilize hatchery fish to make wild escapement.
*ST Commission said YOU WILL implement HSRG.
*Lot of discussion on moving Chinook production and managing broodstock.
*Why do we spawn runts?
* Does WDF&W guarantee increased production?
* Disagree with all options.
*Want seven days a week commercial fisheries.
*Commercials days in options must be consecutive. Reduce U back to South Bend boat launch.
*Cut back from 6 fishable runs to 2.
*Retain 2T dip in Commercial fishery.
*ST committed to work on additional options.
*Discussion on how to circulate documents within the AD HOC.
*Deliberate thought on what is written down.
*Question, can we make progress this year on expanded Chum eggtake.
*Review Policy draft at home rather than do it line by line at the meeting.
*ST started through the draft Commission Guidelines line by line.
*Commercial request to redefine 2T and adjoining boundaries. Pretty much a request to do some serious " gerrymandering "
*Add to guidelines / options Rec marine and fresh water harvest split similar to Grays Harbor.

PUBLIC INPUT:
*Objections to focusing on harvest and hatchery production rather than natural spawners.
*Supportive of year end review of WDF&W Region 6 staff.
*Copies of the new Commission Guidelines & Options electronically and a contact person so public can put in input prior to staff having its mind made. Clearly stated this is a public process and if necessary a PDR will be dropped to insure transparency. No back room deals.
*Opposed to utilizing hatchery fish to make escapement. Need to concentrate on selective fisheries to catch fish.
*Gillnet release mortality way to high.
*Back to the past and NOF and Commercial buy back. 48% interception rate exceeds Magnuson Act guidelines.
* I got the Grays Harbor notification and I am not a Commercial so you need to check your e mail.
*Again back to the Grays Harbor one day addition to season. Commercials still stuck on no notification. ST " I sent it out by e mail"

Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/14 12:58 PM

If all Willapa fishing is going to be governed by NOS, I think making the best of the situation, with the understanding that WDFW is under the gun for more budget reductions, then the best alternative going forward is to close the Nemah and Naselle hatcheries, leaving Forks (Willapa) as the sole source of hatchery production in Willapa Bay. This basically eliminates future gillnetting in WB, and the recreational fishery would ride on the fortunes of NOS. WB would likely shift to more of a coho fishery than chinook for sport fishing, but it could be HSRG compliant, with more recreational salmon catch that at present, or maybe not if it's all mark selective fishing.

Sg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/14 03:44 PM



OK I was finally able to get the new Commission Policy Draft for Willapa into a format that I can C&P. So here you go.




FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
POLICY DECISION


POLICY TITLE: Willapa Bay Salmon Management POLICY NUMBER: C-

Cancels or Effective Date: March 1, 2014
Supersedes: NA Termination Date: December 31, 2023

See Also: Policies C-3608, C-3619 Approved _________________[date]
by: _______________________Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission


Purpose
The objective of this policy is to advance the conservation and restoration of wild salmon in Willapa Bay. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state, provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences and a fair distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Willapa Bay Basin, and improve the technical rigor of fishery management. Enhanced transparency and information sharing are needed to restore and maintain public trust and support for management of Willapa Bay salmon fisheries.

Definition and Intent
This policy sets a general management direction and provides guidance for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) management of all Pacific salmon returning to the Willapa Bay Basin. The Willapa Bay Basin is defined as Willapa Bay and its freshwater tributaries.

General Policy Statement
This policy provides a cohesive set of principles and guidance to promote the conservation of wild salmon and steelhead and improve the Department’s management of salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin. The Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) recognizes that management decisions must be informed by fishery monitoring (biological and economic), and that innovation and adaptive management will be necessary to achieve the stated purpose of this policy. By improving communication, information sharing, and transparency, the Department shall promote improved public support for management of Willapa Bay salmon fisheries.

State commercial and recreational fisheries will need to increasingly focus on the harvest of abundant hatchery fish. Mark-selective fisheries are a tool that permits the harvest of abundant hatchery fish while reducing impacts on wild stocks needing protection. As a general policy, the Department shall implement mark-selective salmon fisheries, unless the wild populations substantially affected by the fishery are meeting spawner (e.g., escapement goal) and broodstock management objectives. In addition, the Department may consider other management approaches provided they are as or more effective than a mark-selective fishery in achieving spawner and broodstock management objectives.

Fishery and hatchery management measures should be implemented as part of an “all-H” strategy that integrates hatchery, harvest, and habitat systems. Although the policy focuses on fishery management, this policy in no way diminishes the significance of habitat protection and restoration.

Guiding Principles
The Department will apply the following principles in the management of salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin:

1) Promote the conservation and restoration of salmon and steelhead by working with our partners (including Regional Fishery Enhancement Groups and Lead Entities) to protect and restore habitat productivity, implementing hatchery reform (see Policy C-3619), and managing fisheries consistent with conservation objectives.

2) The Department will work through the Pacific Salmon Commission to promote the conservation of Willapa Bay salmon and, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, pursue the implementation of fishery management actions necessary to achieve agreed conservation objectives.

3) Within the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) process, the Department will support management measures that promote the attainment of Willapa Bay conservation objectives consistent with the Council’s Salmon Fishery Management Plan.

4) In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, seek to enhance the overall economic well-being and stability of Willapa Bay Basin fisheries.

5) In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, fishing opportunities will be fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of WDFW-managed fishers.

6) Monitoring, sampling, and enforcement programs will adequately account for species and population impacts (landed catch and incidental fishing mortality) of all recreational and WDFW-managed commercial fisheries and ensure compliance with state regulations.

7) If it becomes apparent that a scheduled fishery will exceed its preseason catch expectation, and the overage will put at risk the attainment of conservation objectives, the Department shall implement in-season management actions that are projected to enhance the effectiveness of fishery management relative to the attainment of the conservation objectives and impact sharing in the preseason fishery plan.

8) Salmon management will be well documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable. The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements in the transparency of fishery management and for effective public involvement. These shall include: a) clearly describing management objectives in a document available to the public prior to the initiation of the preseason planning process; b) enhancing opportunities for public engagement during the preseason fishery planning process; c) communicating in-season information and management actions to advisors and the public; and d) striving to improve communication with the public regarding co-management issues that are under discussion.

9) The Department shall seek to improve fishery management and technical tools through improved fishery monitoring, the development of new tools, and rigorous assessment of fishery models and parameters.

10) When a mark-selective fishery occurs, the mark-selective fishery shall be implemented, monitored, and enforced in a manner designed to achieve the anticipated conservation benefits.

11) Areas 2T and 2U shall be managed for recreational priority. Commercial fisheries shall not begin until September 15
a. Alternative A. Commercial fisheries limited to one 48-consecutive hour period per week.
b. Alternative B. Commercial fisheries limited to one 72-consecutive hour period per week.



Fishery and Species-Specific Guidance
Subject to the provisions of the Adaptive Management section, the following fishery-and species-specific sections describe the presumptive path for achieving conservation objectives and a fair sharing of harvestable fish.

Fall Chinook Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage fall Chinook salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:

1) The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. achieve spawner goals for natural-origin Chinook and hatchery reform broodstock objectives (see bullet 2);
b. provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and
c. limit commercial fishery impacts to the incidental harvest of fall Chinook during fisheries directed at other species.

2) Fisheries will be managed with the intent of

Alternative A: achieving spawner goals for natural-origin Chinook in the Naselle and North rivers and watershed-specific broodstock management objectives within 10 years.

Alternative B: achieving spawner goals for natural-origin Chinook in the Willapa and North rivers and watershed-specific broodstock management objectives within 10 years.

In no case, shall fishery impacts in the Willapa Bay Basin result in an impact of more than {X%} of the return from the Naselle and North (or Willapa and North) rivers when the natural-origin adult return exceeds the spawner goal by less than 10%.

3) Commercial fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin during the Chinook salmon management period (prior to September 15)

Alternative A: will not occur.

Alternative B: will not occur except 2M and 2N may open after Labor Day weekend, and limited to one 72-consecutive hour period per week.

Coho Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage coho salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:

1) The fishery management objectives for coho salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. achieve the aggregate spawner goal for natural-origin coho and hatchery reform broodstock objectives (see bullet 2);
b. prioritize commercial fishing opportunities during the coho fishery management period (Sept. 15 through Oct. 14).

2) Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate spawner goal for Willapa Bay natural-origin coho salmon. When the pre-season forecast of natural-origin adult coho is less than the aggregate goal, or less than 10% higher than the aggregate goal fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return.

3) Hatchery programs and fisheries will be managed to achieve watershed-specific broodstock management standards.

Chum Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage chum salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:


1) The fishery management objectives for chum salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. achieve the aggregate goal for naturally spawning chum and meet hatchery reform broodstock objectives (see bullets 2 and 3);
b. prioritize commercial fishing opportunities during the chum fishery management period (October 15 through October 31).

2) Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate goal for Willapa Bay naturally spawning chum salmon. Until the spawner goal is achieved, the maximum fishery impact shall not exceed a 10% harvest rate and no commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31. If the aggregate goal has been achieved, but the pre-season forecast of adult chum is less than the aggregate goal, or less than 10% higher than the aggregate goal, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return.

3) Option associated with increased hatchery chum production: Beginning in 2018, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will result in an impact of no more than Y% of the return, except that commercial fisheries directed at adults returning to the Nemah Hatchery can occur in areas 2M and 2N October 15-31.

Adaptive Management
The Commission recognizes that adaptive management will be essential to achieve the purpose of this policy. Department staff may implement actions to manage adaptively to achieve the objectives of this policy and will coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions. Components of the adaptive management will be shared with the public through the agency web site and will include the following elements:

1) Annual Fishery Management Review. The Department shall annually evaluate fishery management tools and parameters, and identify improvements as necessary to accurately predict fishery performance and escapement.

2) In-season Management. The Department shall develop, evaluate, and implement fishery management models, procedures, and management measures that are projected to enhance the effectiveness of fishery management relative to management based on preseason predictions.

3) Spawner Goals. The Department shall review spawner goals to ensure that they reflect the current productivity of salmon.

Delegation of Authority
The Commission delegates the authority to the Director, through the North of Falcon stakeholder consultation process, to set seasons for recreational and WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin, to adopt permanent and emergency regulations to implement these fisheries, and to make harvest agreements with treaty tribes and other governmen
Posted by: cohoangler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/14 04:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
If all Willapa fishing is going to be governed by NOS, I think making the best of the situation, with the understanding that WDFW is under the gun for more budget reductions, then the best alternative going forward is to close the Nemah and Naselle hatcheries, leaving Forks (Willapa) as the sole source of hatchery production in Willapa Bay. This basically eliminates future gillnetting in WB, and the recreational fishery would ride on the fortunes of NOS. WB would likely shift to more of a coho fishery than chinook for sport fishing, but it could be HSRG compliant, with more recreational salmon catch that at present, or maybe not if it's all mark selective fishing.

Sg


I agree, if those two hatcheries close, the Naselle will become a coho fishery, to a large extent. But the Naselle River chum salmon stocks seem to be thriving, based on the large number of adults that migrate thru in Sept and Oct. And all the chum are wild fish. So if chum salmon can maintain their productivity on the Naselle, my sense is, so can the Chinook since their life history pattern is not that different (in the absence of commercial fishing). I realize that chum are not nearly as valuable as Chinook, so anglers currently do not focus on chum, so the harvest rate is low. But the point is, if the recreational harvest of adult Chinook can be closely regulated, they may be productive enough in the Naselle to have a reasonable recreational fishery, even without the hatcheries. So it might not be just a coho fishery.

But this has nothing to do with fishing the Chehalis Rv, which is the focus of this rather extensive thread.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/14 04:33 PM

Since WB is the only place in WA where WDFW does not have to get tribal approval to scratch their *ss why make the Bay an experiment to see just what NOR productivity and capacity are?

Set very conservative total exploitations, including AK and BC, at say 10-20% and let it run. Put the hatchery production into places that are really compromised habitat-wise or where the human population is densest.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/15/14 11:45 AM


Sometime back I was contacted by Lance Fisher of the Northwest Outdoor Show and he expressed a desire to explore the issues surrounding the condition of Grays Harbor and Willapa salmon. Things just interfered then but recently Lance touched bases again and we took the time to talk about the current status of Grays Harbor and Willapa.

Lance is pretty much straight forward and did not shy away from hard the issues. I found it to be a interesting conversation and refreshing in many ways as in the fish world straight forward conversation is more often than not a victim of what is commonly known as being " politically correct. "

So if you care to listen to the conversation the links are at the bottom of his website page accessed by the link below to Lance Fishers's Northwest Outdoor Show.


http://northwestoutdoorshow.com/nw-outdoor-show-november-15-2014/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/14 11:37 AM


Many have asked what do I think about the Willapa Management Plan effort underway. Well a bit chaotic is a understatement and additionally so far the public has had little input into the process at this point. I admit it can be, is, and will continue to be confusing to most. WDF&W staff have attempted to get information out ( a lot of it ) but I do not think they fully understood how to make it understandable to the average citizen.

Below is my view of a modified 1B for all to look at and think about / kick the crap out of / use as a starting point.


Highly Modified Option 1B

Synopsis:

• Shift primary Chinook designation from Naselle River to Willapa River
• Shift Chinook production from Forks Creek Hatchery to Naselle Hatchery
• Time and area priorities per guidance
• Commercial fisheries begin 10/1
• Commercial limited to only 2 days per week in 2T and 2U beginning 10/1
• No directed commercial chum fisheries until spawner goal achieved three out of five years. ( beginning 2010)


Policy Component Proposal
Species Priority • Chinook: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through October 1.
• Coho, Chum: Commercial priority.
Area Priority • Areas 2T, 2U: Recreational priority with no commercial fishery through October 1;
• WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in the aggregate area areas 2T, 2U,2M, 2N, 2R & 2P shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of five consecutive days when no state-managed commercial fisheries occur.
• Areas 2M, 2N, 2R & 2P: Commercial fisheries after October 1 scheduled to meet conservation objectives.
Chinook Primary Populations Willapa River & North River
Hatchery Production Hatchery Chinook Coho Chum
Forks 0.4M
0.3M 0.3M
Nemah 3.3M - 0.3M
Naselle 3.3M
1.4M 0.3M
Chum Streamside Incubation Boxes 200,000 (current)

Chum Fishery Management No commercial fisheries Oct. 15-31 until spawner goal achieved 2 consecutive years. If the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years (beginning in 2010), the Department shall implement the following measures:
a) The predicted fishery impact for Chum in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Willapa Harbor & tributary streams will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Willapa Harbor.





&#8195;
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/14 09:41 PM

About time the state quits breast feeding the commercials. cryriver
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/14 10:26 AM

The A-HA moment is near! This element of the Willapa Management Plan is the least understood but ultimately extremely important. It is not a "silver bullet " but rather a tool that allows you to more less develop a plan around the hatchery / wild / harvest thing. Last meeting of the AD HOC WDFW Staff let all know that Andy Appleby would be at the next meeting to explain the AHA model but it is my understanding that they are running a little late in getting it done with Willapa Data inputted. So here is the abstract and if one wants it just goggle Fishery A-HA or e mail me and I will send it to you.

Abstract.—The All-H Analyzer (AHA model) is a tool that allows salmon managers to simultaneously evaluate the impact that habitat restoration (or degradation), changes in fisheries, or changes in hatchery operation would have on a specific fish population or stock. This paper presents the (idealized) results of how AHA can be used to set a long-term salmon restoration, recovery, and fishery plan. It takes the process from initial goal setting, through exploring how those goals can be evaluated by AHA, and then how they can be accomplished. The results of implementation of various options are evalu­ated with AHA both in terms of “numerical” escapement to the spawning grounds, the amount and direction of gene flow, and the number of fish harvested. In this way, activi­ties can be prioritized, planned, carried out, and evaluated against an expected response. It is also possible to evaluate “what-if” scenarios to better plan multiple activities within a watershed.

The AHA model is an outgrowth of the work of the Hatchery Scientific Review group in Washington, including J. Scott, C. Busack, P. Seidel, L. Mobrand, D. Camp­ton, C. Mahnken, T. Flagg, and T. Evelyn. Special thanks to L. Mobrand who not only developed the actual spreadsheet model, but also constantly refined the model, its outputs, and displays to more clearly develop options and present results.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/14 02:30 PM

Tonight is the Willapa Plan AD HOC meeting ( highlighted below ) but remember public input is limited to one hour at the end.

To the question is this all for the AD HOC? I do not know but I guess they could do additional meetings after the next two public meetings.

Could this lock the public out of the process as things come together in the draft Willapa Management Plan? Yes / No In some folks mind that is what they want where a few drive the process out of the public's view. The No is that if WDF&W does that is the public can and will meet them at the Commission and it will be game on as back room crap ain't gonna fly no more no how.

The whole thing is a " dog & pony show " It has evolved to that in many ways but I doubt that was staff's desire it just came out of the chaos of the past meetings.

So participate whatever your view right to the end. It is every citizens right.

• Oct. 25 - WDFW fishery managers will host an open house from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Oct. 27 - Willapa Bay Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School Library, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Nov. 1 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 4-7 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Nov. 13 - Willapa Bay Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
Nov. 20 - Willapa Bay Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee, from 6-8 p.m.; public input from 8-9 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Dec. 6 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond
• Jan. 17 - WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond Elks Lodge, 326 Third St., Raymond
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/21/14 11:25 AM

So how did the meeting of the Willapa AD HOC go? Well it was informative, calm, infuriating and at times misinformation came pouring out. So let us try this. Steve Theisfeld R-6 Fish Program did a update on the process thus far. Then we went right to the AHA model presentation by AA and that was a fairly reasonable Power Point presentation. The model function inputs can be confusing on the best of days even if your familiar with harvest and escapement management.

Then the wheels fell right off the cart. The modeling the spread sheet produces a graph of the projected harvest at the bottom of the spread sheet by user group. So AA started in identifying the rational for this results.

1. Inriver Rec: They don't need many fish to catch just the opportunity. ( boat ride or hike to the river bank ) I bloody well nearly had a stroke right there but waited until public input but what a load of, well something. The inriver struggles due to 90% of the fish being removed by commercial harvest before they get a shot at them. Never mind that gear restrictions ( barbless / single / ect ) are intended to and do limit inriver success for conservation.

2. Marine Rec: They catch more but not that much of a impact: Lord love a duck! The same gear restrictions as in river apply. Also putting the Commercial nets in 2T and sweeping the bay continuously with gillnets guarantees a vastly reduced marine Rec catch.

3. Commercial Gillnets: They really are important as the Recs cannot kill all the harvestable hatchery fish.
Now at this one I pretty much went into a state of shock again. Now the reason for the Willapa Management Plan redo is frankly that the Commercial fisheries pretty much darn near wiped out the natural salmon populations across the entire Willapa estuary. I mean killing fish is what management is all about? Whatever happened to the Conservation Based management the Commission is advocating?

4. If you do not kill all the hatchery fish with a commercial gillnet the Willapa hatcheries will look like Bingham. This I asked AA to clarify as I am more than a little familiar with Bingham Hatchery which is located on the East Fork Satsop in the Chehalis Basin. In clarification AA identified the issue as the large numbers of returning fish above the hatchery egg take goal.

Ok let us try this. The Chehalis Basin is managed for Natural Origin Spawners ( NOS ) and this requires a exploitation rate that insures the NOS population have the numbers into escapement after harvest to sustain the NOS populations. All salmon stocks in the Chehalis Basin are integrated stocks which means the hatchery production is genetically the same as the wild or NOS populations. This results in the hatchery returns mirroring the NOS ( wild ) which is way past the 5% or so the hatchery would require if the stocks were segregated. ( AA outlined the Chambers Cr. Steelhead as a easy example of a segregated stock ) which allow wipe out fisheries. The simple fact is the days of wiping out NOS / wild salmon populations is supposed to be in the past. ( at least that is what the Commission has directed ) In addition those hatchery returns are the Rec fishers opportunity. The Recs spend more money chasing the fish trying to catch it with restricted gear than the value of the bloody commercial fishery, period.

So just what on earth was this about? Well this is my opinion but I think the answer revolves around the previous AD HOC and public meetings. So straight talk time. The meetings were contentious, disorganized, and just plain ugly. Right down to a commercial fisher threatening two ( that I know off ) citizens with physical violence outside the meeting room and WDF&W view if they continued to participate in the process. This was addressed by WDF&W and Enforcement was present last night as the agency appeared to be better prepared to deal with the commercial representation.

That was helpful but I think the four points described above came from AA trying to present the AHA model results in such a way that everyone stayed calm. That worked on the commercial side & the majority of the AD HOC but for some of the AD HOC and the citizens setting in the audience it did not appear they buying any of it. Rightly so I might add.

Frankly I have nothing but respect for AA and the others working from the scientific communities to address hatchery reform with HSRG. That AA would even venture in to a Lion's den of a meeting to provide insight to HSRG and the AHA model is admirable. Most certainly when one considers the manner of how the previous meetings were conducted.

So where do we go now? There are two remaining public meetings and I urge all to participate and not be intimidated. Will much be accomplished? I do not know but I doubt it. So what to do? Attend the next two public meetings to educate yourself then participate at the Commission level! When the next draft of the Willapa Management Plan is released for public comment dig in and go after whatever you feel is incorrect in writing right to the Commission.

So you're not comfortable with this? Poor writing skills? Well folks I was born with ADD and struggle to write. ( we are not going to even think about missing words & typos ) Do not allow the lack of writing skills or technical knowledge of fish to take away your rights as a citizen. The Commissioners are descent folk that can and will sort this thing out, of that I am sure. Again do not surrender your rights as a citizen.

I am reminded of the lady who walked up to the microphone in the Grays Harbor hearing before the Commission with her rather large stuffed Sockeye toy with full spawning colors, plopped it down on the table, was polite but let it rip and I mean let it rip! No one has to be a doormat! It is your right to participate.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/23/14 10:27 AM



This link is to the company that is doing the AHA model. I believe it is Dr. Mobrand and Mr. Appleby who are doing the Willapa AHA project. This firm does quality work be it you agree or disagree with the outcome. I will take quality any day. Remember the model is math and the devil is in the details, like getting the agency staff to actually follow the plan as to harvest. That is the one that seldom happens.

So here they are: http://www.djwassociates.com/about-us/staff/
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/23/14 11:26 AM

Remember that all models are wrong but some are useful.

AHA is very useful at evaluating options. BUT, after the choice is made one needs to evaluate the results and not simply fly on autopilot.

A good question to ask AA is what is going on with wild Nisqually Chinook as the hatchery releases and in-river rack were outcomes of an AHA exercise. Is it working in the Real World?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/14 10:50 AM


Short and sweet. This a link to the FTC files and is the HSRG / AHA presentation from the AD HOC meeting Raymond this past week. As soon as the other information is up I will link it also. I kinda thought WDF&W would be putting it up their website but no such luck so I will try and do catch up.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3ycmVFazBSdVQ3S0E/edit
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/14 05:24 PM


A R6 D17 staffer sent me a heads up the information is now on the WDF&W website for Willapa. Big thanks.

So here you are: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/14 11:38 AM

Back to Grays Harbor and the perception that the QIN and WDF&W do not get along. In communications obtained in Public Document Request ( PDR's ) it is very clear that staff from both work together rather well at the technical and preseason forecast level. In fact I would say compared to years back they have learned to accommodate each other's views reasonably well. Now as to harvest I cannot say so as harvest negotiations lack similar documentation as preseason documentation. Folks will have to draw their own conclusions.

Below is a e mail thread revolving around the Non Treaty Commercial Net release mortality developed early this year. I will highlight the portion that I find so interesting. The highlighted portion are QIN thoughts about release mortalities and in particular WDF&W's resistance to address the difference in survival of male & female. The QIN thoughts on female fish pretty much reflect what Chehalis brood stockers encountered with Chinook. This is important to Rec's as we do need true mortalities for C&R fisheries and the Commercials are asking that Rec mortality rates be reviewed also.

The thing about mortalities is that it is all about location & timing. You get all over salmon in midst of transition from marine to fresh water and nothing good comes from it. The best guidance I was ever given was for Grays Harbor & Willapa terminal fisheries ( marine / tidal / fresh ) was this. Front of the bay fresh out of the ocean scales not set, low risk. Scales set coloring up in tidal / marine and in transition is high risk in particular females. Slimed up in river is low risk and the risk decreases the closer one gets to the spawning reaches. In fact by the time salmon hit the hatchery ( or spawning grounds ) they are extremely durable and able to take substantial handling.

As I do not edit e mail threads ( other than a private e mail addresses ) the formatting is a bit off but one can follow the thread so here you go:

-----Original Message-----
From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:35 PM
To: Jorgensen, Jim
Cc: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determining Hump
hatchery Coho strays

Good afternoon Jim,

Attached is the most up to date version of the Grays Harbor Planning Model.
We haven't discussed schedules at this time. We've been worked for find and
correct computation and cell reference error. We appreciate any input you
provide.

I will make sure that your comments of the net release mortality issues are
sent forward.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Jorgensen, Jim
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 1:32 PM
To: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determining Hump
hatchery Coho strays

Mike--

Is there a planning model for GH that you could provide me to review and
offer QIN proposed changes.

Also on the commercial net release mortality that the Mobrand group is
working, Steve suggested I should relay our technical information or issues
through you.

I would propose that the wild Coho brood stocking information from 1986 on
for the Hoh River is probably available through Roger Mosely.
The main point of this was that Roger and we found out that female Coho
taken from the lower Hoh and earlier in the season did not survive well at
all.

I think the lower and earlier ones all died, even though a good number
looked alive and well right up to before their eggs were to mature.

When checking them up to that time at a certain point we would find them
dead and their eggs having not separate from the skeins. Males seemed to do
fine.

Therefore I would recommend that any release mortality be assessed from the
female survival perspective. Coastal wild escapement estimates are based on
the number of reeds dug by females.

Any time/area situation in the lower freshwater area that had a similar
impact on female salmon, may render an overall survival rate of 50%, which
would be meaningless as far as achieving escapement objectives.
One of the presenters in Olympia before the Mobrand group also cited their similar experiences brood stocking for what I believe was the Wishkah group.

Jim Jorgensen
________________________________________
From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW) [Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:30 PM
To: Jorgensen, Jim
Cc: Jurasin, Tyler; Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determining Hump
hatchery Coho strays

Good question Jim,

I'll leave that up to Kirt or Steve to answer.


From: Jorgensen, Jim
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:28 PM
To: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Cc: Jurasin, Tyler
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery Coho strays

Mike-

Regarding the forum yesterday and the charge to Lars Mobrand and the other
panel members, are there avenues where QIN would be able to provide
technical information or recommendations to the panel?

Jim Jorgensen

From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW) [mailto:Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:04 PM
To: Jorgensen, Jim; Jurasin, Tyler
Cc: Gilbertson, Larry; Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Hi guys,

Below is the web link to all of the materials that have been presented to
the scientific panel that is evaluated the net release mortality rate.
Please enjoy.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/downloads/Settlement%20Workshop%20Materials/

Jim,

I have a question. Do you know the origin of the estimated Humptulips
hatchery stray estimate? In the GH coho forecast model in the run
reconstruction tab within the column labelled "Humptulips Hatchery Strays"
(column AQ) there is a comment that says "0.8 is applied to total escapement
est. for Humptulips, this calculation assumes that 20% of fish on spawning
grounds are of hatchery origin. Cannot calculate w/o spawner surv. Data" .
First, this column multiplies the Humptulips escapement estimate by 0.8.
This produce is then used in the total HATCHERY escapement. Seems that
multiplying by 0.8 is assuming that 80% of the spawners are hatchery origin.
I recall a discussion with Kirt about some CWT analysis that determined the
stray rate. Do you have any recollection? I'm trying to update all
documentation associated with forecasts.

Thanks for any help you can provide.




Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/14 03:01 PM

There ya go again. Throwing out data that only serves to gum up the model.

How can you fly on autopilot if you keep looking out the window?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/14 06:35 PM






Next up for Willapa we have the " Dec. 6 - Public Workshop WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond " and I urge all to attend. That said many are questioning the value of participating because one more time it looks like another WDF&W " dog & pony show " with it just being a cover for WDF&W staff to go through the motions until they can get out of Raymond. One could easily draw that conclusion and in many ways be correct or maybe not as it is a matter of perception I think. This link is to WDF&W's website where you can download the documents provided by WDF&W's staff. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/


I will briefly hit the lay of the land as to process below but I urge all to view the issues below as the reasons one SHOULD PARTICIPATE rather than not. If folks do not get in to the fray and fight for change all you will get is more of the same.

So recap time as to process as to where we are.

Public Information: Staff have made a huge effort to make information available and even provided clarification and assistance in sorting through it. That is good and now the bad. It was a virtual paper blizzard ( one gentleman collected every piece and it was a stack nearly 2 inches thick ) was not correlated, labeled as to what part of the process it related to, just mountains of information. For anyone outside the agency or not familiar with WDF&W processes it was and is almost impossible to understand.

My favorite result from the public meeting earlier is the paper poll resulting in the list of "aspirations " that resulted in Commercials wanting seven days a week fisheries and Rec 25% increase in harvest. Now not 25% of the harvestable fish but a 25% Rec increase above the PRESENT harvest which Commercial interest take around 86% of the total harvest. Lord love a duck as that is simply amazing to see paraded out in this day and age.

Draft Of The Revised Willapa Plan: At this time it has yet to be fully vetted for the public, well for anyone be it Rec, Conservationist, or Commercial. It is a modified watered down version of the Grays Harbor Plan ( GHMP ) lacking in the definition of the GHMP. It was just thrown out there for a citizen to read and figure out on their own. Not the best way to bring forward a draft of anything let alone a fisheries management plan. At this point in time I doubt if few outside agency staff have any idea what so ever as to just what the WMP means as to implementation.

Options: WDF&W staff seems to be fixated on this bit. The options they are requesting revolve around HARVEST not conservation objectives. Some jumped on these and tried to rally around a harvest option presented by WDF&W but most did not. The thing is how on earth do you define harvest options when one has not defined conservation objectives or a time line to achieve them? From the public came 10 years but that is totally unrealistic. Four cycles which is 12 years for Coho & Chum an 16 years for Chinook would be the minimum time required when natural spawning stocks have been pounded to such low levels as in Willapa streams. Frankly I think that would be a very difficult goal to achieve. Another issue is the desire by WDF&W to manage Coho for the " aggregate " or total of all Willapa streams as a singular stock. You may be able to do that if you separate Willapa into two management zones North & South with North being 2T Willapa, North River, & Smith Creek. The Willapa is to diverse and spread out to manage for aggregate without driving some streams to very low levels chasing the harvest destined to the higher producing streams. This is why I find the approach of developing harvest options before conservation and production objectives put forth in HSRG ( hatchery reform ) not just puzzling but right at counterproductive.

AHA Model: The Excel spread sheet is utilized to project the probable outcome of scenarios developed, or options if you will. To some it is controversial but it is the tool WDF&W has chosen to utilize so that is what it will be. In the course of the last AD HOC Adviser meeting Mr. Appleby explained the AHA model somewhat. Followed by the normal questions and confusion that this type of issue always has with it. Mr. Appleby then asked WDF&W's Steve Theisfeld if he should show the results of a Option run that was nearly complete and Steve said NO. Opening up his lap top Mr. Appleby then again asked Steve again saying I have it right here and again Steve said NO. Why Mr. Theisfeld chose to withhold that information I do not know but it is not a appropriate response as it resulted in information being withheld. ( again ) This is not how create transparency in any public discussion in my view. So little is known at this time as to what information WDF&W provided for the model, sources, and what data is documented and what is a best guess thing.

AD HOC Advisers: I am not sure what WDF&W staff thought this group could accomplish. Now some of the additional 5 AD HOC members brought into the process for this purpose only seemed to be sincerely trying to understand and participate but the regular crowd not so much. One long time Willapa Adviser even told staff he had not even bothered to read the material staff provided in a three ring binder. The meetings from a spectators point of view were unruly, loud, and pretty much the normal Willapa waltz with the Commercial interest. The other issue of a Commercials' conduct toward other citizens I have previously put out to folks and I see no need to revisit it but it happened, unfortunately.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/03/14 10:40 AM

I received this letter from a gentleman in South Bend that is very familiar with the Willapa and the salmon stocks. Interesting read.

Dear Editor

Willapa Bay Salmon Recovery Plan:

You may have seen public notices and editorial comments about Washington State Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) announcements of yet another “plan” to provide for salmon conservation in Willapa Bay. The first one I was aware of was in 1992 which was to restore Wild Salmon, which was then the key slogan. This plan was successful in destroying a very successful volunteer program mostly started and managed by commercial and sports fishers. These volunteers had started remote site incubators (RSI’s), in Pacific County in the 1980’s. In 1988 there were the largest returns of salmon to the Willapa since the 1920’s.

But, some bright WDFW “scientist” decided these were not “wild salmon”, because they might be the product of the hatcheries. Therefore this volunteer program must stop. In the 1950’s and 1960’s another group of WDFW “scientist” decided to change the nature of Willapa Bay, to make it a sports fishing destination, so they imported over 10 different Coho and Chinook runs into the Willapa to increase the time period that the salmon would bite, oh, and yes and decided to kill-off the Chum salmon which was historically 65% of the total salmon run, so the Coho and Chinook could occupy the habitat the Chum were using. These “scientists” had failed to understand a simple fact…Willapa Bay habitat evolved from the last ice age as a Chum salmon habitat, Chum spawn in low gradient streams close to the estuary, and don’t rear in the stream, but the estuary, and are the food source for the other salmon species; Coho and Chinook which spawn in larger gradient streams, and rear from 6 to 18 months in the stream, then the estuary, but now all the Chum are gone and no food source... wonderful!

But, wait it gets better. In 2005 and 2007 other Willapa Plans were developed by WDFW, in which WDFW “scientists” decided they could actually allow harvest of a mixed stock of hatchery and wild salmon, by commercial and sports fishers using a catch and release method, this wonderful “scientific” WDFW management plan in fact has lead to a continued decrease in all salmon species in the Willapa.

But…not to worry, WDFW also introduced a number of slogans which would by just saying them salmon would magically appear: Scientifically derived, Science based, intergrading the H’s (habitat, hatchery, and harvest), Conservation, Wild Salmon, Wild salmon index, All-H Hatchery Analyzer (AHA)…wonderful papers were written, meeting, and conferences were held, millions were spent…but since salmon can’t read they didn’t know they were being saved by WDFW, so their numbers continued to decrease.

Supporting this con game has been a fraudulent calculation by WDFW to show high salmon populations to impress our legislators so they would force WDFW to have more days of fishing for commercial and sports. WDFW estimates runs sizes by sampling of Redds (holes made by salmon attempting reproduction). Nothing wrong with statistical sampling…but when WDFW is in charge they do it wrong, which results in much higher estimates of salmon returns than actually are available, and they then over harvest, without sufficient escapement of brood stock. This is like estimating the US population based upon the number of attempts at reproduction each year in the US. That would be a big number.

Today we now have a new Willapa Plan in process, but with WDFW in charge of the numbers nothing will change. Nothing will change until new honest management is appointed at several layers in WDFW. Today the Willapa has sufficient habitat to support much larger numbers of salmon, but the harvest is not controlled, and I believe fraudulently manipulated to bring in more dollars to WDFW. Millions of dollars have been spent on: habitat restoration, forest owners, and farmers have gone to great expense to implement mindless requirements, and our salmon populations have decrease in the 746 streams, (about 1400 miles), of streams in Willapa Bay, but WDFW budget grows to support a fat bureaucracy.

Yes…this appears to be inversely proportional: Want to increase salmon populations…then decrease the size of WDFW. This should be the plan.


Ronald Craig

November 24, 2014
South Bend, WA

Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/03/14 09:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

Today we now have a new Willapa Plan in process, but with WDFW in charge of the numbers nothing will change. Nothing will change until new honest management is appointed at several layers in WDFW fat bureaucracy.
Ronald Craig
November 24, 2014
South Bend, WA

Maybe a good start would be the F&W commission selecting the new Director of the Department, outside the ranks of WDFW.
Posted by: geljockey

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/14 10:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

Today we now have a new Willapa Plan in process, but with WDFW in charge of the numbers nothing will change. Nothing will change until new honest management is appointed at several layers in WDFW fat bureaucracy.
Ronald Craig
November 24, 2014
South Bend, WA

Maybe a good start would be the F&W commission selecting the new Director of the Department, outside the ranks of WDFW.


I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but remember the previous two directors came outside the ranks of WDFW.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/14 11:11 PM

Generally, there are many ingredients that are in a recipe to form a finished product; looking at a few potential candidates from WDFW-- it will only take one rotten egg to produce salmonellosis and give us all the vile side effects associated with it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/14 01:47 PM


Here is the latest from WDF&W on tomorrows meeting in Raymond on the Willapa Management Plan. As always I urge all to participate.

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to give you an update on where we are with regards to the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy development and the public meeting on Saturday so you can plan accordingly.

As most of you are aware, our contractor fell behind on development of a Willapa Bay specific AHA model, and this has put a bump in the road for us. Late yesterday, a handful of preliminary Chinook options were put through the model by the contractor. We have not yet seen those option results nor had any time to review them to ensure they are correct. Options have not been run through coho nor chum yet either. As such, we are not prepared to discuss an evaluation of the options on Saturday. We still believe that Saturday can be productive however. Our tentative agenda is:

1. 60 minutes: AHA model presentation by Andy Appleby (this would be similar to what Andy presented to at the Ad-Hoc meeting).

2. 30 minutes: Review of 6 options to be reviewed with AHA. Specifically, what did we choose to run for a “recreational option” and a “commercial option”.

3. 30 minutes: Review of the current draft policy.

4. 60 minutes: Public input.

Cheers


Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/14 04:25 PM

I see no new meeting materials listed? http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/

So will this be just a dog and pony show?

I will give up a day of fishing tomorrow for future opportunity.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/14 04:47 PM


Oh boy that is a good question. Nothing new I think if you have made the other meetings including the AD HOC. To what degree the AHA model is ready I think is questionable but if you have not seen Andy's presentation that would be new. Not sure on the draft plan as that first draft looked like a hunk of Swiss Cheese with all the holes it had in it. So yes / no which is not all that satisfactory but this thing is narrowing down so at some place soon they have just stop putting out info and actually address the issues.

From my perspective I am going to be present & participate as all should. That said be ready for this option crap they keep going to as it is a load of BS. Simplest way to put it is the agency has steered folks straight to harvest options and failed miserably to this point to define just what the Commission instructions mean to Willapa hatchery production & harvest. Go to the last Commission meeting and listen to Conrad Mahnken outline what is SUPPOSED to be the standards utilized in the new management plan. We ain't close!
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/14 06:23 PM

Jerry Manual was the guy to talk to RSI . Many chum are caught offshore as bycatch as meeting the the processs?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/14/14 02:07 PM

The link is to Mr. Appleby's presentation to the Commission on the AHA model. http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/12/agenda_dec1214.html and it is at the 11:15 mark you will find the PDF presentation on the AHA model. If you have not been at all the meetings on the Willapa Management Plan it is likely to be a bit confusing but Andy did a descent job.

I do not have Region 6's Steve Theisfeld presentation to the Commission or the actual model runs on the options developed thus far but I have asked for those documents and as soon as I get them I will forward them.

So the Commission as to Willapa. It was a good hearing to be sure. For those like myself who have been around this type of thing for years it lacked detail to be sure. That said for many it was rather helpful and clearly showed that much needs to be done. Coho and Chum have yet to be modeled and the Chinook modeling produced results that startled many as to the cause and effect as to harvest of changing the primary stream for Naselle to Willapa. Also how the limitations on harvest could, should, would manifest itself.

So a work in progress & more as soon as I get it.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/14 10:00 AM

Having a little trouble posting but this is the link to the presentations to the Commission on the Willapa Plan. Hit the meeting materials link for the 12 / 13 Meeting and view meeting materials. Mr. Appleby and R 6 Steve Thiesfeld are up.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/14 07:48 AM

NEWS RELEASE

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

December 16, 2014

Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267

Commission approves Game Management Plan,
discusses Willapa Bay salmon fisheries
TUMWATER - A new six-year plan that will be used by the state to develop hunting seasons and guide management of game species was approved by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission during its meeting Dec. 12-13 in Tumwater.

The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), approved the 2015-2021 Game Management Plan after an extensive public process.

The management plan outlines strategies to address a variety of issues, including:
• Hunter recruitment and retention - Establish a new citizen advisory group to help identify and implement methods to encourage greater participation in hunting.
• Predator/prey interactions - Follow new guidelines to help depressed deer and elk herds that are below population objectives due to predation by black bears, cougars, bobcats or coyotes.
• Access to private timberlands - Work with private timberland owners to develop programs that maintain recreational access to their properties while minimizing direct costs to hunters.
• Wolf recovery - Continue to follow the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, and work with the wolf advisory group to develop a new plan to manage wolves after they are no longer listed for protection.
• Non-toxic ammunition - Consult with hunters to develop voluntary programs that reduce the use of lead ammunition, which can poison raptors and other birds that may ingest spent ammunition when feeding on the carcasses of animals that were shot.
The final plan will be posted in the next week on the WDFW website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01657/ .

In other business, the commission conducted a public hearing on draft options for a new policy to address conservation and fishery objectives for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries. State fishery managers plan to develop additional draft options in the next few weeks.

Key principles of the draft policy include:
• Promoting the conservation and restoration of salmon and steelhead by working with partners, such as the Regional Fishery Enhancement Groups, to protect and restore habitat productivity, implement hatchery reform, and manage fisheries consistent with conservation objectives.
• Developing fishing opportunities that are fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers.
• Structuring recreational and WDFW-managed commercial fisheries to minimize conflicts between the two gear types.
• Seeking to enhance the overall economic well-being and stability of Willapa Bay fisheries.
• Ensuring salmon management is timely, well documented, transparent, well communicated, and accountable.

To review the current draft policy options, visit WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/ .

The commission is scheduled to hold another public hearing on draft policy options during its January meeting, and is tentatively scheduled to make a final decision in February.

Also during the December meeting, the commission held a public hearing on proposed sportfishing rule changes. The rules are specific to the mainstem Columbia River, its tributaries and lakes within the basin.

The proposals - which cover fishing seasons, daily limits and other rules - are available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/ . The commission is scheduled to take action on the proposals during its January meeting.

The commission also discussed the recruitment for a new director of WDFW. Commissioners completed an initial set of interviews for the position last week, and are scheduled to consider hiring a new director during their meeting in January.

The current director, Phil Anderson, announced in August he is resigning from his position at the end of the year. However, at the commission's request, he has agreed to remain on as the head of the agency until a new director is in place.

In other news, Rollie Schmitten, whose term as a commissioner expires at the end of the year, announced he is not seeking reappointment. However, he said will remain on the commission until a new director is hired.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW News Releases & Weekender mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/14 08:09 AM


Also Steve Thiesfeld has provided the AHA model runs and the model but I have not had the time ( or ability ) to dig into it yet. If anyone wants it PM me and I will get them to you.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/20/14 07:09 AM


At the December 13 Commission meeting several Gillnetters testified in the open public input portion of the meeting on how badly the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) had failed. Their rational was that many fish had been allowed to go up stream unharvested by the Commercial fleet. I mean like those darn pesky inriver Recs actually got fish to catch! Other than the rains just how did this happen?

One of the elements of the Grays Harbor Management Plan is 4/3 which simply means three consecutive days in a calendar week net free in the fall salmon fisheries. This does not apply to the Quinault Nations fisheries if they choose to go five days but to the Non Treaty side. The tribe seldom run fall fisheries that exceed four days.

It was a question as to just how well this would work in getting fish up river for the inriver Rec and a safety net for Natural Origin Spawners. Frankly I think it worked well and addressed the issue in November to the Commission and my rational is outlined in the letter.




Commissioners,

I am writing to update the Commission regarding another success of the recently implemented Grays Harbor Management Plan. ( GHMP ) It resides in the Wishkah River sub basin and some history is required to fully explain the success.

The Wishkah River is a Southern Olympic stream that flows into the Chehalis at Aberdeen near the 101 Bridge or downtown Aberdeen. With a long history usage dating back to the time of pioneers it had declined to such a state of affairs that by the 1990's the local community and then Senator Brad Owen ( our current Lt. Governor ) was able convince the former Northwest Renewable Resource Center to use it for a pilot program to restore Chinook & Coho. The pilot project became Long Live the Kings ( LLTK ) located at what is the Mayr Hatchery. While the LLTK project did have some success it struggled do to a very high exploitation rate by both Tribal and non tribal nets. It was a victim of its location as tribal and non treaty commercial fishers pretty much corked off the river for years.

With the GHMP requiring 3 net free days ( 4/3 ) myself and others wondered just how the Wishkah would perform. Would the window of non net time be enough to overcome the ravages of the past and neglect by WDF&W? My bet was on yes / maybe but the answer appears to be resounding yes, which came as a somewhat of a surprise. Just as its location worked against the river for years it reversed with 4/3. How one can ask and the answer again is location. In the Chehalis tidewater reach all three species of salmon stage going into a holding pattern after transitioning from salt to fresh water waiting for the fall rains. The river staging reach primarily runs from the 101 bridge to what is known as Pump House ( former water intake for the unfinished Satsop Nuclear Plant ) about 15 miles upstream. In this reach the Quinault Nation has its commercial fishers as well as the NT Commercial at the lower end of tidewater. The combination of the two commercial fisheries and WDF&W's steadfast refusal to modify the Non Treaty harvest to allow protection of the Wishkah needed due to its unique location was most devastating to the fish and Recreational fishers.

So what does this have to do with 4/3 and the Wishkah? Well frankly everything. Wishkah fish do not stage in the Chehalis as the fish from most the Chehalis tributary streams do but rather in the tidewater reach of the Wishkah itself. Simply put they are able avoid the harvest levels applied on the other Chehalis tributaries because of the location of the mouth of the Wishkah River on the Chehalis main stem as 4/3 allows fish into the Wishkah tidal staging reaches. The difference this makes can be seen in the 2014 hatchery returns as of October 30, 2014. Bingham and Satsop Springs on the East Fork Satsop have had a combined return of approximately 11,893 Coho as of October 30th while Mayr Hatchery on the Wishkah has had returns of 9,729 Coho. Commissioners the production of Mayr Coho is fraction of that of the two facilities on the Satsop and the difference in returns is simply the exploitation rate applied by the QIN and WDF&W managed NT commercial fisheries on the mainstream Chehalis River. The benefit of restricting NT Commercial harvest to the Wishkah River has been dramatic and undeniable with the hatchery returns. Additionally the number of Wild Coho reaching the spawning reaches will benefit just as much or more. I am sure the NT commercial gillnetters will complain and call this a waste but frankly Commissioners the NT Commercial concept of the only good fish is a dead fish, in a gillnet, in a tote, being sold ended with the new GHMP.

In closing Commissioners the tide water reach of the Wishkah was once the best " Mom & Pop " recreational fishery in the Chehalis Basin. If a boat floated folks put it in the river and trolled the tidewater. Not much skill needed just a rod, spinner and something that floated with a motor! I believe the Wishkah will continue to rebuild with 4/3 and return substantial benefits to the local recreational community. Just as importantly Commissioners 4/3 has emerged as the safety net for the Wishkah Wild Salmon stocks that have been brutalized by the Chehalis Basin combined Maximum Sustained Yield ( MSY ) harvest modeling that resulted in overharvest of the Wishkah and several Chehalis tributary streams for so many years.

I am not sure what one can or should say to the Commission at this point except thank you. Your courage and vision of implementing the GHMP and 4/3 is paying dividends far beyond expectations.

Sincerely




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/21/14 07:21 AM

This was forwarded to me so I thought I would post it up for folks. The jest of it is WDF&W faired well in the Governor's Budget. The coast did well particularly Willapa ( no closures ) but some in Puget Sound may feel otherwise. One should always remember the Gov's budget is generally DOA once the legislative session starts but it is a better starting point!




From: Anderson, Philip M (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:29 PM
To: DFW DL WDFW Staff
Subject: Budget Summary

Hello All:

Earlier today the Governor released both his operating and capital budget proposals for the 2015-2017 biennium. Considering there is a projected state general fund budget shortfall of up to $4.5 billion, WDFW fared quite well. The 105 day legislative session begins on January 12 and the Governor’s budget proposals will be the starting point for legislative budget development. The House and Senate will release their respective proposals in March and then work on a compromise budget will begin. Each chamber must agree on the final compromise budget before they adjourn for the year. We should see a legislative budget in late April which will provide funding state agencies for the next two fiscal years beginning July 1, 2015. There will also be a 2015 supplemental budget which will make final changes to the current biennium which ends on June 30, 2015.
Here is a link to the Governor’s budget page which includes the appropriations bills, and other supporting documentation. http://ofm.wa.gov/budget15/default.asp

First a brief summary of the Governor’s capital budget for WDFW:

Minor Works Projects. The proposal includes $10.5 million for minor works projects…the appropriation amount is equivalent to the current biennium. Minor works project are those projects costing less than $1 million and includes projects such as: corrections to facility safety deficiencies; replace hatchery pumps, alarms and emergency generators; fish cultural improvements; road maintenance; roof repairs and various other facility and infrastructure repairs.

Major Projects. The Governor’s proposal included $36.1 million for major projects, a significant increase from the $13.5 million WDFW received in the current biennium. Funded projects include: Kalama Falls Hatchery ($4M); Soos Creek Hatchery, Phase 2 ($17M); Repairs to Edmonds Pier ($800K); Floodplain Improvement, Wooten Wildlife Area ($4M); Marblemount Hatchery Intake ($2.3M); Lake Whatcom Hatchery Intake ($1.4M); Puyallup Hatchery Renovation ($570K for pre-design); Eells Springs Hatchery Improvements ($4.6M); Fir Island Farms Restoration ($500K); and Lake Rufus Woods Fishing Access ($1M).


Next is a summary of the Governor’s 2015-17 biennium and the 2015 supplemental operating budget proposals for WDFW:

2015-17 Biennium

15% State General Fund Reduction Options:

Part of the Governor’s strategy to meet the challenge of developing a budget with a significant shortfall was to require state agencies to develop state general fund reduction options equal to 15 percent of their state general fund support. Our mandated target was $10.8 million and the Governor’s budget takes approximately $2.0 million of that amount. None of the reductions included in Governor Inslee’s operating budget proposal will reduce current staffing levels.

Fish Program Reductions:
The Governor’s budget proposal includes two reductions that will affect hatcheries. These are production reductions at George Adams Hatchery (56% reduction in fall Chinook production) and Hoodsport Hatchery (affects chum, fall Chinook, and pink salmon production). The Governor chose not to include any of the hatchery closure that were contained in our proposal.

Enforcement Program Reduction:
The proposal also reduces funding for 3 Enforcement Officer positions. This reduction will affect currently vacant officer positions and will not necessitate a reduction of currently filled officer positions.

2015-17 Maintenance Level:

Maintenance level budget requests are intended to maintain current service levels. Almost all of our maintenance level requests were funded at requested levels with the exception of our payments-in-lieu of taxes (PILT) and funding for hatchery utility increases. The PILT payments are basically property tax payments to counties for WDFW owned wildlife lands. We also did not receive funding for utility increases at hatcheries, although we should be able to obtain this funding during the 2016 session. There will be no effect to staffing levels as a result of this proposed funding level.

2015-17 Biennium Selected Major Enhancements:

Fee Legislation ($7.0 million) -WDFW’s number one priority budget request, the fee bill, is funded in the Governor’s proposal and is projected to raise an additional $7.0 million per biennium primarily to support salmon production, hatchery maintenance, enforcement, and fisheries management activities throughout the state.

Tracking Puget Sound Fish Health ($1.5 million)- Funding was provided to track contaminants in Puget Sound fish species. The funding will allow WDFW to fully implement fish contaminant and assessment and monitoring efforts as part of the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program.

Recover Puget Sound Steelhead ($800K)- Funding was provided to continue WDFW’s efforts to study the extremely high mortality of steelhead smolts once they enter the Puget Sound.

Aquatic invasive species funding ($800K)- WDFW received funding to support our Aquatic Invasive Species Program as bridge funding for one biennium, practically doubling their biennial budget. This funding is intended to bolster our ability to combat the threat of invasive species and to work on getting future funding to increase our work in this area.

Managing Elk Hoof Disease ($250K)- Funding is provided to support continued efforts to limit the spread of this debilitating disease.

Collective Bargaining Agreements:

The Governor’s budget funds the collective bargaining agreement which includes a 3 percent increase in the first fiscal year and 1.8 percent increase in the second fiscal year for state employees as well as a $20 per month increase for employees earning less than $2500 per month. Funding is also included for Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) salary adjustments for targeted job classes with increases that range from 2.5 to 10 percent. Affected job classes at WDFW are as follows: Contracts Specialists 1-3 (2.5%); Environmental Planner 2 (2.5%); Fish and Wildlife Biologist 2-4 (10%); Forms and Records Analyst 1-3 (2.5%); Management Analyst 1-5 (2.5%) and Natural Resource Specialist 1-5 (2.5%).

2015 Supplemental

We received the requested amount to pay the Department of Natural Resources for fighting wildfires and for restoration costs on WDFW lands from the serious wildfires this spring and summer.

Other funding adjustments provide enough funding to see WDFW through to the end the current biennium.


Synopsis
Overall WDFW ended up with a favorable budget from the Governor considering the current state budget climate. This is positive first step that puts us in a favorable position at the outset of legislative budget development. Thanks to everyone who worked with the Governor’s Office over the past few months helping them to understand the importance of our work. We will update you in the coming weeks and months as we have new information to share.

Phil and Joe


_______________________________________________ Members mailing list Members@wagrc.org http://wagrc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_wagrc.org
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/22/14 01:55 PM

The link is a report done by Tim Hamilton of the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy and Brian Kraemer, that is a in-depth look at the so called hatchery surplus issue. http://fishingthechehalis.net/ For those of us involved with hatcheries it has long been known but seldom addressed by folks let alone WDF&W. It will be a eye opener for many to be sure. A big thanks to Tim & Brian for being willing to tackle this very complex is issue.

Abstract:

The removal of hatchery-raised salmon from spawning streams is established under the standards and guidelines of “Hatchery and Fishery Reform” adopted by the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission on November 6, 2009. A “surplus” of returning adults occurs at the hatchery if the “exploitation rate” or level of harvest applied fails to reduce the hatchery return run size down to the low number of adults needed for egg propagation. At the same time, hatchery production must be accomplished carefully to avoid application of a harvest rate that undermines the larger escapement goals needed for natural spawning populations traveling with the returning hatchery fish. Hatchery surplus is therefore an expected event each year for the successful hatchery operation that supplements harvest supply without adversely impacting natural spawning populations.

This paper reviews the benefits to WDFW and the public treasury of the different methods used to remove the returning hatchery adults in Willapa Bay. The authors found the highest “return on investment” from hatchery production to state coffers comes from the recreational fisher who pays an average of 91¢ per pound in license fees while spending significantly within the local economy trying to capture the hatchery fish all the way back to the hatchery. Commonly referred to as the “recreational opportunity”, those fish the Recreational Sector fail to catch are removed by the state’s surplus service contractor paying the state an average of 39.4¢ per pound. The revenue from the surplus contractor and a portion of the recreational license fee is then used as “seed capital” for nonprofit Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups” generating an additional $9.66 in grants for every dollar directed to the RFEGs.1 The near ten fold increase effectively creates a price of approximately $3.94 per pound and added to recreational license fee contribution, the hatchery surplus fish pursued by the recreational fisher all the way back to the hatchery yields an effective rate of return of $4.85 per pound. The surplus service contract holder also donates approximately 200,000 lbs. of vacuum packed frozen filet to food banks across the state which if valued at only 50¢ per pound would provide an additional $100,000 in value. As a comparison, the commercial gillnet fleet paid approximately 14.5¢ per pound for a total of $74,487 in combined license fees and excises taxes for fish removed from Willapa Bay in 2012. While understandably of significant importance to the individual gillnetter, the limited profit created by the short season is relatively less important to the overall economy of Pacific County. Finally, salmon raised in Washington hatcheries and intercepted primarily by commercial nets in Alaska and Canada provide little to no return on the investment by Washington’s taxpayers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/25/14 05:55 AM

Round two on Willapa is about to start. So before I get to watch my computer screen melt with fire breathing e mails ........ no I do not know the location. No I do not know where staff intends to engage the public ( outside another dog & pony show ) in a real manner. No I do not expect much out of the AD HOC folks as only maybe four even put in the effort to stay with the process. The so called Willapa Advisers truly representing Willapa citizens? Nah most do not even live in Pacific County ( other than some of the commercials ) and that is the most uninformed group I have ever seen.

So the dance goes on and as soon as I get the information I will post it.


Hi Everyone,

We are soliciting feedback from the ad-hoc committee about another meeting. Please mark your calendars for these potential dates.

Merry Christmas all!

From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 11:49 AM
Subject: Potential Meeting

Hi Everyone,

I am wondering what your availability is for another meeting on December 29th, 30th, and January 5th or 6th. Please let me know if you are available during the day, or evening, or both.

To catch you up, we have spent quite a bit of time recalibrating the Chinook model. We noticed that the spawning escapement in North River wasn’t responding to various harvest rates, even a zero harvest rate. The recalibration has breathed some life into Willapa as a potential for primary. We are currently turning the various dials with harvest rates and hatchery production to see the effect.

If I don’t hear from you before tomorrow, please have a very Merry Christmas!

Cheers

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/25/14 09:26 AM

Dont like what the model is saying? Tweak the model so it says what you want it to say! Then call it recallibration so it sounds like a technical adjustment.

Believe these models at your own peril.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/25/14 11:58 AM

To the thinking biologist, all models are wrong but some are useful.

Part of the development process is ensuring that the model at least appears to function as intended. If escapement never changes, that should be a clue that there is a problem.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/26/14 09:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

At the December 13 Commission meeting several Gillnetters testified in the open public input portion of the meeting on how badly the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) had failed. Their rational was that many fish had been allowed to go up stream unharvested by the Commercial fleet. I mean like those darn pesky inriver Recs actually got fish to catch! Other than the rains just how did this happen?

One of the elements of the Grays Harbor Management Plan is 4/3 which simply means three consecutive days in a calendar week net free in the fall salmon fisheries. This does not apply to the Quinault Nations fisheries if they choose to go five days but to the Non Treaty side. The tribe seldom run fall fisheries that exceed four days.

It was a question as to just how well this would work in getting fish up river for the inriver Rec and a safety net for Natural Origin Spawners. Frankly I think it worked well and addressed the issue in November to the Commission and my rational is outlined in the letter.




Commissioners,

I am writing to update the Commission regarding another success of the recently implemented Grays Harbor Management Plan. ( GHMP ) It resides in the Wishkah River sub basin and some history is required to fully explain the success.

The Wishkah River is a Southern Olympic stream that flows into the Chehalis at Aberdeen near the 101 Bridge or downtown Aberdeen. With a long history usage dating back to the time of pioneers it had declined to such a state of affairs that by the 1990's the local community and then Senator Brad Owen ( our current Lt. Governor ) was able convince the former Northwest Renewable Resource Center to use it for a pilot program to restore Chinook & Coho. The pilot project became Long Live the Kings ( LLTK ) located at what is the Mayr Hatchery. While the LLTK project did have some success it struggled do to a very high exploitation rate by both Tribal and non tribal nets. It was a victim of its location as tribal and non treaty commercial fishers pretty much corked off the river for years.

With the GHMP requiring 3 net free days ( 4/3 ) myself and others wondered just how the Wishkah would perform. Would the window of non net time be enough to overcome the ravages of the past and neglect by WDF&W? My bet was on yes / maybe but the answer appears to be resounding yes, which came as a somewhat of a surprise. Just as its location worked against the river for years it reversed with 4/3. How one can ask and the answer again is location. In the Chehalis tidewater reach all three species of salmon stage going into a holding pattern after transitioning from salt to fresh water waiting for the fall rains. The river staging reach primarily runs from the 101 bridge to what is known as Pump House ( former water intake for the unfinished Satsop Nuclear Plant ) about 15 miles upstream. In this reach the Quinault Nation has its commercial fishers as well as the NT Commercial at the lower end of tidewater. The combination of the two commercial fisheries and WDF&W's steadfast refusal to modify the Non Treaty harvest to allow protection of the Wishkah needed due to its unique location was most devastating to the fish and Recreational fishers.

So what does this have to do with 4/3 and the Wishkah? Well frankly everything. Wishkah fish do not stage in the Chehalis as the fish from most the Chehalis tributary streams do but rather in the tidewater reach of the Wishkah itself. Simply put they are able avoid the harvest levels applied on the other Chehalis tributaries because of the location of the mouth of the Wishkah River on the Chehalis main stem as 4/3 allows fish into the Wishkah tidal staging reaches. The difference this makes can be seen in the 2014 hatchery returns as of October 30, 2014. Bingham and Satsop Springs on the East Fork Satsop have had a combined return of approximately 11,893 Coho as of October 30th while Mayr Hatchery on the Wishkah has had returns of 9,729 Coho. Commissioners the production of Mayr Coho is fraction of that of the two facilities on the Satsop and the difference in returns is simply the exploitation rate applied by the QIN and WDF&W managed NT commercial fisheries on the mainstream Chehalis River. The benefit of restricting NT Commercial harvest to the Wishkah River has been dramatic and undeniable with the hatchery returns. Additionally the number of Wild Coho reaching the spawning reaches will benefit just as much or more. I am sure the NT commercial gillnetters will complain and call this a waste but frankly Commissioners the NT Commercial concept of the only good fish is a dead fish, in a gillnet, in a tote, being sold ended with the new GHMP.

In closing Commissioners the tide water reach of the Wishkah was once the best " Mom & Pop " recreational fishery in the Chehalis Basin. If a boat floated folks put it in the river and trolled the tidewater. Not much skill needed just a rod, spinner and something that floated with a motor! I believe the Wishkah will continue to rebuild with 4/3 and return substantial benefits to the local recreational community. Just as importantly Commissioners 4/3 has emerged as the safety net for the Wishkah Wild Salmon stocks that have been brutalized by the Chehalis Basin combined Maximum Sustained Yield ( MSY ) harvest modeling that resulted in overharvest of the Wishkah and several Chehalis tributary streams for so many years.

I am not sure what one can or should say to the Commission at this point except thank you. Your courage and vision of implementing the GHMP and 4/3 is paying dividends far beyond expectations.

Sincerely






I wanted to comment on this earlier but hadn't found time....

I've followed Rivrguy's lead and emailed the Commission to sing the praises of the 4/3 management change. We'd be severely remiss not to credit the tremendous coho returns this season as the primary reason for the great fishing we've enjoyed, but the example of the Wishkah seems to be an indication that the 4/3 policy not only has merit, but may prove to be the best win for sportfishing and conservation advocacy in our region in recent memory.

We must remain diligent in our defense of this policy in the coming years, as the view that the "excess" hatchery fish are a waste will be a popular one with the commercials (and likely the Legislature as well). Perhaps what we need is a good counter argument, and I think we may have at least a couple. First, improved fishing leads to more angler effort, which means more $ injected into local economies (we'll need to prove this by actually fishing more, but I'm willing to do that wink. Next, I don't think it's a big stretch to suggest that the stream nutrients the additional carcasses provide effectively represent habitat improvement for wild fish (without additional budgeting), which actually suggests efficiency more than waste.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/26/14 09:41 AM

Originally Posted By: milt roe
Dont like what the model is saying? Tweak the model so it says what you want it to say!




Like when they entered a multiplier of 0 somewhere buried in the spreadsheets to give the commercials more days a few years ago?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/26/14 11:29 AM

August to December 2015...observations.......GH Region

1. Many more fisherpersons.....If WDFW would have more checkers at all the launch sites, this would have been very evident. Its almost like WDFW doesn't want to know the success rate of the new plan.

2. Areas in the upper tide water reach, Chehalis......people were there on the August 16th opening.....jack fishermen were in all the usual places, only more fishermen....... lots of jacks and many of the early Silvers were caught......for those that toughed it out, fish were available, in the Chehalis.....until middle of December.

3. Upper reaches of Chehalis....lets say above Fuller Bridge....good fishing, September - December.

4. Tribs-----lots more fishermen this year, everywhere.....spinners, plugs, twitching...all did very well.

5. What worked????? You name it, fish were caught using whatever.

Did 4/3 work?????? I'd say it worked very well, excapement and in-river people, were the direct benefit of this addition to the model.

IMO....the sports community need to let the Commission and Region 6 management know your opinions on 4/3.

I'm sure the "NT gill netters", are gearing up to let the Commission and WDFW know their side of 4/3.

Happy New Year.....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/14 08:25 AM



As one can see in the e mail below nothing on Willapa Monday ( tonight ) evening and I am sure as soon as Steve has things lined out he will let all know.

We will not be meeting tomorrow, Monday. I can’t say for sure on Tuesday at this point. I’m sorry we don’t have a better timeline set for everyone.

Steve Thiesfeld


So what are the issues that all will attempt to get their arms around? Well in a nut shell we have a North / South & long term / short term issues bumping into each other all over the place. N / S is all about stocks and facilities. Forks Creek Hatchery it is Chinook and the fact that does not have a weir that will stop the straying and about 20% of the returning adults stray. It is around 3 to 1 hatchery over wild in the gravel so the question is should one even produce Chinook at the facility. Coho seem to tend to return to the hatchery so Coho straying is not a issue. Add North River which is about the last stream with much of the natural order and needs protection and you have a thorny one to be sure.

In the South at Naselle the Chinook straying is even worse sometimes reaching 6.5 to 1 hatchery origin over wild spawning in the gravel. The weir is pulled around October 15 dependant on flows so again the issue of even producing Chinook at the facility is questionable. Add the fact that with the weir out Coho can run a muck it gets totally weird and again the question is should one produce Coho at the Naselle Hatchery. The Nemah does not have these issues.

Now long term it is what stream will be primary which requires a lower straying rate. Somehow production within the three facilities must be aligned to HSRG standards and what that will be is not known by anyone outside the agency.

Short term? WDF&W has used the commercial gillnets to harvest returning Chinook down to a level that does not totally overrun the natural spawners. Now by doing this they also pretty much nearly wipe out the natural origin fish. So for the next four years regardless of what the long term picture is just how do you achieve the removal of the hatchery adults without wiping out the natural run? Good question and this should be a bitch to deal with. Add to the mix is since the implementation of the current management plan which was never approved by the Commission but utilized as a draft, natural spawners took a dive right into the dumpster. So for the next four years Willapa will see even less natural origin adults and it could get really ugly even for Rec fishers. Oh by the way the Rec fishers did not create this problem but are certainly going shoulder a share of the burden. Interesting how that works.

So just how serous is the situation in Willapa? To say in the toilet is being kind and any solution is going to be painful. To get a picture of just what may happen one can look to the past four years. The harvest model operated on a 30% exploitation rate on the Naselle Chinook natural origin adults. Those who back mathed the years have identified the actual exploitation rate was running around 40% to 50%. T o bring the harvest model inline with reality it would have required a reduction from 30% to somewhere around 10% or 2/3 reduction in harvest of Chinook. Now the BUT, if you do that the hatchery straying overruns the gravel!

There are no easy answers to the problems in Willapa only pain for all.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/14 08:34 AM

The more one looks at Willapa fisheries it becomes appallingly apparent that WA state taxpayers are being fleeced to subsidize a welfare gillnet salmon fishing fleet, while at the same time nearly wiping out natural origin runs of chinook, coho, and chum salmon. In the public interest of ALL the state's citizens, the preferred alternative would be to close all Willipa Bay hatcheries and save the taxpayers a load of dollars and save the natural origin salmon, which likely would remain productive enough to support a reasonable amount of terminal area recreational salmon fishing. Win-win!
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/14 10:12 AM

Does look like they have painted themselves into a corner alright.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/14 03:55 PM

This came through.


Hi Everyone,

We need to get some information on the AHA model into your hands so you can provide some feedback on the Willapa Bay salmon management policy. To that end, I’m suggesting that folks that want to see where we are to date, which is mostly Chinook modeling, show up at the Montesano office around 4 pm tomorrow. I realize that all of you can’t make it, but most can.

I’ll put the AHA model on the screen and walk everyone through a couple of the options so you can see what the results look like (and how doggone cumbersome the model is). The purpose of the meeting is simply to share information/results, and therefore we will be very informal with the public and ad-hoc committee members participating or asking questions at the same time. You probably should not anticipate a lot of on the fly modeling. We can probably do some small tweaks, but anything substantial takes a lot of work. I think this information sharing will helps us be better prepared for a more formal meeting next week.

I am also trying to get the model and options onto the WDFW website (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/) where folks can look at. If it’s not posted by COB this afternoon, I’ll email it out to those that want it. However, the model itself is 11mb and your email may reject it.

Cheers

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/14 04:19 PM

Been looking into the AHA model a little more, and not liking what I am seeing. Generally you dont want to use model estimates from one model as if they were data in another model. In the AHA model, they use EDT model estimates to populate the habitat attributes of the AHA model. That is likely to compound the error of both models. Results are therefore very uncertain, and since EDT uses expert opinion where reliable data dont exist I just wouldnt put too much faith in the AHA model outputs. Someone can correct me if I am not understanding how this all works, there is little information I can find on line.

I see there was an independent technical review by the ISRP of the AHA model conducted, does anyone have a copy of that to share? Would be interesting to see what they had to say.

May not matter, since the WDFW is all wrapped around the axel with conflicting Policy objectives vs the fishery they have to manage.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/30/14 09:50 AM

Steve Thiesfeld sent out three graphs for Willapa Chinook exploitation rates ( harvest ) and all will find them interesting. If you would like them hit me with a PM and I will forward them. The 30% Naselle exploitation rate looks to be a thing of the past.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/30/14 01:34 PM

Coming up in the second week of January is the Commission meeting and two items of interest to many are on the Agenda Saturday. Action on the selection of a new Director and the Willapa Management Plan. It should be interesting for those that attend.



SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 2015 PLEASE NOTE LOCATION CHANGE
Comfort Inn Hotel and Conference Center

1620 74th Avenue SW Tumwater, WA 98501 – Evergreen Room http://www.comfortinn.com/hotel-tumwater-washington-WA126/Hotel-Map

7:00 AM 12. Executive Session
Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(g), the Commission will meet in executive session to evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the performance of a public employee.

No action will be taken in executive session, and the public is not permitted to listen to the executive session. 60 min

8:00 AM 13. Department Director Selection – Decision
The Commission will consider selection of a final candidate, who will be offered the position of Department Director. 60 min


9:00 AM 14. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting. NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda. 30 min

9:30 AM Break 15 min


9:45 AM 15. Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy – Briefing and Public Hearing

The Department will brief the Commission on Willapa Bay Salmon Management challenges, describe the public process, and seek guidance on draft policy sideboards.

Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager 120 min


Public Input – This Item Only 11:45 AM
16. Election of Commission Chair and Vice Chair – Decision Pursuant to RCW 77.04.060, the Commission will elect a chair and vice chair, each to serve a term of two years or until a successor is elected. 30 min

12:15 PM 17. Miscellaneous and Meeting Debrief
The Commission will discuss items that arise immediately before or during the meeting and after the preliminary agenda is published. 45 min

1:00 PM Adjourn
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/14 08:52 AM

So how did the meeting on Willapa go? Everywhere from good to bad just depends on your point of view. It did not take long to see that most attending had not done their basic research on the AHA model to be sure. In fact it was pretty much a dog & pony show for much of the meeting but ( you knew that was coming didn't you ) it was not due to staff but rather the public both commercial and recs. In fact Mr. Theisfeld actually asked how many had reviewed the model and few hands went up. For a meeting that was to help folks understand the AHA model one would think, well something.

Keeping in mind this is Chinook only. It is clear staff have been working rather hard with AHA and are finding it difficult, unforgiving, and cumbersome. It is slow going to be sure. Staff is still slogging out options but none are really based on reality just the so called aspirational objectives.

In the process of putting options up ( the few that did go up on the wall ) I picked up that the math did not make sense. Make Willapa primary which only allows for 20% hatchery influence ( pHOS ) of spawners on the gravel you get the production level of about 300k at Forks Creek hatchery. Switch to Naselle as primary and 30% pHOS for Willapa as a contributing stock with Forks Creek producing 1.3 million and it still meets HSRG pHOS standards on staying. Now on average 20% of the adults returning to Forks Creek stray all over the Willapa Basin and you have math that does not work. It took a bit but staff figured it out.

In the AHA model has Forks Creek Chinook as a segregated stock. Now segregated stocks do not have the same requirements in HSRG as they are not able to spawn with the natural spawners. It can be timing such as Summerrun & Winter Steelhead on the coast or a weir that stops the hatchery allowing for removal and passes natural spawners up. Neither of these apply to Forks Creek Chinook so it begs the question just what on earth are they doing? To compound it further HSRG requires a certain percentage of natural origin spawners ( pNOS ) be incorporated into the hatchery fish spawned and that does not happen at Forks Creek. ( and is not likely to be achievable ) So as one person said then it cannot be integrated either so just what should Forks Creek Chinook be modeled as? The answer is a bit of a bear but it is simple. To meet HSRG standards Forks Creek should not be producing Chinook except in small numbers. Already some are claiming somebody is trying to trick the model to allow Chinook production that should not be allowed. I do not know but I am sure of one thing this issue could get ugly as faith in WDF&W's modeling is so poor that nobody trust them. Both the Grays Harbor & Willapa harvest models have performed so dismally trust is low to nonexistent.

So my last thoughts are about the Willapa harvest model. When this came up it resulted in a rather pointed exchange between myself and two of the Willapa Advisers. ( both who I have great respect for ) The issue was just how bad the harvest model performed. Those helping me have said it ranged from 40 to 50 percent of the Naselle Chinook while modeled at 30%. No said one it is 36%. So who is correct? Both of us or neither as it is about how you are doing the math. If your simply doing 1+1=2 math then the error could be 36%. Now the other shoe drops and if you back up to the premise utilized since 2010 that a 30% harvest rate on Naselle Chinook will stabilize and slowly recover Willapa Estuary Chinook populations it is the higher numbers. Since the implementation of the current draft plan Willapa Chinook stocks have crashed. In fact the graft line for returning natural spawners goes down at about a 45 degree angle and it should up not down.

Now this does not happen in the math of 1+1=2 but rather in the assumptions built into the model. So what is a assumption? It is things like the C&R mortality for Recs, the mortality of selective fishing with a gill net, or the drop off / Pinniped take. In fact in a document obtained in a Public Document Request one WDF&W staffer noted that the seals got a fish out of the net for every one landed in the gillnet boat. So the simple fact is the math can be 100% correct or 100% wrong depending on the assumptions built into the model. Another way to say it is garbage in garbage out.

So we all move on to the next Commission meeting and wait until WDF&W's staff get something that one can do a complete review off.
Posted by: JustBecause

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/14 11:32 AM

"Since the implementation of the current draft plan Willapa Chinook stocks have crashed."

It was only implemented in 2010, not even one full fall Chinook generation has returned! Talk about jumping to Massive conclusions...

Jeesh.

I'm referring here to the Chinook production regime in the current plan, not the harvest elements.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/14 12:09 PM

Ah no jump guy staff provided the info and all four years trended straight down. In fact the first of the four years was the best and each year the escapement dropped lower. The bug in the mix was the implementation of gillnet selective fishing which ended up not being selective. Hard to make a gillnet selective.

4350 is the escapement goal and the four years are below. The numbers for 2014 are not available yet but the Commercial harvest was way above what was modeled. Two to three times if I remember correctly.

3,395
3,119
2,158
1,462
Posted by: JustBecause

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/14 01:10 PM

Again, that (escapement trend) may have nothing to do with the changes to hatchery production. Also, total run size, which accounts for all harvest levels, in and out of the bay, would be much more informative, i.e., sure escapement is down, but that't because the fish were caught in or out of the bay, not because they didn't recruit.

If the issue is all related to the changes in the fishery since 2010, why are they revisiting the hatchery production?

Again, it's important to keep the apples in the apple basket and the oranges in the orange basket.

Otherwise, thanks for the updates!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/14 02:40 PM

The change was implemented, as I understand it, to increase escapement. That was supposed to be the target. The "models" showed what they planned would make escapement go up. Since it went the other way, either the assumptions or the model were wrong and needed changing. It is also my understanding that without the push from Rivrguy and others that WDFW would have kept on keeping on.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/31/14 10:30 PM

"Wild" escapement for Naselle chinook was most assuredly projected to go down... not necessarily as a reflection of harvest abuses, but as a function of reduced hatchery production.

Just like the lower Columbia River tules, the principal source of wild-born Naselle chinook recruits are the offspring of hatchery strays. As less and less hatchery fish return to Naselle, so too diminish the "wild" fish they produce.

It should come as no surprise that "wild" escapements would tank as fewer and fewer hatchery-origin spawners are available to seed the gravel to produce those "wild" fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/01/15 07:39 AM

Well we beat that horse to death so on to something new but the link below is to the harvest rate impact and recovery times utilizing them that was provided by Steve Thiesfeld. It is a difficult issue for all.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3ySWNEalpTYW1tcFU/edit


The email below was forwarded to me so I checked with another mentioned in the e mail and verified that it went pretty much all over the fish / political world. That being the case here you go and this is a interesting perspective.



To whom it may concern:

While my preferred method of working with WDFW staff, the Ad-Hoc Committee and the public within the Willapa Bay management framework has been through collaboration and compromise recent events have prompted a different approach.

Re: Willapa Hatchery Surplus Report (copy attached) a link for the doc I am adding https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yQ3htRmFyNXVQa2M/edit

I am not a self ordained president of some publicly funded advocacy group which claims to represent recreational fishers in Willapa Bay nor a PhD, however, I do have sufficient knowledge to at least fact check any document that might profess my name particularly when it is intended to affect public policy. The Willapa Hatchery Surplus Report is just another example of the crap we have had to read or listen to for the past two years. The authors of that report and/or their constituents/supporters have burdened participants, staff and the Commission with falsehoods in commentary and writing in an apparent effort to influence the outcome of Willapa Bay management discussion. So what was the nexus that brought these two geniuses to the Ad-Hoc Committee? With the post on the Piscatorial Pursuits Forum on Friday December 12 by "Riverguy" and what occurred at the Saturday December 13 Commission Meeting has now verified in my mind what many of us have suspected since the Hamilton, et al. v. Wash. Dep't of Fish and Wildlife SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT which is, this is a rigged game with a predetermined outcome. Those that are clamoring for conservation, transparency, enhanced communication and open government are secretly manipulating the public meeting process from within the agency and they are in my view a quasi branch of WDFW. So were is their accountability for transparency and public disclosure and to what level do my assumptions rise to? As a taxpayer and resident of Pacific county I resent that they live outside the county and do not even fish and yet are dictating the bay management policy. There are resources within government which may shed some light on these concerns and I will pursue them.

****** ********
South Bay/Naselle Rec. Advisor

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/01/15 02:21 PM



Several folks had questions on the graph so some clarification is needed for the graph as I forget not everyone is as familiar with this stuff as I am.

The graphs are for NOS ( natural origin or wild if you like ) Chinook.

The purple line is the escapement goal.

The percentage at the bottom of the graph is percent of natural spawners that can be killed be it by commercial net, pole, in the bay, or in the river.

The colors in the graph bars correspond to the color code chart for years to show how many years to make or not escapement at the harvest rate on natural spawning populations.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/01/15 02:54 PM

Cliff Notes version of what the latest graphs say:

Regardless of which population(s) are chosen for primary conservation, anything greater than a 10% harvest rate progressively diminishes the agency's ability to meet its conservation goals.

Fisheries (comm and rec) will have to be constrained to stay under this 10% harvest/impact/exploitation rate.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/01/15 06:48 PM

That 10% harvest rate is, I believe, inside the bay and rivers. Reductions in outside fisheries (WA ocean, BC, AK) could be transferred into the bay to either accelerate recovery or allow a higher local harvest while still meeting conservation goals.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/02/15 11:02 AM

Unfortunately Caracassman, the chances of regulating take of WB bound Chinook outside the bay are nil. Even with an ESA listing Alaska and BC won't be easy to budge on this (see PS chinook harvest rates). The coastal fisheries in WA and OR don't really catch all that many of them either.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/02/15 04:39 PM


This came from Steve Thiesfeld and notice the word tentatively.

Hi All,

We are making some progress on coho. Let’s tentatively plan on an Ad-Hoc meeting for Tuesday night and see if we can have some more information to share. I’ve reserved the large conference room at the Montesano Regional Office from 5:30 to 9:00 pm. This is a painfully slow process, so I’ll confirm on Monday evening if we are a go for Tuesday or not.

Thanks for hanging in there with us.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/02/15 06:32 PM

It may be difficult. But, PS, WB, and GH should push for either reductions in harvest or pay the areas to produce the fish. Money for hatcheries, money for habitat, and so on. There should not be a free lunch.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/02/15 07:59 PM

CM -
As you know to achieve that sort of reductions for Washington Salmon will require changes in the Pacific Salmon treaty. I believe the current treaty is in effect through 2018.

Even when the negations for the new treaty begin as always it will be very difficult to get two foreign countries (Canada and Alaska) to agree to back off Washington fish. In the short term the best hope for Washington stocks is for the survivals of those north stocks decline to the point that to prevent over fishing of local northern stocks fish rates on the feeding grounds will have drop significantly.

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/02/15 09:07 PM

The PST has, or had, a statement that the benefits of conservation/restoration should accrue to the entity that took the initial hit or paid for the work. WA should be aggressive on having the sacrifices made in WA return to WA.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/02/15 10:18 PM

Carcassman,

I agree there should be no free lunch, but until the state of Washington has some leverage on Alaska, its not going to happen. Alaska loves a free lunch and BC won't back off our fish until Alaska backs off their fish. It sucks to get lowholed.

Maybe if everyone in WA that went to Alaska boycotted for a year or two that might get their attention, but short of something dramatic, I don't think its going to happen.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/03/15 07:25 AM

That then begs the question of how much WA fish are worth to Washingtonians.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/03/15 02:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Geoduck


Maybe if everyone in WA that went to Alaska boycotted for a year or two that might get their attention, but short of something dramatic, I don't think its going to happen.


Are you kidding?

The good lodges are already booked solid in 2015 for the prime chinook dates.

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=900498
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/03/15 04:38 PM

Don't misunderstand me. I don't think that would ever happen. I'm just saying it would take that sort of concerted action by WA residents to get Alaska's attention on this issue.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/04/15 08:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Geoduck
Don't misunderstand me. I don't think that would ever happen. I'm just saying it would take that sort of concerted action by WA residents to get Alaska's attention on this issue.





And even THAT probably wouldn't achieve the desired effect. I'm guessing more non-Washingtonians use those lodges than not.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/04/15 02:31 PM

well this "Washingtonian" won't be spending any of my dollars to "join the masses", in some combat fishing in many areas of Alaska. Chinook fish might be important to many but using the right gear.....lots of fun can be right in this State.......Get Willapa to get a bigger piece of the pie for sports, Chinook fishing MIGHT improve, jack fishing, early Coho.....October Coho, November Coho, December Coho, and yes January Coho.

Seems to me while not perfect, Washington has some fair fishing.....just need to have more areas with 4/3, to limit the nt commercial gill nets.

This year had some good fishing......well I had fun!!!!!!!
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/04/15 02:58 PM


We went to Sitka last June and had a great time. Limits of kings, coho, and chicken hali's every day regardless of the weather, I'm not big on the large halibut, but they will go out for them if the clients ask. I'm sure there are lots of good operations in Sitka, but Alaska Premier Charters and their lodge is first class for a reasonable budget.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/05/15 03:02 PM


CCA on Willapa Management Plan.


Coastal Conservation Association
TEXAS • LOUISIANA • MISSISSIPPI • ALABAMA • FLORIDA • GEORGIA
SOUTH CAROLINA • NORTH CAROLINA • VIRGINIA • MARYLAND • NEW YORK CONNECTICUT • MASSACHUSETTS • NEW HAMPSHIRE • MAINE • OREGON • WASHINGTON



12/29/2014


Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission 600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091


Dear Commissioners:

We have been following the Department’s efforts to develop a new Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy with great interest. We commend the Commission and WDFW staff for initiating this important effort and for the high quality information you provide to the public about the economics, harvest sharing, and conservation of wild populations in the Willapa Bay system. The Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) gave an impactful presentation on All H modeling (AHA) at the recent Commission meeting and we look forward to reviewing the results of AHA for the Willapa.

We write to urge the Commission to utilize the results of the pending AHA modeling as well as the economic information it has received on Willapa fisheries. We expect that these vital scientific and economic findings will inform the Commission as to the full extent of appropriate fishery reforms needed to improve fishery outcomes in the Willapa. These findings may even support changes beyond those already proposed, including the “aspirational goals” identified at the outset of this process.

The Willapa Bay salmon fishery, unlike nearly every other in Washington, is not affected by the complications of tribal co-management, Endangered Species Act listings, or a bi-state compact. This provides the Commission a unique opportunity to develop a plan that aggressively seeks to meet the conservation goals set out in your Hatchery and Harvest Reform Policy (C-3619). The Commission also has a clear path to begin optimizing the economic benefits and agency revenues these Willapa fisheries provide to the people and to Washington State.

We support your primary commitment to the conservation of wild salmon populations in Willapa Bay. For many years there controversy and concern have clouded the management of these populations. The AHA results could provide key insights into opportunities for reducing impacts on wild populations, which might actually justify maintaining if not increasing hatchery production.

The economic analysis provided by staff regarding Willapa Bay fisheries is an important step in changing how WDFW approaches fisheries management, and it also provides important information that should be utilized in developing policy to set future seasons and allocations. Many members of the public were surprised to learn that despite harvesting only approximately 10% of returning salmon, the recreational fishery generates 50% more economic benefit than commercial fisheries that take the other 90% of the harvest. These lopsided economics deserve your careful evaluation together with the AHA findings before developing any further criteria or allocations. You might consider requesting staff to provide an economic evaluation for each proposed option for both fishery and hatchery management. These evaluations could then become central in the development process for the new Willapa Bay Management Policy.

Thank you again for your service and commitment to the conservation of our fisheries.

Sincerely,
Nello Picinich, Executive Director CCA Washington
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/06/15 04:46 AM

Here you go the meeting announcement for Willapa Management Meeting. I know no more than what you see as to format or content for the meeting. Highlighted in red place and time.


From: "Steven L Thiesfeld (DFW)" <Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 6:27:41 PM
Subject: FW: Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

Hi Everyone,

We aren’t as far along as we hoped for, but we will meet tomorrow with folks that can make it. I realize that some of you have other obligations and that the flooding may limit access, but we want to share with you what we have.

So that is 5:30-9:00 at the Montesano Regional office, Tuesday January 6th.

See you there.

Thanks

From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 4:36 PM
Subject: Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting


Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/06/15 08:41 AM

Is this a public meeting?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/06/15 08:56 AM


It is a AD HOC open to the public. I do not know if Steve will do public and AD HOC together as last time but public will have a hour or so at the least at the end.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/07/15 09:21 AM

Steve Thiesfeld sent out the information presented last night at the AD HOC meeting. It is not explained all that well as to what it all means but if anyone wants it just PM me.

So how did the AD HOC meeting go? Well for sure not much information on Coho & the AHA model was available, so that is the bad. Now the good, staff has been working on Coho and continues to find errors in the model & this is good! It sounds a bit counter intuitive but it means staff is doing everything to insure that any and all errors are removed. For District 17 this is major progress as in the past any model harvest or otherwise just went as is. So a atta boy on effort maybe not so much on progress but then I think getting it right is staffs goal and it is slow going.

So some bullet points that jumped at me. The AD HOC Advisers? Considering past meetings the shift in attitude was rather startling. Regardless of labels Commercial, Rec, or Conservationist all came in ready to work. Particularly for the Commercial folks this was a real change but they made a real effort to understand the process underway. I realize this is about six weeks late but give them credit for coming in ready to do business.

Some issues continue to be a bit of a bear to get at. On Chinook it revolves around which stream is primary requiring a max of 20% pHOS ( hatchery reared fish spawning in the gravel ) Currently that is the Naselle but the option of Willapa being primary is out and about. The Willapa River hatchery is on Forks Creek but is many miles upstream and hatchery Chinook stop short and run past Forks Creek in substantial numbers. About 20% of the hatchery production that survives harvest stray which gives you about a ratio 3.5 hatchery to 1 wild in the gravel so this is not a good thing. So one thing up for consideration is reducing the Forks Creek Chinook production from 3.2 million to 370,000 or so which mathematically would take care of the problem. That is the good so now the bad. This could reduce 2T Rec Chinook fishery in fact the H+W mix could get low enough to restrict the fishery. It certainly would reduce the success rate to be sure. I still say the option of splitting the North and South bay and managing harvest for each separately is critical if one is maximize harvest while meeting conservation objectives.

On Chum I see the potential for a real brawl developing between those on the Conservation team and the agency. Steve Thiesfeld is going to send some information out but the thought of reducing the escapement is rather appalling. In its natural state 65% of the Willapa Bay salmon production was Chum followed by Coho and then some Chinook. That the so called pristine estuary has issues is so very true. The reality is the estuary is home to large scale aquaculture ( oysters ) and from spraying chemicals to many other human impacts pristine is not what the Willapa is. So the agency screwed up by not addressing these issues and now the fish pay the price? Nah one should not go there.

Short term / long term problems. Short term is that for the next four years the hatchery returns will continue off of the releases that are in the salt. How do you harvest without wiping out the natural spawners. Ok so we cut harvest but the Forks Creek production would overrun the gravel. Long term is whatever hatchery production is moving forward things are going to change. It matters little if it is Commercial or Rec things are going to be different. Many if not most will go into the fray trying to protect their fisheries and how that works out is yet to be seen.

The last issue that jumped at me was the management plan draft. The draft that the Commission is to review Saturday has not been released. Now just how on earth can anyone comment on a plan they have not seen? Simply put this is a major failure by agency staff and inappropriate is the kindest word I can find to describe this failure by the agency in the process. It is my thought that this failure resides in Olympia with Mr. Scott and his immediate staff not Region 6. Somebody needs to get their rear in gear and get that draft out by Thursday the 9th so the public can review it. Time to come out of the closet guys and face the music!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/07/15 04:24 PM


About Willapa Rec seasons:

I thought this was important enough to put up. That said I would urge all to think through their responses and not let the baggage of the past management cloud one's thoughts. Verbiage such as Commies, knuckle draggers, barbarians to describe commercial interest should not be viewed as helpful. It is a honest attempt by Steve to reach out and engage the Rec community for input on how maximize Rec opportunity in Willapa. Frankly this is something new for the coast. So read what Steve is asking and participate if you choose. His e mail address is below.


Hi Folks.

I need some help. What would you do to increase the recreational catch (and effort) for coho? Open closed areas? Increase daily limit? Less selective fishing? Would appreciate any thoughts you might have. The analyses I have done so far don’t show an effect of the commercial fisheries, like we see with Chinook.

Thanks.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/07/15 10:27 PM

Just visited with Steve

His request for coho season changes is for Willapa Bay only
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/15 06:24 AM

What does he mean by " no effect of commercial fisheries" ? Honest question, not trying to argue the point.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/15 07:17 AM

If I recall when Willapa Coho are modeled the Rec catch does not move any no matter what he does with the Commercial seasons. I took the entire Commercial season out of the model and no change to the Rec catch.

Here are my suggestions. No Commercial in 2T until September 15th at the least but October 1st. would work much much better.

Expand bag limits. The Willapa Bay Marine fisheries should of have had a six fish limit this past year. So numbers being the same 6 fish limit. We are talking adults here. Also you do this every year so folks count on it.

In river numbers permitting you go to 4 adults a day. Not sure about North River but the three streams with hatcheries the W+H streams should not be a problem.

Two rods allowed out of a boat anywhere river or bay.

No limit on Jacks.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/15 08:28 AM

Well, again I would be cautious not to accept model results as fact. How can the commercial fishery not affect the sport catch?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/15 08:56 AM

Because the harvest models in both GH & Willapa were a bunch of crap. In GH it charged inriver against the full run size rather than what is left after Commercial tribal & bay rec. In Willapa the Commercial harvest & Rec did not interact in similar ways. Steve is trying to sort it out to find something that works and expands Rec opportunity.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/15 09:33 AM

Good then. Lots simpler when they just say what they want to do.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/09/15 09:15 PM

Agenda Item 16. Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy – Briefing and Public Hearing 09:45 am

The Department will brief the Commission on Willapa Bay Salmon Management challenges, describe the public process, and seek guidance on draft policy sideboards.
Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager

PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/10/15 01:51 PM

Quick update. The policy below has some Grays Harbor & Willapa changes in red as the strike does not carry in a C&P. The new Director is currently the Idaho F&H Deputy Director and more to come on that I am sure. The draft Willapa policy will be released soon. Now this is for review and the final will be next month for public comment as it goes on the state register.


DRAFT- January 7, 2015
FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION POLICY DECISION


POLICY TITLE: 2015-2017 North of Falcon POLICY NUMBER: C-3608


Supersedes: C-3608, 2011-2012 Effective Date: Termination Date:

February X , 2015 December 31, 2017


See Also: Policy C-3001 Approved by:
Policy C-3620 Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission,



North of Falcon Policy

This Policy will guide Department staff in considering conservation, allocation, in-season management, and monitoring issues associated with the annual salmon fishery planning process known as "North of Falcon." When considering management issues, Department staff will ensure that decisions are made consistent with: the Department's statutory authority; U.S. v. Washington; U.S. v. Oregon; the Endangered Species Act; the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan; the Pacific Salmon Treaty; the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Framework Salmon Management Plan; pertinent state/tribal agreements; and the applicable Fish and Wildlife Commission policies.

The Department will implement this Policy consistent with the purposes and intended outcomes described in the 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Planning Project including:

• Salmon and steelhead will be managed to recover and assure sustainability in a way that is science-based, well-documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable.

• Fisheries will be managed to meet or exceed ESA, recovery, and conservation goals; and harvest management measures will protect and promote the long-term well-being of the commercial and recreational fisheries.

Fishery Management

General

• On a statewide basis, fishing opportunities will be provided when they can be directed at healthy wild and hatchery stocks.
• Selective fishing methods and gears that maximize fishing opportunity and minimize impacts on depressed stocks will be utilized to the fullest extent possible taking into consideration legal constraints on implementation and budgetary limits associated with required sampling, monitoring and enforcement programs.
• When assessed from a statewide perspective, fishing directed at chinook, coho, pink, sockeye, or chum salmon will not be exclusively reserved for either sport or commercial users.
• When managing sport fisheries, meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers, including retention and catch and release fisheries.
• The Department will seek non-treaty fishing access to unutilized portions of treaty harvest allocations through the implementation of pre-season agreements, taking into consideration changes in abundance, fishery conflicts, and factors that may influence attainment of spawning escapement objectives.

Sockeye, Chum. and Pink Salmon

• For fisheries directed at Fraser River-origin chum, pink, and sockeye stocks, the majority of harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
• For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound-origin chum stocks, the majority of harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
• For fisheries directed at Lake Washington sockeye, the first 200,000 non-treaty harvest will be provided to recreational fishers. If the allowable non-treaty harvest is greater than 200,000, commercial harvest directed at this stock may be considered.
• For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound origin pink salmon, seasons will be established that provide meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries while minimizing gear and other fishery conflicts.

Chinook and Coho Salmon

• The Puget Sound harvest management objectives for chinook and coho stocks, in priority order, are to: (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and (2) identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest. When managing sport fisheries in this region, recreational opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas, considering factors such as: the uniqueness of each area; the availability of opportunities for various species in each area throughout the season; the desire to provide high levels of total recreational opportunity; and the biological impacts.
• Grays Harbo r will be m anaged co nsistent with the Comm ission’s Grays Harbo r Po licy (POL C -3621).Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the
recreational and commercial fisheries.
• The Fish and Wildlife Commission's policy on Columbia River Salmon Management (POL• C3620) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River salmon fisheries. Columbia River harvest management regimes shall be developed in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives.
• Willapa Bay w ill be m anaged co nsistent with the Co mm issio n’s Willapa Bay Po licy (P OL C -XXXX). Willapa Bay harvest management shall be consistent with Willapa Bay Framework management objectives. The following general intent shall apply: Willapa Bay harvest management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries.
• Pacific Ocean harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers.

In-Season Management

• When in-season management actions are taken, they will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with pre-season conservation and harvest management objectives, and the fishery intent developed through the North of Falcon process.

Monitoring, Sampling and Enforcement

• Monitoring, sampling and enforcement programs will be provided to account for species and population impacts of all fisheries and to ensure compliance with state regulations.
• Fishery participants will be required to comply with fishery monitoring and evaluation programs designed to account for species and population impacts.

Gear and Fishery Conflicts

• Recreational and commercial fisheries shall be structured to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. Unanticipated fishery interaction issues identified in-season, including conflicts with
fisheries directed at other species, shall be resolved by involving the appropriate sport and commercial representatives in a dispute resolution process managed by Department staff.

Incidental Mortalities

• The Department will manage fisheries to minimize mortalities on non-target species (e.g. rockfish, sea birds, etc.). Management regimes will include strategies to limit seabird mortalities consistent with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Communications

• The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements for effective public involvement during the North of Falcon planning process and annual salmon fishery implementation, incorporating the following intents:

o North of Falcon participants will be included as observers during appropriate state/tribal discussions of fishery issues.
o all decisions made during the North of Falcon process will be recorded in writing.
o variety of tools will be used to effectively communicate with the public, to receive input on pre-season planning or in-season fishery issues, and to make available the record of decisions. Such tools will include: recreational and commercial advisory groups; public workshops to address key issues; the WDFW North of Falcon Web site; and in-season tele-conferences.
o The Department will make a concerted effort to consult with stakeholders prior to making major decisions with the tribes.

Other Species

• • The Fish and Wildlife Commission's policy on Lower Columbia Sturgeon Management (POL• C3001) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River and coastal sturgeon fisheries and related incidental impacts. Management of Willapa Bay sturgeon fisheries will be further guided by Willapa Bay Framework management objectives.

Delegation of Authority
• The Fish and Wildlife Commission delegates the authority to the Director to make harvest agreements
with Northwest treaty tribes and other governmental agencies, and adopt permanent and emergency regulations resulting from the agreements made during the annual North of Falcon process.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/12/15 04:34 PM

This is a link to the WDFW Commission process on the Willapa Plan redo. Go down to the January 8 / 10 meeting date and the draft Willapa Plan. It is different from the prior drafts so that is the one you want to look over. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/15 09:14 AM


Ok here you go folks. I am not sure about the comment period being a drop dead mark but it is likely the time for input to the agency.



Hi Everyone,

Attached is the draft Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy that the commission approved sending out for public comment. We corrected one typo and added some language about weirs under adaptive management. You can either send me your input or submit it here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/comment_form.html. Comments are due January 29th.

Thanks.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/14/15 06:59 AM


A little additional information. The January 29th date is for final input to the agency on the Willapa Plan redo. After that one can comment directly to the Commission and after the Commission adopts the final Willapa Plan and it is posted on the State Register one can comment also. All that said if your thought is to provide insight or objections to the agency then you want your comments in by the 29th. There is a comment link on the WDFW website link for Willapa that was posted previously but just in case here it is again. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/15/15 10:05 AM

Here are my latest comments to staff on the latest Willapa Plan draft. Take a look feel free to agree or disagree but I think it at least allows folks to get an idea of where we are at. Here is a link to the Willapa site and the plan is linked near the bottom of the page.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/

Mr. Scott,

I am submitting my thoughts on the latest Willapa Management Plan ( WMP ) draft. After considerable conversation with others I can say with certainty that the current WMP draft left many if not most confused. Depending on how folks read it one could draw just about any conclusion one wished dependant on the interpretation of the definition of HSRG, conservation objectives, and harvest directives. I am submitting for your consideration the following modifications to the WMP draft.

1. Chinook Primary Stream: After review it is apparent the Willapa is the logical choice. With its close proximity to North River and Smith Creek it will enhance the ability to meet conservation objectives for all three streams. Additionally as Chinook produced at the Forks Creek hatchery stray in large numbers that cannot be removed to meet HSRG requirements due the location of the Forks Creek Hatchery and the lack of a weir that can stop the staying. It is doubtful other than a minimal number Chinook can be produced at that facility. In the choice of Willapa as Primary it will dramatically increase the potential of meeting HSRG guidelines within the time frames identified in the WMP draft for Willapa, North River and Smith Creek.

2. Managing For Escapement: In the WMP I see in the Chinook options you have “ Achieve spawner goals for natural-origin Chinook “. In Coho you have “Achieve the aggregate spawner goal for natural-origin Coho” Now some are reading this as you make the individual stream goals for Willapa Chinook and the aggregate for the Willapa Estuary for Coho. So clarification of that verbiage is needed. What is meant by goals in Chinook? All the tributary streams or Willapa & Naselle or something else?

Additionally the aggregate Coho and Chum objectives lack what is commonly called a "floor " or minimum escapement goal for the Willapa Estuary streams that would trigger harvest protection of these streams. As written the plan would permit Willapa and Naselle to drive and make the aggregate Coho escapement goal and literally wipe out the remaining streams in the Willapa Estuary. Simply put a aggregate Coho and Chum escapement goals minus a "floor" is not acceptable.

3. Recreational Harvest: In the harvest options recreational harvest between marine and freshwater inriver is not clearly defined.. In the Grays Harbor plan these are clearly stated. By not placing similar guidelines in the WMP it is likely creating an unbelievable confrontation between Marine and Freshwater Inriver recreational fishers at North of Falcon. It is my understanding that the Commission desired to remove confrontation between all users rather than increase the conflict which the current WMP draft does between marine and freshwater inriver recreational fishers. I urge the addition of the following verbiage to any and all options.

a. Prioritize recreational fishing opportunities for Chinook salmon and for recreational fishing in areas 2T and 2U during the Chinook salmon management period (through Sept. 15); and
2) Marine and inriver freshwater recreational Chinook harvest impacts shall be divided equally. Either can exceed its share as long as it does not impair a full season for the other. ( see a,b,c)

A. Marine full season is defined as a 2T recreational opening May 31 unless a conservation objective requires a reduction. 6 fish limit, two rods per angler from a boat preseason forecast runsize permitting.
B. Freshwater inriver recreational full season is defined as a August 1 opener for the Willapa estuary streams for all reaches open to recreational anglers unless a conservation objective requires a reduction. 4 adults a day, two rods per angler from a boat, no limit on Jacks preseason forecast runsize permitting.
C. Any and all conservation driven recreational fisher reductions shall be equally shared by marine and fresh water inriver recreational fishers.

4. 2T Commercial Exclusion: The lack of a clearly define 2T Commercial exclusion has many believing that commercial harvest could start as early as July and just about any week to September 15. I urge that the WMP clearly state the recreational harvest priority and suggest the following verbiage be added to the WMP and any and all options.

No commercial fisheries shall take place in area 2T and U prior to September 16.

5. Chum Management: The current WMP verbiage on Chum harvest and management is woefully inadequate. I urge you to consider adding the following verbiage.

1) ( STRIKE OUT Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate goal for Willapa Bay naturally spawning Chum salmon. Until the spawner goal is achieved, the maximum fishery impact shall not exceed a 10% harvest rate and no commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31. If the aggregate goal has been achieved, but the pre-season forecast of adult Chum is less than the aggregate goal, or less than 10% higher than the aggregate goal, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return.)

No commercial fisheries Oct. 15-31 until spawner goal achieved 2 consecutive years. If the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years (beginning in 2010), the Department shall implement the following measures:

a) The predicted fishery impact for Chum in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Willapa Harbor & tributary streams will not exceed 10% of the adult return to Willapa Harbor.

b) When the Chum preseason forecast is 90% or less of the escapement goal the predicted fishery impact for Chum in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Willapa Harbor & tributary streams will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Willapa Harbor.

Rational: The changes are consistent to the directives of the Commission in the recently adopted Grays Harbor Management Plan. Willapa Chum have made escapement 6 out of the last 18 years and only 1 of the last 9 due to the agencies inability or unwillingness to address the failure to make Chum escapement goals.

In closing I would like to thank you and Region 6 staff for your effort thus far and look to work toward the goal Willapa salmon management reform.

Sincerely,




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/15/15 02:15 PM


From Region 6 for THIS Saturdays public meeting in Raymond.


Hi Everybody,

It may have slipped folks memories, but we have a public workshop scheduled for Saturday, January 17th at the Raymond Elks Lodge, 326 Third St., Raymond. The meeting is scheduled for 2 to 5 pm.

While we aren’t as far along on policy development as we had hoped, we do have a draft policy out for public comment. Our objective for Saturday is to help folks understand the draft policy and analyses so they can provide constructive comments. Note that we are taking comments until January 29th, so this won’t be your only opportunity. Comments can also be provided here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/comment_form.html.

A draft agenda is:
Background material for the options, e.g. schedules, models.
Additional details on the AHA modeling.
Review the draft policy.
Public comment.

I hope to see you all there.

Cheers

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/15 11:11 AM



So just how did the January 17th Willapa Management Plan (WMP) public meeting go? About the same as past meetings I think. Not much change really but I must admit in some respects staff did much better or worse depending on your view. So some bullets.

It was much better and the information supplied was well organized. Mr. Theisfeld has gotten a much better feel for the issues than when he assumed the Region 6 (R-6) job so a A+ here. In working the AHA and the math with it staff has put a huge effort in and continues to do so, A+ again. Also two of the senior R-6 hatchery employees were present to answer question and this is a real improvement, A+ again. So these things are good.

Now the bad. The meeting had little public notification other than what was posted on the Commission's Willapa webpage. No press release no nothing other than a e mail from Mr. Theisfeld that I and others circulated very late in the game. A big fat F here, not good.

Then this thing they called aspirational goals. Wish list is a better term and none of them are based upon reality. Why aspirational goals? Got me as they come from the very first public forum that was poorly attended that had a survey taken. The survey was not properly explained or even remotely presented in a way that a citizen would have any idea of just how staff intended to use the survey. Additionally staff continues to utilize it as a base for the AHA model output which means simply they are not using the AHA model to define the parameters to comply with HSRG but to show what aspirational goals could / should / would require as to production. As one gentleman told me "show me how many fish I can kill" Big F again.

Now the AHA model runs. This where it gets way past strange! Rather than blather on lets go right to the most glaring item. With hatchery production you can have either a integrated stock or segregated stock. A hatchery integrated stock is one that the hatchery stock is identical to the natural run and you incorporate natural stock into the hatchery spawn at a designated percentage and limit staying. A segregated hatchery stock is one that is completely and totally isolated from the natural production be it by the natural processes ( run timing ect ) and genetics. It can be segregated by other means such as a weir that guarantees no straying. This allows for a rather substantial flexibility for hatchery production. Now Forks Creek hatchery on the Willapa is many miles upstream and while it has a weir on average 20% of the returning adult hatchery Chinook after harvest fail to return to Forks Creek and spawn in the Willapa Basin naturally. This results in a somewhere around 3.5 to 1 hatchery origin spawners (HOS) over the natural spawners (NOS) in the gravel. That is a no go with HSRG.

So how did staff solve the problem? In several AHA option runs you see Willapa River Chinook as a segregated stock! Now the Willapa Chinook is the integrated stock from hell. There absolutely ZERO difference genetically or any other standard between the hatchery production or natural run. Zero! They did the same for another option with the Naselle Chinook calling it segregated and again it is not as it is a fully integrated stock. The Naselle does have a weir but it is pulled at or around October 15th depending on flows. Additionally it fails in high water events, not floods just a normal high water event, so segregated is a no go with HSRG.

So the question is just why is staff doing things? Well as one can imagine opinions are pretty much all over the map! So my opinion and I stress this is MY OPINION. Staff is trying to show folks with the AHA model what it would take to achieve the wish list aspirational goals for harvest. They are not saying they can or will be able to achieve those goals but what it would require. Staff have provided mountains of information in the WMP process as to HSRG and parameters / requirements needed. Again this is my opinion, I think the intent is that folks are supposed to utilize the HSRG information to interpret what is or not possible. Not good, BIG fat F again.

The final item is which stream is to be primary for Chinook Willapa or Naselle? This issue has pluses or minus' depending on your view. The primary has stricter HSRG requirements on staying and the mix of NOS plus HOS so it is important. At this time it not clear as to which is the most advantageous to designate. I am sure a lot of conversation will continue on this issue.

So there are my thoughts of my minutes for the 1/17/15 WMP public meeting.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/15 11:54 AM

Thanks for the update.

Assuming Willapa must have a primary wild chinook stock, why not select Naselle? At the southern end of the bay, it is geographically most isolated. Stop producing any hatchery chinook at Naselle, and straying from either Nemah or Willapa/Forks Ck would likely fall below the HSRG standard.

I think it will be impossible to have significant hatchery chinook production from Forks Ck AND maintain a wild population in the Willapa River that is not heavily influenced by hatchery straying. Chinook prefer river spawning over creek spawning, and even those genetically inferior Forks Ck chinook are going to select the mainstem Willapa River as their preferred spawning location over tiny Forks Ck. Why try to do the impossible?

This notion that WDFW can have its cake and eat it too (meaning achieve wild chinook conservation goals and have maximum production and resultant slaughter of returning hatchery chinook in sport and gillnet fisheries is dysfuctional, not to mention it wastes agency and public time and resources.

Watching this AHA process feels like watching a math modeler trying to make 2 + 2 = 5.

Sg
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/15 12:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.


This notion that WDFW can have its cake and eat it too (meaning achieve wild chinook conservation goals and have maximum production and resultant slaughter of returning hatchery chinook in sport and gillnet fisheries is dysfuctional, not to mention it wastes agency and public time and resources.


Not gonna disagree there.

If conservation and HSRG benchmarks are truly going to be prioritized, people need to get used to the reality that fishin' there ain't gonna be like it was.
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/15 01:51 PM

I'd just like to say "Thank you" to Rivrguy and the rest of the folks who are working the Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay issues. I appreciate being kept up to speed on what is happening.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/15 02:11 PM

Salmo

If you make Naselle the wild stock you will condition fisheries in the north end of the bay to wild stock needs, which means the hatchery fish will need to be taken close to or in the rivers. That would be unacceptable to harvesters.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/15 02:13 PM

2+2=5? In Willapa, Runsize -Catch=Escapement Goal, even when catch is 2 or 3X the modeled number. If it wasn't, fisheries would be closed.

WDFW operates on a math system that certainly wasn't taught in the schools I attended.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/15 06:10 PM

Carcassman,

Sorry, I was mostly thinking out loud, so to speak. If chinook conservation is actually a goal, then the gillnet fleet is gonna' have to go, and hatchery chinook production reduced to a level that isn't inconsistent with wild conservation.

Sg
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/15 08:08 PM

When pigs fly and hell freezes over conservation might become a goal in WB. Or WA for that matter.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/15 08:50 AM


Here is where I think my & others starting point is on if a stock is segregated or integrated. The definition is pretty much black & white with no gray type thing, or maybe, or what if. It is a interesting thing that needs to be addressed as my understanding is the purpose of the Willapa Plan redo is to actually follow the rules and not say one thing ( comply with HSRG ) then go do something else. Staff may have something in the mix I am not aware of but I tend to doubt it.

From HSRG June 2004 HSRG/WDFW/NWIFC Technical Discussion Paper #1: Integrated Hatchery Programs June 21, 2004.


Formal Definition: A hatchery program is a Segregated Type if the intent is for the hatchery population to represent a distinct population that is reproductively isolated from naturally-spawning populations.

Formal Definition: A hatchery program is an Integrated Type if the intent is for the natural environment to drive the adaptation and fitness of a composite population of fish that spawns both in a hatchery and in the wild.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/15 12:10 PM

If the state is concerned about balancing the budget, business 101 says to look at things that have an unacceptable or unsustainable ROI. In a clear and transparent world, that would show that the welfare program for commercial fishing should be immediately cut.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/15 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


Formal Definition: A hatchery program is an Integrated Type if the intent is for the natural environment to drive the adaptation and fitness of a composite population of fish that spawns both in a hatchery and in the wild.


CORRECTION:

Integrated simply means that co-mingling of hatch and wild is encouraged. Anything not managed for segregation is by definition integrated.

That the natural environment would drive the adaptation/fitness of the co-mingled population is a function of PNI... specifically managing for a PNI above 0.5 or greater.

Many integrated programs are run with dismal PNI's.... essentially allowing the hatchery environment to dominate the genetic fitness of the co-mingled population.

This is at the heart of the Willapa reform... broodstock management and limiting pHOS to bring hatchery operations up to HSRG standards.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/15 02:13 PM

From the Commission presentation on how you classify a streams salmon population. As many have discussed this is rather important be it views of how it should work in Willapa ( & Grays Harbor ) are very diverse. While the language is rather clear how the agency interprets it is not as this was part of the 2009 adoption of HSRG adoption and you see what still goes on in Willapa.


What the HSRG uses: (LCRSRP);

Primary—biologically significant, core, key, highly viable, important to recovery. Historically were a large segment of the population structure. Need to be at low risk of extinction.

Contributing– of some significance, are viable but lower in abundance than Primary. Contribute to diversity.

Stabilizing—a population, but may not have ever been a large segment of the population structure.

Little Edit: This was part of the AHA presentation and unlike in Grays Harbor where staff put up a slide that was totally misleading and just plain wrong, I doubt this is. So I think it is safe to say this is the agencies view of the classifications.
Posted by: OncyT

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/15 03:07 PM

Rivrguy is correctly quoting the HSRG's definitions of integrated and segregated programs.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/15 09:43 PM

And eyeFish is perfectly quoting how WDFW wants to do it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/21/15 10:24 AM

Let us try and air something out a bit. Below are the definitions from HSRG on stream classifications. Two lines of thought are out and about on the issue so let us use this as a starting point.

When I worked on the Grays Harbor HSRG the stream classifications were supposed to be applied for what the stream currently is and historically was.

What the HSRG uses: (LCRSRP);
Primary—biologically significant, core, key, highly viable, important to recovery. Historically were a large segment of the population structure. Need to be at low risk of extinction.
Contributing– of some significance, are viable but lower in abundance than Primary. Contribute to diversity.
Stabilizing—a population, but may not have ever been a large segment of the population structure.

Now some take a different view. You apply what stream classification you desire for a particular stream and manage to that requirement.

With this interpretation theoretically in Willapa you could assign stabilizing to all streams but the Naselle and harvest away on the rest and pretty much do the natural production under as stabilizing is a very low bar. This is also were segregated comes in as no restrictions apply just harvest away.

This issue of just what the interpretation of HSRG is rather important and I think contentious. Thoughts anyone?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/21/15 10:12 PM

Nemah = segregated...

Naselle = primary....

Willapa/North = contributing...

Stabilizing is just another code word for no performance benchmarks.... status quo will do just fine.

That's the brand of conservation I support and testified before the commission a couple weeks ago.5
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/22/15 05:49 AM

and I think Doc nailed the other side of the coin. Now I moved toward flipping to Willapa Prime but honestly it would not make much difference other than to the hatcheries compliance with HSRG and then it is just a question how much effort. So the question around which is prime Naselle or Willapa is really about the hatcheries production & streams interaction and slightly improving Naselles chances of success. Either work I think.

To the question of how Willapa / North Prime helps Naselle. A contributing stream has a slightly lower requirement for straying and PNI than Primary. That is about it and the Naselle weir is prone to failure as posted before. That is about it in a nutshell.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/22/15 07:09 AM


The agency is looking for comment on NOF. Grays Harbor and Willapa have changes as does a couple of other things so take a peek.

Good afternoon,

The 2013-15 Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) policy for North of Falcon (NOF) has expired. The Commission is considering changes to the policy for the 2015-17 NOF processes and is soliciting for public comment. The policy with proposed changes is attached and can also be found at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/. The Department will present the policy including changes and comments received to the Commission during February. If you wish to provide comments regarding the policy and proposed changes, send an email by January 31, 2015 to: ryan.lothrop@dfw.wa.gov (recreational), or kendall.henry@dfw.wa.gov (commercial). If you wish to provide comments directly to the Commission, go to http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html to determine when and where the North of Falcon Policy will be discussed.

The public meeting schedule for the 2015 North of Falcon process can be found at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/. As additional meetings are scheduled, the website will be update.

Thank you and have a great day.

Ryan Lothrop
Puget Sound Recreational Salmon Fishery Manager
Fish Management Division
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Ryan.Lothrop@dfw.wa.gov
Work: 360.902.2808
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/15 05:48 AM

Here are the requirements that go with a stream designation. This is why in a model run gets you such different values. It is also why WDFW calls the Willapa stabilizing or the same for Naselle. By identifying Willapa or Naselle to a insignificant stabilizing designation you fool the AHA Model into violating HSRG standards. It commonly called tricking the model. For WDFW it seems old habits die hard.


HSRG Requirements:
Designation Standards
Primary—
&#61550; Integrated hatchery programs--PNI > 0.67; pHOS <30%
&#61550; Segregated hatchery programs—pHOS < 5%

Contributing—
&#61550; Integrated hatchery programs--PNI > 0.50; pHOS <30%
&#61550; Segregated hatchery programs—pHOS < 10%

Stabilizing—
&#61550; Integrated hatchery programs—current condition
&#61550; Segregated hatchery programs—current condition
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/15 06:07 AM

Loosing the formatting but I will try to get some additional information up later. The bit below is the stream designation that was in one Willapa AHA Option. Now they changed stream designations some to a huge move depending on the hatchery production for harvest that the agency was attempting to get out of a AHA model run.


Basin Chinook Coho
Population Designation Program Type HSRG Requirements Population Designation Program Type HSRG Requirements

North/Smith Contributing
-- --
Willapa Primary Integrated PNI >0.67; pHOS <30% Primary Integrated PNI >0.67; pHOS <30%

Palix Stabilizing -- -- Contributing -- --

Nemah N/A Segregated Current Condition Contributing Integrated PNI >0.50; pHOS <30%

Naselle Stabilizing Segregated Current Condition Stabilizing Integrated Current Condition

Bear Stabilizing -- -- Contributing -- --
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/15 09:32 AM

Here are some comments from a Willapa rec fisher from out of state. Agree or disagree with his views he took the time to put forth his views and be involved. That is important as a citizen participation is what this process underway for Willapa is all about. The more diverse all our views the better as it allows all to get true reading of what citizens feel.



Ref: Draft Willapa Bay Salmon
Management Policy Document

Dear Mr. Thiesfield:

As an out-of-state salmon sport fishing enthusiast, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above referenced draft document dated January 12, 2015. I have fished Willapa Bay (specifically area 2T, 2U & the Wash Away Beach area) for the past 14 years. I continue to support the development of the Willapa River section of Willapa Bay into a world class sport Chinook salmon fishery. We now have the opportunity to create such a fishery through the implementation of a revised version of the prior mentioned policy document. My comments are presented with this goal in mind!

Please understand that I support the restoration and maintenance of wild salmon populations. However, as we develop plans to ensure the continuation of wild Chinook runs on the Willapa River we must provide time to implement presently untried and possible currently unthought-of options for the removal, or significant reduction in the number, of Chinook hatchery fish on the spawning beds located within the Willapa River’s watershed. It has taken us decades to finally accept the fact that wild salmon play a significant role in maintaining biodiversity, and that there are too many hatchery Chinook on our natural spawning beds. We will NOT resolve these issues overnight! In addressing these issues we must NOT take knee jerk reactions that will seriously impact the current quality of the Willapa River Chinook fishery. Reducing hatchery production at the Fork Creek Hatchery, is, in my opinion, a knee jerk reaction and should only be taken after all other option have through infield trials proved to be inadequate.

As a result, I do not support the implementation of either Alternative A or B as currently presented in the draft Policy document as both of these alternatives reduce the Chinook output of the Forks Creek Hatchery. Thus, by default, I support the implementation of Alternative C.

There are numerous actions we can take immediately if we are truly interested in increasing the number of wild Chinook returning to the Willapa River watershed while reducing the number of hatchery Chinook found on the Willapa River watershed’s spawning beds. However, in taking such actions we must ensure that sufficient numbers of hatchery fish arrive at the Forks Creek Hatchery to achieve Hatchery production goals. Examples of such actions are:
1. Remove gillnets from Area 2T and 2U. Commercial fishers shall implement selective harvest methods.
2. Allow commercial fishers to harvest hatchery Chinook within the upper section of 2U prior to September 15th.
3. Sport fishers shall neither land nor net wild Chinook.
4. Sport fishers shall use barbless hooks with no more that 2 hooks per rig.
5. Increase sport harvest of hatchery Chinook through the establishment of higher daily and seasonal limits within Area 2T and 2U.
6. Remove the restriction of the number of rods sport fishers may use per fishing license when fishing within Area 2T and 2U.
7. Increase sport fisher harvest of hatchery Chinook within that portion of the Willapa River watershed located upstream of the Forks Creek Hatchery through the establishment of generous daily and seasonal limits.
8. Remove hatchery Chinook from high quality spawning beds which are located within the Willapa River watershed upstream of the Forks Creek Hatchery through the use of seine nets. Use volunteers to perform this task. Let the volunteers keep all hatchery Chinook so harvested.
9. Use fish traps on small streams located within the Willapa River to remove hatchery Chinook. Use volunteers to monitor these traps and allow these volunteers to keep all hatchery Chinook found in such traps. They of course would release all wild Chinook found in said traps.
10. As needed, implement other reasonable ideas as they become available for the selective removal of hatchery Chinook from the portion of the Willapa River watershed located above the Forks Creek Hatchery.

In addition, to increase the sport fishing opportunities within the 2T and 2U areas of Willapa Bay I support keeping these areas essentially commercial net free for the period beginning August 1st through September 15th of each year. Further, the current area defined as 2U should be divided into 2 section, an upstream and downstream section. The upstream would be defined starting at Raymond and proceed downstream to the Raymond airport. The downstream section would begin at the Raymond airport and proceed downstream to the Range Marker. Commercial fishers would be allowed early season harvest of hatchery Chinook in the upper reach of the area 2U during the August 1st through September 15th time period. After September 15th commercial harvest would be allowed harvest throughout the 2T and 2U areas per State established seasons.

This division of the area 2U would allow sport fishers to again fish the area immediately around and upstream of the Range Marker. Historically, this was a very productive sport fishing area and safely accessible by small boats launched at Raymond. Recently, the commercial fleet has essentially dominated this area. My experience has been that once the commercial fleet is fishing in an area, sport fishing will not be productive in said area until at least 3 days following the conclusion of the commercial fishing event.

Thanks for providing me with the opportunity to provide input into your very important policy document. If I may be of any assistance please consider me a volunteer!

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/15 05:45 AM

I was recently asked to take a look at the Willapa Hatchery Complex and develop a conservation based look at the hatchery production, AHA modeled options, and HSRG. I did and I must say I was surprised by what I thought existed and what does exist let alone do the could / should / would bit with HSRG limiters. So take a read .

Almost forgot. Many ask why is Willapa so important. To end the discrimination the inriver & marine Rec fisher have suffered is the big one. Also in Grays Harbor we have the very same issues with the Humptulips Coho to be resolved. One can think of Willapa as the template of how you fix it when you have massively over harvested and nearly wiped out a salmon run harvesting a hatchery run. Another way to say it is WDF&W "screwed the pooch" so long what are we to do?

Anyhow I if you have questions on the report or anything e mail me and we will see what I can do to help. I can send you the model runs and all the associated information also.




HATCHERY CONDITION & POTENTIAL

It was requested by the Advocacy that I do a preliminary review of the condition and potential of Forks Creek, Nemah, and Naselle hatcheries. I would point out this a simple look at the facilities not an in depth review. I met with WDFW hatchery staff and the following are my findings.

Forks Creek: The facility is in reasonable condition but has the normal issues one would find at a hatchery. Limitations are primarily lack of extended rearing capacity and the lack of a weir to stop Chinook straying.
Current Smolt Production: 3.2 million Chinook, 300K Coho, 300k Chum, 40+25K Steelhead, 4K Rainbow Trout.

Nemah: Although a older facility it is in reasonable condition and has a solid weir. It does have water quality issues that limit extended rearing due to low flows.
Current Production: 3.3 million Chinook, 300K Chum, 19K Rainbow Trout

Naselle: The facility is in reasonable condition but has issues. The issues reside in the fact the water supply pipeline is in poor condition. Maintenance and repair of portions of the pipeline are scheduled for June of 2015 to address this issue. Additionally the weir is prone to failure. Staff identified a lip on the weir causing debris build up and hope to address it with repairs in 2015. Additionally the weir is removed around October 15 dependant on flows permitting.
Current Smolt Production: 500K Chinook, 1.4 Million Coho, 300K Chum, 75K Steelhead,

CONCLUSION: The 3.2 million Chinook production at Forks Creek contained in some of WDFW’s options is problematic. To get the AHA to approve this level of production WDF&W designated the Willapa river as stabilizing which is the lowest priority given to a stream under HSRG. The issue of stream designation needs review as to compliance to the intent of HSRG reform as many see it has a innovative way to portray compliance with HSRG when in reality it a attempt to circumvent the true intention of HSRG hatchery reform. Then one has to recognize the Willapa itself has no weir. This creates problems for growing large numbers of Chinook due to hatchery fish straying and a difficult job in capturing natural spawners for mixing with the hatchery broodstock.

Another issue is the desire of the Commission to expand Chum egg box production and explore the potential for ocean ranching similar to Alaska's PNP programs. To do this a source of eggs is needed other than continually mining prime Chum streams for brood. It would appear that the Nemah would be the best fit but it would require additional incubators. Regardless of which hatchery would be deemed the best to utilize for increased Chum production, thus far in the current process WDF&W has not addressed the issue of broodstock availability. This short coming needs to be addressed if one is go forward with an attempt to met the Commission's directive of increasing Chum production.

AHA OPTIONS

Agency staff currently have provided three options A,B, and C available for consideration. The fundamental difference between the three are in the stream designations as to which stream is Primary and designating the Naselle as stabilizing and the Chinook production as a segregated stock. It is the altering of stream designations that allows the production values for each of the three AHA model runs.

I was asked to work with staff to develop additional AHA model runs for options based not on getting the maximum harvest but rather designed to comply with the intent of Hatchery Reform and HSRG guidelines. (see attachment A) After input from those attending the meeting in Elma, I developed scenarios I have designated as “Maximum Conservation with Dual Prime”, “Willapa Prime”, “Naselle Prime”, and “North River Prime”. Of the four, “North River Prime” made little difference so a complete AHA run was not completed, “Dual Prime” placed the greatest restrictions on production and harvest. “Willapa Prime” or “Naselle Prime” ended up being nearly the same when one or the other is designated Contributing. The notable exception I considered good news is that keeping the current designation of Naselle as prime and moving the Willapa to contributing, the AHA showed Forks Creek can produce 615K Chinook smolt instead of the 350,000 found in some of the WDFW options. By classifying the Willapa Contributing results in the AHA showing Forks Creek greatest Chinook production value available complying with HSRG. Additionally if a broodstock program partnership with volunteers similar to efforts in Grays Harbor was developed for Forks Creek, it could increase production incrementally with the improved PNI with the additional NOS broodstock incorporated in the eggtake. As the number of natural spawners is restored the hatchery production could again be increased incrementally.

CONCLUSION: It appears to me that these latest AHA model runs using the designations of Prime and Contributing show that unless a compelling reason exist that is not known at this time, moving the Primary stream designation from the Naselle to the Willapa gains little. Leaving the Naselle Primary and designating Willapa and North River Contributing with the remaining streams Stabilizing offers the greatest Chinook production value available complying with HSRG guide lines. Naselle and Nemah production can remain the same as it presently is and comply with HSRG guidelines

PROBABLE OUTCOME: In preparing this report on my finding the Advocacy asked that I attempt to assess the impact of the Forks Creek production reduction as it would relate to the recreational fishing opportunities in conjunction with the resolutions passed by all in the meeting in Elma recommending no commercial fisheries in 2T & U prior to September 16 and the 50/50 / 70/30/ 90/10 division of Natural Origin Spawners ( NOS ) between commercial and recreational fishers. (Compromise Resolutions 1 & 3)

While looking into the future is not exactly a scientific endeavor one can draw some reasonable conclusions.

1. While the introduction of true Hatchery Reform means Chinook releases will be significantly reduced from Forks Creek, it does not necessarily mean significant recreational reductions. In past years the pool of hatchery fish in 2T was sizeable but due to the early and considerable commercial harvest the actual number of Chinook available for the recreational fisher to fish on was drastically reduced effectively negating the value of the higher hatchery production. If Compromise Resolution 1 approved in Elma is adopted, the early period of the 2T fishery would be excellent due to the larger pool of fish present with the Columbia dip in combined with commercial harvest being restrained until September 16th. One could expect to see a small reduction in some reaches for recreational harvest in 2T & U in the long term but again it would not be as numerically significant as the hatchery reduction is offset as commercial nets would be removed until September 16th. Additionally Forks Creek could expand the Coho production to the 600K range creating substantial additional recreational Coho opportunity and be in compliance with HSRG.

2. With the Naselle and Nemah hatchery production remaining the same in a Naselle Primary/Willapa Contributing AHA model run just completed, the Southern Bay and in river fisheries should prosper as well if Compromise Resolution 1 approved by the coalition during the Elma meeting is adopted by the Commission.

It is my view that one should regard this similar to a three legged stool. The new Naselle Primary/Willapa & North River Contributing option Chad Herring and I just ran through the AHA model can meet HSRG standards. It can do so with moderate impact to the recreational 2T & U fisheries but only if Compromise Resolution 1 & 3 are adopted. Take one leg off the stool it fails the recreational fisheries is just as bad as the other options provided by the Department.

Finally, it is correct to believe there are risks associated with relying upon this new AHA approved option or any AHA generated option. In the transition period from the current hatchery production to the what is production levels of the future under the new policy one known will exist. The harvest impacts in the future will have to be restrained to allow for escapement of natural spawning stocks. WDF&W has a long and storied record of not being able to restrain commercial fisheries in Willapa. For any AHA option to work it is paramount that WDF&W not compound the problem by continuing to over harvest thus making compliance with Commission directives and HSRG guidelines move from difficult to impossible to achieve. The next three years of large hatchery Chinook returns will test the Department’s resolve to adopt HSRG and begin the restoration of natural spawners. If it continues to “fish to the last available paper fish”, the long term prospects for recreational Chinook fishing could be bleak.








Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/15 07:54 AM

Thought I would post up this e mail thread obtained in a Public Document Request (PDR) as it offers a glimpse at two things. First up the relationship between the QIN & WDF&W staff. Amazingly enough documents obtained in the PDR's show at the technical level it is professional other than every now and then it gets a little off track as in one document obtained where a QIN staffer called a WDFW Bio a SWAG Bio. Swag is "Scientific Wild Ass Guess"

This particular e mail concerns the release mortality for commercial nets and Coho. It is my understanding that Fish Program intentionally left out Coho in the ISP panel mandated by the court settlement in Willapa. The importance? Well the agency continues to try and work around the Humptulips Coho situation with the failure to make natural spawner escapement and the Willapa Chinook. It is a issue in the sense that if WDF&W attempts circumvent HSRG or a management plan on one thing one can rather safely assume they will do it in another.

I highlighted the portion on release mortality below and the QIN's Mr. Jacobson's thoughts are pretty much on the mark from what I have learned broodstocking over the years.


-----Original Message-----
From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:55 AM
To: Jorgensen, Jim
Cc: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Jim,

Your email below has been forwarded to the IFSP.

Thanks for the assist.

Cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:35 PM
To: Jorgensen, Jim
Cc: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Good afternoon Jim,

Attached is the most up to date version of the Grays Harbor Planning Model.
We haven't discussed schedules at this time. We've been worked for find and
correct computation and cell reference error. We appreciate any input you
provide.

I will make sure that your comments of the net release mortality issues are
sent forward.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Jorgensen, Jim [mailto:JJORGENSEN@quinault.org]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 1:32 PM
To: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Mike--

Is there a planning model for GH that you could provide me to review and
offer QIN proposed changes.

Also on the commercial net release mortality that the Mobrand group is
working, Steve suggested I should relay our technical information or issues
through you.

I wouuld propose that the wild coho brood stocking information from 1986 on
for the Hoh River is probably available through Roger Mosely.

The main point of this was that Roger and we found out that female coho
taken from the lower Hoh and earlier in the season did not survive well at
all.

I think the lower and earlier ones all died, even though a good number
looked alive and well right up to before their eggs were to mature.

When checking them up to that time at a certain point we would find them
dead and their eggs having not separate from the skeins. Males seemed to do
fine.

Therefore I would recommend that any release mortality be assessed from the
female survival perspective. Coastal wild escapement estimates are based on
the number of reeds dug by females.

Any time/area situation in the lower freshwater area that had a similar
impact on female salmon, may render an overall survival rate of 50%, which
would be meaningless as far as achieving

escapement objectives. One of the presenters in Olympia before the Mobrand
group also cited their similar experiences brood stocking for what I believe
was the Wishkah group.

Jim Jorgensen

________________________________________
From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW) [Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:30 PM
To: Jorgensen, Jim
Cc: Jurasin, Tyler; Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Good question Jim,

I'll leave that up to Kirt or Steve to answer.

[cid:image001.png@01CF33C0.16B6A640]

From: Jorgensen, Jim [mailto:JJORGENSEN@quinault.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:28 PM
To: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Cc: Jurasin, Tyler
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Mike-

Regarding the forum yesterday and the charge to Lars Mobrand and the other
panel members, are there avenues where QIN would be able to provide
technical information or recommendations to the panel?

Jim Jorgensen

From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW) [mailto:Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:04 PM
To: Jorgensen, Jim; Jurasin, Tyler
Cc: Gilbertson, Larry; Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Hi guys,

Below is the web link to all of the materials that have been presented to
the scientific panel that is evaluated the net release mortality rate.
Please enjoy.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/downloads/Settlement%20Workshop%20Materials/

Jim,

I have a question. Do you know the origin of the estimated Humptulips
hatchery stray estimate? In the GH coho forecast model in the run
reconstruction tab within the column labelled "Humptulips Hatchery Strays"
(column AQ) there is a comment that says "0.8 is applied to total escapement
est. for Humptulips, this calculation assumes that 20% of fish on spawning
grounds are of hatchery origin. Cannot calculate w/o spawner surv. Data" .
First, this column multiplies the Humptulips escapement estimate by 0.8.
This produce is then used in the total HATCHERY escapement. Seems that
multiplying by 0.8 is assuming that 80% of the spawners are hatchery origin.
I recall a discussion with Kirt about some CWT analysis that determined the
stray rate. Do you have any recollection? I'm trying to update all
documentation associated with forecasts.

Thanks for any help you can provide.
[/i]
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/15 03:00 PM

Here is a local Willapa inriver fishers thoughts on the Willapa Plan. Anyone who fishes the rivers in the Willapa Estuary should being paying attention and participating in the process. Inriver has had a history of getting hosed in the season setting process.



The Commission's enhanced involvement in Willapa Bay Salmon Management matters is much appreciated. I am writing to ask you and your fish committee to give strong consideration to subject resolutions. These resolutions are well designed to ensure needed recreational and conservation enhancements in our drainage.

1. A recreational priorty on Coastal Fall Chinook must come to pass, or a lot of people will feel that we have just been running laps for many weeks.

2. The impacts on Natural Origin spawners must be distributed in a manner fair to all citizens and user groups and to conservation goals. In the past years, these impacts have been over-implemented in our marine areas, leaving little or none for fresh water areas and the gravel. Required brood stocking levels within hatcheries have been impossible, and our chinook are tinier than ever accordingly. As a result of the marine harvest bias, goals were routinely missed and large percentages of our rivers such as the Nemah and Naselle were unavailabe to the public for fishing, even to the landowners. We have learned the obvious; fish that are gone cannot be created by not fishing or placing numerous tackle and technique restrictions on sport fishers. The cohort with the best statistics for true selective fishing is just left out of the selective process. They fish jammed into smaller areas.

3. The resolution to allocate NOS impacts is key going forward. Drastic measures are appropriate. While a 50% commercial/25%marine recreational/25% fresh water recreational breaks with tradition, that is truly the only reason this may seem drastic to some. In season management will be essential in 2015 in a realistic manner never utilized before. Last year non-selective gill nets were put on Chinook in our marine areas when no impacts were even available. These nets, and a more selective marine sport fishery in 2T, were put on fish in front of rivers with large sections closed to recreational fishing for "conservation" reasons. For a period of time, fresh water fishers were required to release unmarked fish on the same days that netters were keeping them.

4. Harvest must be allocated to all fresh water where conservation does not preclude it. Landowners should decide how many people fish on their land, not the state, unless there are reasons that cannot be managed away. In both the Nemah and Naselle, there are also state owned areas below hatcheries where HOS can be harvested with a pole. Volunteers can be utilized to not only release unmarked fish, but place them above the weirs, where many never arrive otherwise. When numbers increase, they can be hatchery placed for broodstocking. Many unmarked fish are reluctant to enter hatcheries. A four wheeler with a trailer and recovery box can do the job. It is time to return fair opportunity for these fish to the public and landowners who pay their taxes, and suffer restricted timber harvest, not to provide more marine impact to all others to the landowners exclusion.

5. Last year Region 6 tried to encourage a "test" fishery across the mouth of the Nemah River for commercials. At the same time the public was not allowed to catch fish in much of this river including below the weir on public land. The mortality rate is officially much lower for the pole than for beach seining, purse seining, or tangle netting. This is the culture that will not be overcome without continued big picture leadership and followup by the commission. Thank you for your kind attention.




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/03/15 10:14 AM

Anyone real familiar with this bit we found in the Dept's appropriation bill introduced by the Governor? It does shed light on why the commercial driven interest have been opposing every attempt to reform WDF&W's hatchery programs to HSRG standards.

(4) Prior to submitting its 2017-2019 biennial operating and capital budget requests related to state fish hatcheries to the office of financial management, the department shall contract with the hatchery scientific review group (HSRG) to review the proposed requests. This review shall: (a) Determine if the proposed requests are consistent with HSRG recommendations; (b) prioritize the components of the requests based on their contributions to protecting wild salmonid stocks and meeting the recommendations of the HSRG; and (c) evaluate whether the proposed requests are being made in the most cost effective manner. The department shall provide a copy of the HSRG review to the office of financial management with its agency budget proposal.
Posted by: OncyT

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/03/15 12:44 PM

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, but the HSRG has been reviewing WDFW capital budget requests for several years now. I don't see how this could have anything to do with the current effort in Willapa Bay.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/15 07:50 AM

The next Commission review for Willapa is this weekend. Saturday the 6th when Willapa is up and the location is back to Natural Resource Building – 1111 Washington Street SE Olympia, WA 9851 First Floor – Room 172. Some NOF stuff mixed in also Friday morning.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2015
8:30 AM 1. Call to Order 15 min
a. Commissioners’ Discussion
b. Meeting Minute Approval

8:45 AM 2. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda. 30 min

9:15 AM 3. Direc tor’s Report
The Director will brief the Commission on various items. 60 min

10:15 AM Break 15 min

10:30 AM 4. Geoduck Diver License Rulemaking – Briefing and Public Hearing Department staff will brief the Commission on repealing WAC 220-52-01904, adopted at the end of 2014 due to changes to state law. WAC 220-52-01905 becoming effective January 1, 2015, makes WAC 220-52-01904 no longer necessary.

Staff Report: Frank Hawley, Licensing & Budget Policy Manager

Public Input – This Item Only
15 min

10:45 AM 5. Columbia River Commercial Catch Area Amendments – Decision Department staff will request approval from the Commission on inclusion of new commercial catch areas to aid in management of existing and emergent commercial fishing opportunities within the Columbia River.

Staff Report: Ron Roler, Columbia River Policy Coordinator 15 min

11:00 AM 6. 2015 - 16 North of Falcon Policy C-3608 – Decision
Department staff will present to the Commission for consideration of adoption the North of Falcon Policy C-3608 which would be effective through December 2016. The policy provides direction and guidance to the agency as it conducts the annual process for defining salmon fishing seasons throughout the state. 30 min


Staff Report: Ron Warren, Deputy Assistant Director, Intergovernmental Salmon Management

11:30 AM Lunch 90 min

1:00 PM 7. Steller Sea Lion and Tufted Puffin Status Review – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will brief the Commission on the status review of the Steller Sea Lion and Tufted Puffin.

Staff Report: Penny Becker, Ph.D., Acting Diversity Division Manager and Gary Wiles, Biologist, Wildlife Program

Public Input – This Item Only 75 min

2:15 PM 8 Priority Landscapes – Briefing
Department staff will brief the Commission on the Statewide Priority Landscapes Initiative aimed at identifying and mobilizing WDFW cross- programmatic resources to conserve iconic landscapes whose future status depends on collaboration across multiple jurisdictions and interests.

Staff Report: Cynthia Wilkerson, Lands Conservation and Restoration Section Manager and Lauri Vigue, Environmental Planner, Wildlife Program 45 min

3:00 PM Break 15 min

3:15 PM 9. Lands 20/20 – Briefing
Department staff will provide a briefing on the lands 20/20 process and the list of projects approved through the 2014 Lands 20/20 process; the Department will seek funding for projects approved in the Lands 20/20 process.

Staff Report: Cynthia Wilkerson, Lands Conservation and Restoration Section Manager, Wildlife Program 30 min
3:45 PM 10. Enforcement Program Update – Briefing
Department staff will provide a briefing to the Commission on the Enforcement Program.

Staff Report: Chief Crown, Enforcement Program 45 min

4:30 PM Recess

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2015

8:00 AM 11. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting. NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda. 30 min


8:30 AM 12. Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy – Briefing and Public Hearing
The Department will brief the Commission on Willapa Bay Salmon Management challenges, describe the public process, and seek guidance on draft policy sideboards.

Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager

Public Input – This Item Only 2 hrs
10:30 AM Break 15 min

10:45 AM

13.Miscellaneous and Meeting Debrief
The Commission will discuss items that arise immediately before or during the meeting and after the preliminary agenda is published.
30 min

11:15 AM Adjourn
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/07/15 01:05 PM

Well today was interesting for a couple of reasons. First up it will be June at the earliest for the final approval of the new Willapa Policy. The stream & fish designations being moved all over is going to be addressed. A good case was made for getting a clear stock designation for North River Chinook was made. Commissioner Carpenter made a clear case that at some point compromise will be needed by the harvesters. The Doc man pointed out that if conservation is required that as the Commercials get 90% of the harvest then one could reasonably assume that they shoulder 90% of the new conservation burden. From the Commercial side not much new.

Below is my input from the hearing.


Testimony Willapa Management Policy 2/7/15:


Good morning Commissioners my name is Dave Hamilton and I would like to thank you for providing time for citizens to address the issue of the Willapa Management Policy. The two issues I would like to bring to your attention are seldom discussed but always present.

First I would bring to your attention the issue of stream & stock designations. Within HSRG you have stream designations of Primary, Contributing, Stabilizing and stock designations of Integrated and Segregated. All have very definite definitions of the meaning of the designations. Nearly ten years ago after the development of HSRG a WDF&W Science Division staffer put it to my team this way. "Rules are rules, you do not pick and choose and it is not multiple choice". This is what myself and my team was taught by WDF&W staff but it appears that present agency staff feel otherwise. The agency position as presented thus far in the Willapa appears to be that WDF&W staff believe they can assign the most convenient designation of a stream to allow the largest hatchery production. Additionally, as in option C, staff apparently feel they can classify a stock such as Naselle Chinook segregated even if it fails to meet the standards for a segregated stock and then harvest the stock to that designation. Words do or are supposed to have very a definite meaning so do the words in HSRG mean what is written or are open to whatever interpretation is needed to allow the largest hatchery production and harvest? I firmly believe this issue needs to directly addressed by the Commission if HSRG is to succeed.

My second issue is simply the misrepresentation of the conflict over harvest of hatchery production between Recreational and Commercial harvesters. Several times in the process the Commercial representatives have stated that the local legislators would not support the hatchery production if the Commercials did not get the vast majority of the harvest. I guess one can view it that way if they so desire but frankly it matters little to the Recreational fisher. For many years and in particular since 2010, the Recreational fisher has had little access to these hatchery fish as the agency has utilized a massive gillnetting effort removing the vast majority of the hatchery production. Additionally Recreational seasons and bag limits were constructed in such a way as to severely limit the Recreational anglers success to further enable greater Commercial harvest.

So Commissioners these are the facts as I see it. WDF&W can cut hatchery production in the Willapa Estuary 60% or more and the Recreational fisher will not see much difference. Each year WDF&W spends hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Willapa hatchery production that is in reality a massive subsidy for the Commercial gillnet fleet. Twice in the process a Commercial fisher has testified that they do not make enough off the harvest to afford the fuel for a one hour run down the bay outside 2T. It is time to ask the question " why is WDF&W spending these hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Commercial fishery that is not really a viable one but rather a massive subsidy for Commercial gillnetting paid for by Recreational license dollars". In a recent resolution the Commission has stated this will not be the case in the future and Recreational license dollars will not be used to support Commercial hatchery production. So again we have a issue that the Commission needs to address. Does WDF&W continue this massive subsidy of a Commercial fishery in this time ever greater needs and budget reductions or do we chart a new course as HSRG is implemented?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Willapa Management Policy .



Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/07/15 03:31 PM

My take away ..... commercial speakers, SOS, just different day. Sports, some of the same but comments on HSRG, cuts in hatchery funds would hurt NT far more than sports.

Big take away from the meeting...new director, Dr. Jim Unsworth , is one of us, during break in meeting, he walked around and shook hands with many of us in the room. I made comment about career as a teacher, now full time fisherman.....he came back with comment he fished the Satsop from the bank, last weekend. Time tells all but left meeting with a good feeling.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/15 05:53 AM

Here are the 2015-16 Grays Harbor Salmon Advisors and we have some new names. Do I know them all ? Nope! It should be interesting though. I put the NOF schedule up in the NOF thread. Gezzzzz must be catching on with how you do things.

Joe Durham
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Francis Estalilla
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Dave Hamilton
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Jack Hollingsworth
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Allan Hollingsworth
Aberdeen, WA 98520

David Hollingsworth
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Joe Koski
Elma, WA 98541

Bob Lake
Grayland, WA 98547

Bob Meyer
Montesano, WA 98563

Andy Mitby
Grayland, WA 98547

Norm Reinhardt
Port Orchard, WA 98366

Chad Searls
Elma, WA 98541

Scott Sypher
Sammamish, WA 98075
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/15 07:34 AM



The letter below is a option for a interim Willapa Harvest Policy. It is a compromise position developed by Tim Hamilton to address the 2015 salmon season. It is truly a compromise as most signing on objected or rather did not care for a issue or solution someplace in it. But that is what a compromise is, something you do not necessarily love but can live with. So read away.




WB Request For Adoption Of An Interim Policy For Willapa Bay Fisheries

February 19, 2015 Via Email

The Honorable Members
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091 RE: Interim Willapa Policy Requested

Dear Commissioners:

As all are aware, the Commission decided to “slow things down” in the Willapa discussions to allow the Department time to address different questions and issues. Getting things right the first time is a goal with merit and deserves support.

At the last several Commission meetings, a discussion occurred on the potential for the Commission to pass an interim guidance that the Department could follow when proposing and setting the 2015 seasons. We strongly encourage the Commission to move forward with adopting an interim guidance at the next available opportunity. Having a clear and precise guidance from the Commission for the upcoming harvest seasons will assist the Department staff in moving through the NOF process without increasing tensions between the stakeholders. A clear direction from the Commission would also reduce the Department’s risk of legal intervention.

The endorsees shown below who have diligently participated in the process have taken the liberty of providing a list of items for the Commission’s consideration for adoption into an interim policy. The list was created from our impressions of the directions the members of the Commission were providing the Department and the public during its monthly meetings.
Consideration was also given to the ongoing research, options, etc. produced by the Department in the Ad Hoc process and provided for review by the Commission during its meetings. Again, not implying any final decision on permanent language has been determined but rather offering a list of “what we seem to know that could or should be done in the 2015 seasons”.

We offer the following list of issues for consideration and incorporation into an interim guidance. A rationale for each follows.

Issue 1. Conservation is the highest priority The Willapa basin has experienced difficulties in achieving escapement goals for natural origin spawner (NOS) populations. The problem is especially significant with Chinook where NOS run sizes have steadily declined below the escapement goals and the downward trend will likely continue over the next three years due to past harvest seasons. The following items are requested:

1. Reduce the current 20% maximum harvest rate for natural origin Chinook to 14%.

Rationale- Due to actual harvest rates exceeding the maximum rate anticipated when setting seasons, Chinook natural spawner run size has been on a steady decline to the point where the run size is below the escapement goal. The historical harvest rate was dropped from 30% to 20% in 2014. AHA modeling by the Department shows a maximum harvest rate of 14% will be

required to reach recovery within 16-21 years. Another year of overharvest will create even greater problems for the future.

1. No targeted commercial fisheries on Chum with a maximum 5% incidental impact during schedules targeting Coho

Rationale- Chum runs have also declined as escapement goals are often not achieved. Recognizing the problem, the 2010 draft Willapa Plan called for no targeted commercial Chum fisheries and the 2014 season removed 2 weekly cycles of net season during the Coho run to allow Chum a free passage. Restoration of the Chum is a key to removing future limitations on commercial opportunity and allowing increased commercial harvest of the more abundant Coho.

1. Effective inseason monitoring and utilization of inseason adjustments when the harvest underway exceeds the preseason expectation to the point conservation standards are threatened (see Grays Harbor Policy).

Rationale- The historical commercial seasons installed by the Department were set using a maximum harvest rate target of 30% of Naselle Chinook NOS. Then, actual season harvest often rose above 40%. In 2014 the target was dropped to 20%. While the Department has not released the results of the 2014 season, the results will likely show that the reduced target was once again exceeded with actual harvest reaching approximately 45% dropping Chinook escapement to less than half the goal (<2000 of 4350 goal). Inseason monitoring and adjustments when needed are imperative to preventing yet another season that over-harvests dwindling NOS Chinook populations.

1. Retain the NR protection zone established for the 2014 season unless the Department determines prior to season adoption that the North River Chinook spawning population is not distinguishable from the other Chinook populations.

Rationale- In the past, the Department recognized the Chinook in North River as an early run time natural spawning stock with native genetics. An effort is underway to confirm whether or not this determination is correct. Since NR could be the only native origin Chinook population remaining in the Willapa, the protection zone should be maintained for another year unless the Department determines prior to the start of the season that the natural population is not genetically distinct from the greater Willapa population.

Issue 2. Allocation and stakeholder priorities Fisheries in Willapa, especially for Chinook, will be limited in the future by the allowable season impacts on NOS returns. Currently, an abundance of Coho exists that allows maximum harvest at above historical levels provided seasons can be designed to stay within the limitations created by low returns of Chinook early in the season and Chum in the later part. The Commission requested the Department develop “options” that provided “recreational priority for Chinook and commercial priority for Coho and Chum.” Further, the issue of geographical priority for Chinook was addressed in the Department’s options that avoid installation of a commercial season in marine areas relied upon by the recreational sector during the prime Chinook run time cycle. The following items are requested:

Commercial priority for Coho and Chum utilizing 70% of the available NOS impacts for Coho and 90% for Chum.

Rationale- The 70% allocation of Coho NOS impacts recognizes that additional commercial opportunity currently exists for increased harvest of the more abundant Coho that provide the second highest value per pound. The 90% impact percentage provided the commercial sector for Chum is a compromise position from amongst the recreational/conservation sectors intended to provide the ability of the fleet to remain in the water longer in pursuit of the readily available Coho that travel in the same run time.

1. Commercial parity for Chinook with 50% of the available impacts

Rationale- Parity in Chinook NOS harvest impacts is a compromise position taken by recreational/conservation interests to allow the commercial sector Chinook impacts for selective fishing and alternative gears to provide opportunity to harvest hatchery Chinook and the more abundant Coho that are currently under-utilized.

1. Recreational priority for Chinook using the following:

1. An enhanced full season opportunity for marine and freshwater beginning with the ocean opener in the marine areas and August 1st in freshwater streams with hatchery returns.

1. Commercial seasons in marine areas 2T and 2U shall not be established prior to September 16th.

Rationale- An enhanced full season Chinook opportunity in both marine and freshwater will increase the recreational sectors ability to harvest abundant hatchery Chinook while using selective fishing that reduces impacts on the NOS that are in short supply. Not establishing commercial seasons in the northern marine zones during Chinook prime run cycle will dramatically diminish gear conflicts and reduce commercial NOS impacts on North River and other spawning Chinook populations.

The following endorsees respectfully request that the Commission consider our request and adopt an interim guidance for Department’s use in the upcoming NOF season setting process that incorporates the list of items shown above.

Endorsees:

Tim Hamilton Ad Hoc, Brian Kraemer Ad Hoc, Francis Estalilla Ad Hoc,
LeeRoy Wisner Ad Hoc, Steve Boerner Public, Bob Mulhauser Ad Hoc, Art Holman Public, Bill Osborne Public, Ron Schweitzer Public,
Joe Koski Public, Loren Gee Public, Dave Hamilton Public, John Campbell Public, Gary Johnson Public
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/15 08:54 AM

Coming up is the first NOF for Grays Harbor & Willapa. Here is the link for the full schedule and as always I urge all that can to participate. In looking into the crystal ball I think many are going be shocked at how poorly the management of last years fisheries went. So two days until "game on". http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/

Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Fisheries Discussion
•6 p.m.- 8 p.m., Montesano City Hall, 112 N Main Street, Montesano
•WDFW presents salmon forecasts for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2015 are discussed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/15 08:27 AM

A BUMP to remind all of the NOF Grays Harbor & Willapa tonight.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/15 06:57 AM

Well I have a couple of things to share today. First up is GH and the preseason forecast which look reasonably decent. The Spring Chinook forecast of 3475 is excellent as are all three fall salmon species forecast. Now the down side is we have not made escapement on Fall Chinook 4 out of five years so we will not have a targeted Fall Chinook fishery. Part of the GHMP is if we fail to make escapement 3 out of 5 years no targeted fishery on that stock just incidental.

Willapa has fairly good Coho numbers, Chum are 4594 above escapement, but NOS (wild) Chinook are 1617 below escapement prior to harvest with 31,401 hatchery adults returning. Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld has postponed the Willapa NOF until he receives guidance from the Commission on a interim harvest policy as the new Willapa Management Plan (WMP) is not in place at this time. So as we head into North of Falcon (NOF) all signs point to a good GH Rec fishery but Willapa is in limbo. More to come I am sure. So folks GH NOF is off to the races and Willapa NOF is waiting on Commission direction. I am sure more will be posted up on the NOF issues.



Next I would like to share a letter to the new Director on issues revolving around stream / stock designations utilized for development of the WMP. The issues outlined are rather critical for the Willapa hatchery production as the designations will define what, where, and hatchery production levels will be possible.


February 16, 2015

Director Unsworth,

I am writing to address several issues but first I would like to welcome you to our state and your new position as Director of WDF&W. As a seasoned administrator I am sure you will find your position interesting, challenging, infuriating, but never boring so welcome aboard and I wish you well in your endeavor.

To my issues and the reason I feel I need your assistance. In the recent past I have had to utilize the Public Document Request (PDR) process to obtain information on several issues. I say "had to" because staff either would not provide (and sometimes not even respond) to requests for information from myself or other citizens. Often when staff did respond it was in what is commonly called "agency speak" which is pages of verbiage that said everything & nothing but seldom directly in a forthright manner addressed the issue in question.

So my thoughts are that we are starting a new day and now it might be the time to try things the old fashion way in which a citizen can ask a question and the agency responds in a forthright manner. My questions reside in HSRG, the 2010 Willapa Management Plan that is utilized but not adopted by the Commission, and Willapa Management Policy currently being developed. Being fully aware of the process the agency utilizes with staff to draft responses to communications for the Director I feel this effort will help myself, other citizens, and staff understand the issues in which I am seeking asking your assistance.

My questions have a starting point in 2009 when HSRG was formally adopted and became binding in Washington State statute. Additionally one of the guiding principles of HSRG is that decisions be "scientifically defensible".

Issue1. Question - In 2010 WDF&W created the Willapa Management Plan (but it was never adopted by the Commission) and has utilized it since that time. In doing so staff utilized the HSRG stream designations of Primary for Naselle, contributing for North River, Willapa and the remaining streams stabilizing.

I am requesting that your office direct staff to provide the biological and scientific rational utilized in assigning these HSRG compliant designations for the streams in the Willapa Estuary used in creating the 2010 Willapa Management Plan. As Mr. Ron Warren and Mr. Kirt Hughes were the primary architects of the 2010 Willapa Management Plan and are still employed by the agency the information should be readily available.

Issue 2. Question - Currently utilizing instructions from the Commission WDF&W staff is developing a new Willapa Management Policy. In this process staff have consistently utilized different stream designations for the same streams in the Willapa Estuary. Citizens participating in process have watched as the designations were altered resulting in a modified AHA model output. Most assume that the information presented complied with HSRG mandates as misleading the public would certainly not be a option.

I am requesting that your office direct staff to provide the biological and scientific rational utilized in assigning the HSRG compliant designations for the streams in the Willapa Estuary in creating the 2015 Willapa Management Policy and AHA model runs.

Issue 3. Question - WDF&W staff in developing a new Willapa Management Policy have consistently utilized different stock designations (segregated / integrated) for the streams in the Willapa Estuary. Again citizens participating in the process have watched as the stock designations were altered resulting in a modified AHA model output. Again most assume that the information presented complied with HSRG mandates as misleading the public would certainly not be a option.

I am requesting that you direct staff to provide the biological and scientific rational utilized in assigning the HSRG compliant stock designations for the streams in the Willapa Estuary when creating both the draft 2010 Willapa Management Plan and the 2015 Willapa Management Policy options and AHA model runs.

In closing let me say that I feel the answers to my three questions need to be provided to myself and the public if WDF&W staff are to comply with Commission guidance for a "transparent" process for the development of the 2015 Willapa Management Policy.

Sincerely,

XXXX

CC: WDF&W Commission
Mr. Jim Scott
Mr. Steve Theisfeld



Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/27/15 01:23 PM


Here are the objectives from the NOF GH & Willapa meeting in Montesano. Formatting left as usual but I think one can fumble through and figure it out. If you want them in a clean copy or the Power Point presentation that was utilized PM me and I will get them to you.


2015 GRAYS HARBOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

GRAYS HARBOR BASIN SALMON MANAGEMENT POLICY KEY ELEMENTS
• Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving escapement goals for natural origin salmon.
• WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur.
• If it becomes apparent that a scheduled fishery will exceed its preseason catch expectation, and the overage will put at risk the attainment of conservation objectives, the Department shall implement in-season management actions that are projected to enhance the effectiveness of fishery management relative to the attainment of the conservation objectives and impact sharing in the preseason fishery plan.

Spring Chinook Salmon
• Prioritize freshwater recreational fisheries, with an objective of opening freshwater areas no later than May 1.

Fall Chinook Salmon
• The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:
o achieve spawner goals;
o provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and
o limit commercial fishery impacts to the incidental harvest of fall Chinook during fisheries directed at other species
• For Chehalis natural-origin Chinook, the predicted fishery impact in WDFW-managed fisheries will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Grays Harbor because the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years.
• WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin shall have the following impact limits:
o Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% or less on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook
o Area 2C: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 5.4% or less on natural-origin Humptulips fall Chinook.
• Grays Harbor control zone off of the mouth of Grays Harbor will be implemented no later than the second Monday in August and continue until the end of September.
• Chehalis Fall Chinook. Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be between 27 and 48% of the total recreational impacts.
• Humptulips Fall Chinook. Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be 37% of the total recreational impacts.

Coho Salmon
• Chehalis Coho. Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be 45% of the total recreational impacts.
• Humptulips Coho.
o For Humptulips natural-origin coho, the predicted fishery impact in WDFW-managed fisheries will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Grays Harbor because the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years.
o Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be between 18 and 34% of the total recreational impacts.

Chum Salmon
• Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving escapement goals for natural origin salmon.
• No fisheries directed at chum salmon shall occur unless the adult coho salmon return exceeds spawner objectives, or if coho salmon impacts remain after coho and Chinook salmon fisheries.
• Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be 2% or less of the total recreational impacts.


PAST PERFORMANCE (Shaded values exceed goal)

Natural Origin Escapement (Preliminary and Subject to Revision)
Year Chehalis Chinook Humptulips Chinook Chehalis Coho Humptulips Coho Grays Harbor Chum
2008 -- -- 31,454 192
2009 6,651 2,071 63,290 1,703 14,585
2010 10,893 6,657 83,445 4,410 33,537
2011 14,923 5,698 58,080 4,460 29,043
2012 9,291 3,726 63,607 1,220 25,452
2013 8,426 2,058 41,512 3,181 21,284
2014 7,670 2,530 14,711

Goal 9,880 3,620 28,506 6,894 21,000
Exceeded 3 of 5 NO YES YES NO YES

HATCHERY SALMON ESCAPEMENT OBJECTIVES:
• Manage fisheries to achieve hatchery broodstock collection goals, as identified in the Future Brood Document.
o Hatchery Chinook;
&#61607; Satsop Springs – an estimated 425 adults to achieve a release goal of 500,000 juveniles
&#61607; Humptulips River – an estimated 425 adults to achieve a release goal of 500,000 juveniles
o Hatchery Coho;
&#61607; Chehalis River – an estimated 1,540 adults to achieve a release goal of 1,400,000 yearlings
&#61607; Humptulips River – an estimated 550 adults to achieve a release goal of 500,000 of yearlings
o Hatchery Chum;
&#61607; Bingham, Satsop Springs, and Mayor Brother (Wishkah) facilities – an estimated 500 adults to achieve a release goal of 500,000 juveniles for on-station release.


STURGEON: Closed due to conservation concerns.
&#8195;

FORECASTS:

Forecast for salmon returning to Grays Harbor during 2015-16 season:

Natural origin Hatchery
Chinook
Chehalis 19,108 3,463
Humptulips 7,403 5,186
Coho
Chehalis
Humptulips 133,695 31,074
6,401 13,315
Chum 27,283 1,569
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/15 08:54 AM



The information below in a e mail thread was looking to this question. "Did the Quinault Nation Bio's have good enough look at the 2014 harvest to know that they were going to blow escapement on Chinook?" The answer is very doubtful. This is a prime example of just why in the heck harvest management is a bitch. That the QIN were ah not very nice by going through their numbers and into the NT share is a given. That said look to what John says as to Chinook.

Simple fact is Chinook were early and smaller runsize, Coho late, & Chum a no show with 45% or so off preseason estimate. This resulted in a perfect storm that nailed the fish that was nearly undetectable, Chum maybe.

Now just imagine what would have happened if we did not have 4/3 (three net free days a week) and the state put the NT Nets in the three open days a week. From my perspective the objectives that the Commission put into the Grays Harbor Management Plan work.

----- Original Message -----
From: hamilton.dave@comcast.net
To: XXXXX
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Grays Harbor 2014 run size estimate?




Hey John with the harvest numbers on WDFW's website is it possible to check the math week by week to see if the QIN had a idea they were blowing past escapement?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From: XXXXX
To: "hamilton dave" <hamilton.dave@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 9:25:53 PM
Subject: Re: Grays Harbor 2014 run size estimate?




Dave,

To try to answer your question I assume you mean for Chinook. I looked at the total harvest compared to the plan total which is mostly natural origin.

The actual run was smaller than the plan but it looks like it came in faster in the early weeks. Harvest was about on plan for the first two weeks, (weeks 39 and 40). Even week 41 was 72% of plan. After that it declined rapidly.

I do not think I could predict a short run until at least week 42 and by then all but the last 150 fish had been harvested. In my view I could not have said the run was small and the normal looking harvest was really going to go into escapement.

John
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/15 08:26 PM

There is a lot of info in the 2015-16 plan and I want to make sure I got it right. Because of the 3/5 clause no more than 5% of the 19K Chehalis Chinook forecast or about 950 can be harvested by nontreaty, even though the forecast is about 9K above the goal. It looks like the combined forecast of Chehalis and Humptulips nat Chinook is about double the GH total goal of 13500. QIN only recognizes the combo goal correct? Sounds like QIN should find the state management plan for NT harvest limits very appealing. Have I missed something or misinterpreted the NT harvest plan for Chinook in 2015?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/15 08:43 PM

Correct... QIN will deploy enough fishing power to gillnet their paper half of the surplus over the 13.5K aggregate goal.

Because of chronic failure to put enough fish on the gravel (staying true to it's historic failure to make Chehalis e-goal 80% of the time) the state will manage its paper fishing power to stay UNDER the maximum 5% impact cap for Chehalis kings. In contrast, the state will deploy enough fishing power to catch its paper half of the Hump kings over the 3.6K Hump goal.

More specifically on Chehalis, the state shall NOT expend more than 0.8% of the wild Chehalis king forecast to prosecute a commercial gillnet fishery targeting abundant coho in 2A/B/D. That works out to 153 kings for the white GN's. At 55% release mortality, they're statistically done when they've encountered 278 paper kings.

Bottom line, that ain't gonna buy much opportunity.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/15 07:21 AM

Doc pretty much got it right on. Thing about the GHMP is two things really drive allocation. 4/3 which means three net free days in a calendar week net free. No seven days a week netting with the combined tribal and NT Commercial. Refereed to as the "penalty box" 3/5 is if you fail to make escapement three out of 5 years no targeted fisheries on that species. ( state side ) We have missed Chinook escapement 4 out of the last 5 so no targeted Chinook fishery.

As much as I dislike 3/5 it is sad to say it is necessary. It is the only tool to hold staff accountable and just as importantly make US the Rec fisher pay attention and stay involved. Don't like the penalty box? Then make your feelings known to the Commission on the need for them to pressure staff to actually do their job and manage to make escapement. In recent years both WDF&W & the QIN have just set seasons and put it on auto pilot, no inseason monitoring just plain nothing. Well almost as one year a Rec Adviser pointed out the bay fishery was getting more fishing pressure than anticipated so they shut down the Rec bay. Come to find out in documents obtained in a PDR staff had ZERO data other than the concerns expressed by the Adviser.

Additionally a gentleman who was monitoring the bay fishery on his own as a volunteer just in case this happened confirmed the increased pressure. The other side? He reported while effort was up catch was way down per angler and below modeled impacts.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/15 09:49 AM

If the planned intent of the NT harvest plan is to not harvest their share of harvestable GH Chinook, why wouldn't QIN make a statement of foregone opportunity and harvest some/all of the uncaught NT share?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/15 10:13 AM

Last year that is what they did and blew escapement on both Chum and Chinook. Foregone opportunity has been utilized by both the state and QIN. Years back it was the threat by the QIN of doing just that if the R6 did not allow inriver Recs to have a South Monte fishery and along with political help we got our fishery.

The pissing match between the QIN and WDF&W staff at the policy level has been going on for years. R6 would put the NT nets in right in front of the QIN week schedule resulting a reduced catch for the tribe so they take more days and inriver Rec & the fish suffered.

Now if your thought is manage to the last paper fish then the consequences are the unholy mess we have in Willapa which does not have tribal fisheries. Things will shake out slowly and somewhere in the future both WDF&W and the QIN will have to manage for escapement.

The relationship with the QIN is multi faceted. Steve Thiesfeld discussed it at the public meeting recently. The state takes more than 50% of Steelhead, has taken (without asking) more of it share of crab, the QIN have provided part of their share of clams to keep the state clam seasons open and the list goes on.

So if ones thought is the state & tribe must split each 50 / 50 for each species covered by court decisions you might be prepared to loose access as we know it to several things. So the dance goes on as this thing shakes out.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/15 10:22 AM

In this period where escapement has not been met in three of the last five years, the 5% exploitation cap is in play. The controlling statement in the GH Management Plan actually says"

"Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook when the impact of the recreational fishery is equal to or greater than 4.2%. The impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery may be less than 0.8% when conservation concerns for natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook result in a less than 4.2% impact rate in the recreational fishery."

It is clear that the Commission intended that the recreational fisherman would have priority on chinook impacts which in this case amounts to at least 84% of the impact (4.2%/5.0%). Last year the department went to a lot of effort to make sure the NT nets got 0.8% of the harvest in 2A/2B/2D but did not even compute or consider what the recreational harvest impact would be. The 2014 plan actually expected the recreational harvest in 2A/2B/2D would be 2.2%. I would suggest that this allows a net impact of 0.42% rather than the 0.8% that everyone assumes is the target.

The limiting factor in 2A/2B/2D is the ability of the recreational sector to generate enough impacts on natural origin chinook. In order to raise the share for the nets the thing the department should be working for is ways to increase the recreational harvest in 2A/2B/2C! With about 1% of the impacts allocated to the up river fishermen and about 0.4% to area 2C, there is only about 3.6% left to be split between commercial and recreational. I would suggest this should be 3% recreational and .6% commercial if we can get the recreational impact up to that level.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/15 06:58 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH


More specifically on Chehalis, the state shall NOT expend more than 0.8% of the wild Chehalis king forecast to prosecute a commercial gillnet fishery targeting abundant coho in 2A/B/D. That works out to 153 kings for the white GN's. At 55% release mortality, they're statistically done when they've encountered 278 paper kings.

Bottom line, that ain't gonna buy much opportunity.


Someone better pay extra close attention to the modeling and math used to get there. They are well known for cooking the books in this situation.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/15 08:00 PM

The part we'll be paying close attention to is the 84:16 split reflecting a rec priority for chinook... even when there is a conservation shortfall requiring WDFW to invoke the 5% impact.

In this case, the conservation shortfall is WDFW's historic failure to meet Chehalis chinook escapement 80% of the time... a pattern which continues thru the most recent 5 year window. This failure occurred despite the performance bar having been reduced to the newly lowered 9.9K e-goal put into place during 2 of those 5 years!

The language of the policy affirms the rec priority for chinook thru good times as well as bad. As run sizes increase, a sliding scale allows gillnet impacts to increase linearly from 0.8% at run sizes of 18.8K to a maximum of 5.8% at run sizes of 25K or greater. Even at a MEGA run-size of 25K, the 5.8% works out to 1450 kings or 19% of the NT share.

In other words, in the worst of times, when the there is a conservation concern requiring limiting chinook impacts to 5% total NT exploitation, the split is 84:16. And in the very best of times, the split works out to a maximum of 81:19 of the NT share.

The implication here is that whenever we are in conservation mode (either 3/5 penalty box or run size less than 110% or e-goal) the allocation split between between rec and comm should be 84:16.

The nets should NOT get their full 0.8% share unless the rec sector is allocated its full 4.2% share PER THE POLICY....

Quote:
"Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook when the impact of the recreational fishery is equal to or greater than 4.2%. The impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery may be less than 0.8% when conservation concerns for natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook result in a less than 4.2% impact rate in the recreational fishery."


While NOT specifically stated, several of us believe the policy implies that the comm allocation should fall in line with the proportional rec priority of 84:16 whenever we are in the "penalty box."

It most certainly should NEVER go higher than 19% (81:19) because that is the maximum commercial allocation split in a gangbuster chinook year.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/15 09:18 AM


The first GH Adviser meeting is Thursday the 5th and here is the e mail from Steve with details. Please look to the location change as it will be held in a different location.

Hi Everyone,

My apologies for the tardiness of this notice. Here is an update on the Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay North of Falcon process. First, we have decided to postpone the Willapa Bay meetings. We are hopeful that the Fish and Wildlife Commission will provide some interim guidance for planning the 2015 Season at the April Commission meeting. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to spend significant time working on conservation measures and seasons that may get upturned after that interim guidance is issued.

Second, we have found a better location for the Advisory Group meeting this Thursday, March 5th. The meeting will be at the Montesano High School Commons, 303 N Church St, Montesano, WA 98563. The meeting will be from 6-9 pm and the public will have an opportunity to provide comments at the end.

I note that we have a tentative Advisory group meeting that also needs a location, I’ll be getting that out as soon as possible.
I would appreciate your assistance spreading the word about these 2 updates.

Thank you.

• March 5: Grays Harbor Advisor Meeting with Public Comment –Montesano High School – Commons, 303 North Church Montesano, WA 98563, 6-9 pm.
• March 11: Grays Harbor Public Workshop – Montesano City Hall. 6-9 pm.
• March 17: Set Aside for Potential Grays Harbor Advisor Meeting with Public Comment, Montesano Public Library, 125 Main St. S
Montesano, 6-9 pm.
• March 26: Grays Harbor Public Workshop – Montesano City Hall. 6-9 pm.




From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:23 PM
Subject: 2015 Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay North of Falcon Meeting Schedules

Hi Everyone,

Here is a schedule of 2015 North of Falcon meetings for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. I’ve got a couple of tentative meetings in there that may or may not happen, and another that we are trying to find a larger venue. Remember that there is a webpage specifically for North of Falcon meetings and other information here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/. It should soon be updated with this Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay schedule.

Appointments for Grays Harbor Advisors ended at the end of last year and we have made some new appointments and lost some old advisors. I plan to have an orientation and “meet and greet” so the new and returning Grays Harbor Advisors can get to know each other. It will be next Wednesday evening at the Montesano office. We will not be conducting any North of Falcon business at the meeting and I’m requesting that folks that aren’t advisors save their time and efforts for future meetings.

Finally, at the February Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting, the Commission decided to not make a decision on a Willapa Bay Salmon Policy until June at the earliest. This leaves us in a bit of a conundrum as to direction for 2015 pre-season planning. We will be seeking some guidance from the Commission, but at this time I don’t know how or when that might be provided. Stay tuned on that issue.

Cheers.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/15 12:42 PM


Well this should be interesting!!!


Fishing Rights Between Olympic Peninsula Tribes At Stake in U.S Court
Bellamy Pailthorp | KPLU NW PR – 3/2/15

A federal court will hear oral arguments Monday in Seattle, in a case that pits the United States against the State of Washington. It has to do with who gets to take how much fish.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez has set aside 3 weeks in his calendar to hear issues involved.

Three tribes are mentioned in the current litigation: the Makah, the Quileute and the Quinault Indian Nations. They’re fighting with each other.

The dispute is about their treaty rights with the government and how much fish they get to take from the waters off the west coast.

The history of this case stretches back more than a century. It all relates to the famous Boldt Decision, named after judge Hugo Boldt.

If you're following this case, there's a term you should know about: It's the concept of usual and accustomed areas. Professor Bob Anderson, who teaches law at the University of Washington, says these are specific places, "where they have traditionally fished at treaty time.”

Treaty time was more than a century ago.

“And so these are areas that were at issue in 1974, when Judge Boldt decided the original US vs. Washington case, which was filed by the US against the state, which was not allowing tribal members to fish under their treaties that they had signed in 1855 and 56," Anderson says.

As the law stands now, the US and the tribes each get up to half of the catch, which is complicated.

“It’s a very fact-intensive proceeding that will result in the judge drawing some lines on a map, to delineate the boundaries where the Quileute and Quinault are entitled to fish, in relation to the Makah," Anderson said.

Also at issue is figuring out how much pacific whiting, salmon, halibut and cod passes through these areas. At stake are livelihoods, civil rights to fish and the need to protect everyone’s resources.

Anderson, who himself is a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, says he hopes the parties in this case will quietly reach a settlement.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/15 02:10 PM

Should be fun to watch as long as the skirmish stays within their 50%.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/15 02:17 PM

Quietly reach a settlement....

YGTBFKM, right?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/15 03:54 PM

Absolutely. WDFW will quietly help them to arrive at a sharing formula that meets their needs.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/15 04:26 PM

I don't understand the part of the article indicating this is a suit between the U.S. and WA, when it looks like an inter-tribal dispute. I recall once over 30 years ago the Makah Chairman describing the Makah treaty fishing right entitling the Makah to 50% of all salmon passing by Neah Bay. Of course that would have left zero % for all the Puget Sound treaty tribes. Nice.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/15 04:54 PM

Actually, Salmo, that is how WDF interpreted it and it seemed to hold up during fisheries. I recall the Lummis corking the Nooksacks. The right is to 50% of the harvestable number passing through your U&A.

As with water, first in line, first in right.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/15 07:13 AM

Following up on the Grays Harbor Chinook problem last year and the failure to make escapement this additional bit. It is doubtful that either of the comanagers would have caught the Chinook failure in the harvest model until it was to late. I am sure we will dance around that a bit in the coming weeks but Chum was different. A review of the model produced this statement.

I just now looked at Chum. The picture is a bit different. The Chum run started out with less harvest than the plan and by week 43 one would conclude that the run was about 60% of the forecast size.

XXXX


No excuse BOTH the QIN & WDF&W should have caught the failure and did a inseason adjustment. Instead it was "auto pilot" and in simple terms they set on their collectives ass and did nothing. Piss poor management from both!



The bit below was written by a gentleman from Willapa who has been deeply involved in Willapa Estuary issues. I thought I would share it with everyone as he puts forth a perspective not put forth by the state.


Executive Summary

The ecological status of Willapa Bay, Washington, has changed rapidly in the last fifteen years, and not for the better. All of its iconic wild species of animals and plants are in a deteriorated state. These changes are impacted by action of state agencies, recently at an accelerated pace. While the bay suffers from long term neglect of salmon management standards and habitat protection statutes, recent actions are piling on losses at a more alarming rate. Where goals exist, they are not being met. " No net loss of ecological function" is the law of the state. Unmonitored net loss, or monitored with no effective corrective action, has been the practice in Willapa Bay.

Analysis

A major invasion of the plant spartina proceeded over several decades. It was displacing eelgrass and needed to be removed. Suddenly, about year 2000, excess caution was replaced with no caution and a massive spray campaign ensued. As a result, spartina was largely removed, and by 2008 large, collateral damage resulted. Chum salmon and waterfowl immediately declined. During the bulk of spartina removal, eelgrass net loss was not monitored, in keeping with tradition. Only one aerial survey of eelgrass can be found, published in 2007. Even this late survey shows Zostera marina where it is now absent and has never returned. None have been published since. Waterfowl surveys were suspended during the entire spartina campaign. The larger eelgrass, Zostera marina, and the smaller eelgrass, Zostera japonica, which we call "duckgrass" suffered major collateral damage. Pacific Brant, which rely on marina, have never recovered, nor has marina. Duck grass recovered more rapidly in the more suitable areas, as did the ducks that depend on it. Waterfowl surveys, reinstituted in 2012, showed good numbers for two years, followed by a crash in 2014 with the onset of a spray campaign directed at eelgrass. Chum and Chinook salmon escapement of Natural Origin Spawners (NOS) failed to meet WDFW goals starting one spawning cycle after the spartina program did, and have never recovered. The NOS Chinook do not show up in acceptable numbers, and those that do are genetically, statistically, overwhelmed on the spawning beds by by more numerous hatchery fish that are less reliant on bay habitat to survive the juvenile portion of their life cycles. This is now true for every major river in the Willapa Drainage. In the North River they are essentially gone. This is one of the two rivers earmarked for NOS Chinook recovery several years ago, when there were many more present. Poorly situated overharvest finished the job on North River. Endangered Green Sturgeon and white sturgeon are gone from Willapa Bay. We have new leadership in WDFW. It is concentrating on harvest. We have hope. Still, WDFW seems to have little to say about habitat, the other root cause. This must follow.


Historically both species of eelgrass were protected by a state " no net loss" requirement. Their restoration was required, and this was not monitored or enforced. In 2011, WDFW removed duckgrass from protected habitat status. This was the enabler for a chain of events involving multiple state agencies which ended in early 2014 with issuance of a Department of Ecology NPDES permit to chemically remove duckgrass, along with marina on the bed being treated. In keeping with tradition, this permit requires no monitoring on net loss of marina, and no restoration. It is backed by an Environmental Impact Statement that assumes waterfowl forage requirements one thousand times less than truth. The major math "error" that caused this has been pointed out, and remains uncorrected. At the request of the state Department of Ecology, an appeal of this permit has been delayed until October 2015, allowing another year of wide open spraying. In 2014, waterfowl numbers crashed again in Willapa Bay. Along the Long Beach peninsula, where there are normally several thousand ducks at peak, there were 32 widgeon and zero pintail observed. The bay wide peak average of 85,000 over the previous two years dropped to 22,000 in 2014. Such a drop has not been counted in thirty years. In 2014 flyway numbers were above average, but not in Willapa Bay. In Puget Sound eelgrass is being restored, while it is being removed in Willapa Bay. Both species are protected in Puget Sound, although Ecology has now asked them not to.

To the casual observer, it must seem shocking that things can happen so fast, with spraying that "should" be diluted by tides and carried out to sea. This was the claim of the state permit's impact statement. Actually, bad things can happen fast because Willapa Bay has a peculiar circulation pattern which moves seawater and pollutants with a net inflow on the west side. It goes south of a dispersion or low flushing zone and stays there for many weeks. The average age of water south of Nahcotta and Bay Center is 45 to 60 days. Eventually this water and contents are carried back out on the east side to the North. When a certain seasoned oceanographer pointed this out, the state attorney general labeled him unqualified to speak. Back in the day, such estuarine types were called Vertical Boundary Estuaries. Today a more recent UW paper on Willapa Bay has different labels, but has shown exactly the circulation of such an estuary. It contains exquisite detail, makes the same points about flushing and circulation, and receives the same state consideration, i.e. none. Apparently DOE has repealed density gradients and Coriolis Force, along with fish biology and waterfowl carrying capacity math. Chemicals that, in minute concentrations, can retard plant growth without killing or deforming, are circulated and retained in a situation that should be alarming. The ducks knew the condition of their food, ate what little was there, and left. Salmon and sturgeon are stuck in this cycle. With any overharvesting, they just disappear.

After ten years of " no targeted harvest", chum salmon, which used to fill a bay with a carrying capacity of 80,000 to 200,000 now cannot make an escapement goal of 35,000 fish. Chinook have made their escapement goal once in fifteen years. Brant are almost gone. Ducks are at a 30 year low. Sturgeon are gone, with zero retention allowed. Green sturgeon are endangered. After a few decades of removal of their favorite forage, burrowing shrimp, it is over for them. We now can see that carrying capacity, in addition to harvest control, is the key to all of the above and the bay has lost much carrying capacity for our iconic species. They all depend directly or indirectly on eelgrass. This key habitat is being removed under state permits and negligence of our own standards.

The waters of Willapa Bay were put here by the world's great flood. Under the waters are the eelgrasses. Under the grass are their words. How long will these words haunt us?




Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/15 07:20 AM

The Washington Department of Salmon really doesn't give a rip about the other species that might inhabit WB. Besides, hatcheries can produce Chinook and coho, which are the only meaningfully important species. The rest are just background noise.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/15 08:00 AM

Riverguy -
An interesting read and the reported lack of monitoring is concerning.

That said I would remind folks that Zostera japonica like the spartina is an exotic plant (historically found along the Asian coast). While I don't know much about either species of eel grass I can certainly see a situation where controlling the "duckgrass" would be necessary to allow the native (marina) eel grass and the ecosystem benefits it provides the opportunity to recover.

Curt
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/15 02:13 PM

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/

The latest Willapa draft is out for comment and the link is above. More to come I am sure but here are the major changes.



Fall Chinook Salmon: Alternative A
(No Area 2T, 2U Commercial Fishery in August after Transition Period)

Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage fall Chinook salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following additional guidance:

1) The Department shall initiate a three-phase rebuilding program to conserve and restore wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. The progressive series of actions is intended to result in achieving broodstock management standards by year 5 and spawner goals by years 16-21. Within the conservation constraints of the rebuilding program, Chinook salmon will be managed to provide for a full recreational fishing season with increased participation and/or catch anticipated in future years.

2) Rebuilding Program - Phase 1 (Years 1-4). The objectives of Phase 1 shall be to increase the number of natural-origin spawners and implement hatchery program modifications designed to meet broodstock management standards in the subsequent cycle.

a. Limit harvest rates on Willapa River natural-origin Chinook salmon to no more than 20% to initiate rebuilding of the number of natural-origin spawners.

b. Implement hatchery broodstock management actions to promote re-adaptation to the natural environment and enhance productivity of natural-origin Chinook salmon in the North/Smith, Willapa, and Naselle rivers:

• North/Smith – Manage as Wild Salmon Management Zone with no hatchery releases of Chinook salmon.

• Willapa – Implement an integrated program with hatchery broodstock management strategies designed to achieve broodstock management standards consistent with a Primary designation in the subsequent cycle.

• Naselle – Implement a stepping stone program to promote local adaptation. The highly integrated program of 300,000 will be derived from at least 70% natural-origin broodstock. The Department shall continue to enhance weir operations with a goal of limiting hatchery-origin adults to less than 30% of the natural spawners above the weir.

c. Pursue implementation of additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear to enhance conservation and provide harvest opportunities. The Department shall provide to the Commission by January 2017 a status report and by January 2018 an assessment of options to implement additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear in Willapa Bay. The assessment shall identify the likely release



mortality rates for each gear type, the benefits to rebuilding naturally spawning populations, and the benefits and impacts to the commercial fishery.

3) Rebuilding Program - Phase 2 (Years 5 - 10). The objectives of Phase 2 shall be to increase the number and productivity of natural-origin spawners through a further reduction in harvest rates and continued implementation of the broodstock management strategies discussed above.

a. Limit harvest rates on Willapa River natural-origin Chinook salmon to no more than 14% to accelerate the rebuilding program.

b. Evaluate hatchery broodstock management actions for consistency with the objectives identified in 2(b), including the proportionate natural influence in the Willapa River and incorporation of natural-origin broodstock into the stepping stone program in the Naselle River.

4) Rebuilding Program - Phase 3 (Years 11 – 21). The combination of fishery and harvest management actions is projected to result on average in the achievement of spawner goals for the North & Willapa populations in the years 16-21. Additional fishery and hatchery management actions will be considered during this time period if the progress toward the spawner objectives is inconsistent with expectations.

5) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Achieve spawner goals for the primary stocks of natural-origin Chinook and hatchery reform broodstock objectives through the three phase rebuilding program described above.

b. Provide for a full recreational fishing season. The impact rate of the recreational fishery is anticipated to be ~3.2% during the initial years of the policy, but may increase in subsequent years to provide for a full recreational season as described below:

• A full marine recreational season means that Willapa Bay will be open concurrent with Area 2, two rods will be allowed per angler, a daily bag limit of six fish, with release of unclipped Chinook salmon.

• A full freshwater recreational season means an opening on August 1 in the Willapa, Nemah, and Naselle rivers, two rods will be allowed per angler, a daily bag limit of four fish, with release of unclipped Chinook salmon.

• Conservation actions, as necessary, shall be shared equally between marine and freshwater fisheries.




c. Provide opportunities for commercial fisheries within the remaining available fishery impacts.

6) Fishery Management in Phase 1. To facilitate a transition to the Willapa River as the primary Chinook salmon population, fisheries during the transition period will be managed with the following intent:

a. The impact rate on Willapa River natural-origin fall Chinook in Willapa Bay fisheries shall not exceed 20%. Within this impact rate cap, the priority shall be to maintain a full season of recreational fisheries for Chinook salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin

b. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2T and 2U prior to Labor Day. Commercial fisheries in areas 2T and 2U after Labor Day but before Sept. 16 shall use mark-selective fishing gear (6.5” maximum mesh in 2T and 4.5” maximum mesh tangle net in 2U) and recovery boxes.

c. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R prior to August 16.

7) Fishery Management After Phase 1. Fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin during the Chinook salmon management period (prior to September 16) will be managed with the intent of:

a. Limiting the fishery impact rate on Willapa River natural-origin fall Chinook salmon to no more than 14%.

b. No commercial fisheries shall occur within areas 2T and 2U prior to September. 16.

c. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R prior to August 16.

8) Hatchery Production. Within budgetary constraints, and at the earliest feasible date, the Department shall seek to implement the following hatchery production of fall Chinook salmon:

• 3.30 million at Naselle Hatchery
i. 300,000 highly integrated
ii. 3 million from first generation returns of highly integrated stock
• 3.30 million at Nemah Hatchery
• 0.35 million at Forks Creek Hatchery

9) Enhanced Hatchery Production. The Department shall work with our partners to secure



resources to increase production of fall Chinook salmon at Naselle Hatchery by an additional 2.7 million subyearlings.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/15 05:08 PM

What a disaster for the Rec fleet
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/15 05:27 PM

Running out of time but that above is option I. I will C&P 2&3 tomorrow.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/15 10:31 PM


OPTION B

Fall Chinook Salmon: Alternative B
(Area 2T Commercial Fishery in Early-August)

Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage fall Chinook salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following additional guidance:

1) The Department shall initiate a three-phase rebuilding program to conserve and restore wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. The progressive series of actions is intended to result in achieving broodstock management standards by year 5 and spawner goals by years 16-21. Within the conservation constraints of the rebuilding program, Chinook salmon will be managed to provide for a full recreational fishing season with increased participation and/or catch anticipated in future years.

2) Rebuilding Program - Phase 1 (Years 1-4). The objectives of Phase 1 shall be to increase the number of natural-origin spawners and implement hatchery program modifications designed to meet broodstock management standards in the subsequent cycle.

a. Limit harvest rates on Willapa River natural-origin Chinook salmon to no more than 20% to initiate rebuilding of the number of natural-origin spawners.

b. Implement hatchery broodstock management actions to promote re-adaptation to the natural environment and enhance productivity of natural-origin Chinook salmon in the North/Smith, Willapa, and Naselle rivers:

• North/Smith – Manage as Wild Salmon Management Zone with no hatchery releases of Chinook salmon.

• Willapa – Implement an integrated program with hatchery broodstock management strategies designed to achieve broodstock management standards consistent with a Primary designation in the subsequent cycle.

• Naselle – Implement a stepping stone program to promote local adaptation. The highly integrated program of 300,000 will be derived from at least 70% natural-origin broodstock. The Department shall continue to enhance weir operations with a goal of limiting hatchery-origin adults to less than 30% of the natural spawners above the weir.

c. Pursue implementation of additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear to enhance conservation and provide harvest opportunities. The Department shall provide to the Commission by January 2017 a status report and by January 2018 an assessment of options to implement additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear in Willapa Bay. The assessment shall identify the likely release



mortality rates for each gear type, the benefits to rebuilding naturally spawning populations, and the benefits and impacts to the commercial fishery.

3) Rebuilding Program - Phase 2 (Years 5 - 10). The objectives of Phase 2 shall be to increase the number and productivity of natural-origin spawners through a further reduction in harvest rates and continued implementation of the broodstock management strategies discussed above.

a. Limit harvest rates on Willapa River natural-origin Chinook salmon to no more than 14% to accelerate the rebuilding program.

b. Evaluate hatchery broodstock management actions for consistency with the objectives identified in 2(b), including the proportionate natural influence in the Willapa River and incorporation of natural-origin broodstock into the stepping stone program in the Naselle River.

4) Rebuilding Program - Phase 3 (Years 11 – 21). The combination of fishery and harvest management actions is projected to result on average in the achievement of spawner goals for the North & Willapa populations in the years 16-21. Additional fishery and hatchery management actions will be considered during this time period if the progress toward the spawner objectives is inconsistent with expectations.

5) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Achieve spawner goals for the primary stocks of natural-origin Chinook and hatchery reform broodstock objectives through the three phase rebuilding program described above.

b. Provide for a full recreational fishing season. The impact rate of the recreational fishery is anticipated to be ~3.2% during the initial years of the policy, but may increase in subsequent years to provide for a full recreational season as described below:

• A full marine recreational season means that Willapa Bay will be open concurrent with Area 2, two rods will be allowed per angler, a daily bag limit of six fish, with release of unclipped Chinook salmon.

• A full freshwater recreational season means an opening on August 1 in the Willapa, Nemah, and Naselle rivers, two rods will be allowed per angler, a daily bag limit of four fish, with release of unclipped Chinook salmon.

• Conservation actions, as necessary, shall be shared equally between marine and freshwater fisheries.




c. Provide opportunities for commercial fisheries within the remaining available fishery impacts.

6) Fishery Management in Phase 1. To facilitate a transition to the Willapa River as the primary Chinook salmon population, fisheries during the transition period will be managed with the following intent:

a. The impact rate on Willapa River natural-origin fall Chinook in Willapa Bay fisheries shall not exceed 20%. Within this impact rate cap, the priority shall be to maintain a full season of recreational fisheries for Chinook salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin.

b. Commercial fisheries may occur within the remaining allowable impacts, but no commercial fisheries shall occur prior to August 1.

c. Commercial fisheries between August 1 and August 15 shall be limited to 72 consecutive hours and may occur in all areas except Area 2U.

d. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in area 2T August 16 through Labor Day. Commercial fisheries in area 2T after Labor Day but before Sept. 16 shall use mark-selective fishing gear and recovery boxes. Commercial fisheries in area 2U prior to Sept. 16 shall use mark-selective fishing gear (4.5” maximum mesh tangle net) and recovery boxes.

e. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R from August 16 until after Labor Day.

7) Fishery Management After Phase 1. Fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin during the Chinook salmon management period (prior to September 16) will be managed with the intent of:

a. Limiting the fishery impact rate on Willapa River natural-origin fall Chinook salmon to no more than 14%.

b. Commercial fisheries may occur within the remaining allowable impacts, but no commercial fisheries shall occur prior to August 1.

c. Commercial fisheries between August 1 and August 15 shall be limited to 72 consecutive hours and may occur in all areas except Area 2U.

d. No commercial fisheries shall occur in Areas 2T and 2U from August 16 through September 16.

e. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R from



August 16 until after Labor Day.

8) Hatchery Production. Within budgetary constraints, and at the earliest feasible date, the Department shall seek to implement the following hatchery production of fall Chinook salmon:

• 3.30 million at Naselle Hatchery
i. 300,000 highly integrated
ii. 3 million from first generation returns of highly integrated stock
• 3.30 million at Nemah Hatchery
• 0.35 million at Forks Creek Hatchery

9) Enhanced Hatchery Production. The Department shall work with our partners to secure resources to increase production of fall Chinook salmon at Naselle Hatchery by an additional 2.7 million subyearlings.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/15 10:32 PM


OPTION C

Fall Chinook Salmon: Alternative C (Naselle Contributing)

Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage fall Chinook salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following additional guidance:

1) The Department shall initiate a three-phase rebuilding program to conserve and restore wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. The progressive series of actions is intended to result in achieving broodstock management standards by year 5 and spawner goals by years 16-21. Within the conservation constraints of the rebuilding program, Chinook salmon will be managed to provide for a full recreational fishing season with increased participation and/or catch anticipated in future years.

2) Rebuilding Program - Phase 1 (Years 1-4). The objectives of Phase 1 shall be to increase the number of natural-origin spawners and implement hatchery program modifications designed to meet broodstock management standards in the subsequent cycle.

a. Limit harvest rates on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin Chinook salmon to no more than 20% to initiate rebuilding of the number of natural-origin spawners.

b. Implement hatchery broodstock management actions to promote re-adaptation to the natural environment and enhance productivity of natural-origin Chinook salmon in the North/Smith, Willapa, and Naselle rivers:

• North/Smith – Manage as Wild Salmon Management Zone with no hatchery releases of Chinook salmon.

• Willapa – Implement an integrated program with hatchery broodstock management strategies designed to achieve broodstock management standards consistent with a Primary designation in the subsequent cycle.

• Naselle – Implement hatchery broodstock strategies designed to achieve broodstock management standards consistent with a Contributing designation in the subsequent cycle.

c. Pursue implementation of additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear to enhance conservation and provide harvest opportunities. The Department shall provide to the Commission by January 2017 a status report and by January 2018 an assessment of options to implement additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear in Willapa Bay. The assessment shall identify the likely release mortality rates for each gear type, the benefits to rebuilding naturally spawning populations, and the benefits and impacts to the commercial fishery.



3) Rebuilding Program - Phase 2 (Years 5 - 10). The objectives of Phase 2 shall be to increase the number and productivity of natural-origin spawners through a further reduction in harvest rates and continued implementation of the broodstock management strategies discussed above.

a. Limit harvest rates on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin Chinook salmon to no more than 14% to accelerate the rebuilding program.

b. Evaluate hatchery broodstock management actions for consistency with the objectives identified in 2(b), including the proportionate natural influence in the Willapa and Naselle rivers.

4) Rebuilding Program - Phase 3 (Years 11 – 21). The combination of fishery and harvest management actions is projected to result on average in the achievement of spawner goals for the North & Willapa populations in the years 16-21. Additional fishery and hatchery management actions will be considered during this time period if the progress toward the spawner objectives is inconsistent with expectations.

5) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Achieve spawner goals for the primary stocks of natural-origin Chinook and hatchery reform broodstock objectives through the three phase rebuilding program described above.

b. Provide for a full recreational fishing season. The impact rate of the recreational fishery is anticipated to be ~3.2% during the initial years of the policy, but may increase in subsequent years to provide for a full recreational season as described below:

• A full marine recreational season means that Willapa Bay will be open concurrent with Area 2, two rods will be allowed per angler, a daily bag limit of six fish, with release of unclipped Chinook salmon.

• A full freshwater recreational season means an opening on August 1 on the Willapa, Nemah, and Naselle rivers, two rods will be allowed per angler, a daily bag limit of four fish, with release of unclipped Chinook salmon.

• Conservation actions, as necessary, shall be shared equally between marine and freshwater fisheries.

c. Provide opportunities for commercial fisheries within the remaining available fishery impacts.



6) Fishery Management in Phase 1. To facilitate a transition to the Willapa River as the primary Chinook salmon population, fisheries during the transition period will be managed with the following intent:

a. The impact rate on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin fall Chinook in Willapa Bay fisheries shall not exceed 20%. Within this impact rate cap, the priority shall be to maintain a full season of recreational fisheries for Chinook salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin.

b. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2T and 2U prior to Labor Day. Commercial fisheries in areas 2T and 2U after Labor Day but before Sept. 16 shall use mark-selective fishing gear (6.5” maximum mesh in 2T and 4.5” maximum mesh tangle net in 2U) and recovery boxes.

c. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R until after Labor Day.

7) Fishery Management After Phase 1. Fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin during the Chinook salmon management period (prior to September 16) will be managed with the intent of:

a. Limiting the fishery impact rate on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin fall Chinook salmon to no more than 14%.

b. No commercial fisheries shall occur within areas 2T and 2U prior to September. 16.

c. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R until after September 7.

8) Hatchery Production. Within budgetary constraints, and at the earliest feasible date, the Department shall seek to implement the following hatchery production of fall Chinook salmon:

• 0.70 million at Naselle Hatchery
• 3.30 million at Nemah Hatchery
• 0.35 million at Forks Creek Hatchery
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/06/15 11:04 AM

As you read the options and comment be careful of EVERY word. "May", "should", "could", "might", "in the future" are all ways to make folks think one way while actually sending the bus down a different road.

A few years ago, I believe R6 said they could do in-season management of commercial fisheries. When asked why the didn't actually do anything the response was "we said we could, we didn't say we would."

While flexibility is nice, the more flexible you make the plan the less it will serve the fish.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/06/15 03:27 PM

Good call, Carcassman. All such words must be replaced with "will" or "shall" if the rules are to have any teeth.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/15 04:10 AM

Nothing new in the draft in the Coho language but Chum is different. I will be going with 3B highlighted. Additionally look at 2C and see they are trying to lock the Rec into going only with directed commercial harvest. Load of BS because then the commercial will take many thousands as incidental. Cheap shot by agency staff on that one and going after that BS.

Chum Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage Chum salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:

1) Broodstock Management Strategies. Manage Chum salmon with the following designations and broodstock management strategies:

North/Smith Palix Bear
Designation Primary Contributing Primary
Broodstock Strategy No Hatchery Program No Hatchery Program No Hatchery Program

Chum salmon returning to all other watersheds will be managed consistent with a Contributing designation.

2) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for Chum salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Achieve the aggregate goal for naturally spawning Chum salmon and meet hatchery reform broodstock objectives (see bullet 3);

b. Provide commercial fishing opportunities during the Chum salmon fishery management period (October 15 through October 31); and

c. Provide recreational fishing opportunities. Recreational fisheries will be allowed to retain Chum salmon if retention is not prohibited in the commercial fishery.

3) Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate goal for Willapa Bay naturally spawning Chum salmon.

a. Option A: Until the spawner goal is achieved, the maximum fishery impact shall not exceed a 10% harvest rate and no commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31. If the aggregate goal has been achieved, but the pre-season forecast of adult Chum salmon is less than the aggregate goal, or less than 10% higher than the aggregate goal, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return.

b. Option B: Until the spawner goal is achieved 2 consecutive years, the maximum fishery impact shall not exceed a 10% harvest rate and no commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31. If the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years, the Department shall implement the following measures:



i. The predicted fishery impact for Chum in Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return.
ii. When the Chum pre-season forecast is 90% or less of the escapement goal, the predicted fishery impact for Chum in Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 5% of the adult return.

4) The Department shall evaluate opportunities to increase hatchery production of Chum salmon. If Chum salmon hatchery production is enhanced, beginning as early as 2018, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin may be implemented with a fishery impact limit of no more than 33% of the natural-origin Chum salmon return.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/15 05:52 AM

Back to Grays Harbor. This is proposal for a two pole endorsement for a portion of the Chehalis River. Now before someone's panties get in a knot it is best to remember we have no conservation issue on the Chehalis this year. Also as stated in the proposal commercials have pointed out consistently the Rec inriver cannot catch their share. The Rec response is you keep limiting our ability to harvest our share by restricting our harvest. This is a effort to move the ability to access the inriver share of the harvest.

I cannot tell anyone the impact projection as twice I have asked for the harvest model and have yet to have it provided. This is a issue and I will ask again tomorrow. Additionally my request to input the proposal in the model has been ignored and this I will also put tp R6 staff tomorrow.


Proposal For Two Pole Endorsement For The Chehalis River

PROPOSAL: To allow two poles per angler when fishing from a boat in the Chehalis River from South Elma Bridge to Highway 101 Bridge in Aberdeen.

RATIONAL: In many meetings agency staff have identified that the inriver recreational fishery has limited ability to get substantially more catch. This is primarily due to restrictions placed upon the inriver recreational fisher that limit harvest success. The use of two poles simply allows for the presentation of different tackle enabling the fisher to identify "what is working" with greater success. Additionally when fishing from a boat salmon track differently depending on conditions and at times it can be just a few feet. Two poles allows the fisher to cover more water thus increasing the potential of finding the route salmon are traveling in the river with greater success.

CONSERVATION ISSUES: None exist.

ENFORCEMENT ISSUES: None exist as two poles can clearly be seen and any issues would be addressed at the same time a Enforcement Officer checked for a fishers license, barbless hook, limit violations, or any other issue an Enforcement Officer may encounter.


FROM THE PAMPHLET:
1. In general, two-pole fishing is not allowed in saltwater, or in rivers, streams and beaver ponds. However, WDFW is always evaluating areas and times when surplus fish may be available for harvest and the two-pole option could be allowed.


2. Two-Pole Endorsement: This endorsement allows you to use two fishing poles on most freshwater lakes, ponds, a few sections of certain rivers, and a few marine areas. You must have a fishing license in addition to the endorsement.

There are about 145 lakes where you can NOT use two poles; visit http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/twopole to see the list of lakes where a Two-Pole Endorsement is not valid, or look for this icon NO next to the lake listings. You can NOT use two poles in most rivers and marine areas. See individual stream and marine area listings for information where you can use two poles. Not required on Free Fishing Weekend.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/15 01:53 PM

Reminder for the Grays Harbor NOF meeting for the 2015 fall salmon seasons. Preseason forecast is out and many are working away to get the maximum benefit for the Rec fisher be it bay or inriver. So lets all show up that can.


March 11

Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion
6 p.m.-9 p.m., Montesano City Hall, 112 N Main Street, Montesano
Public discussion of Grays Harbor salmon forecasts and fishing opportunities.
Posted by: Ohop Joe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/15 10:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Smalma
Riverguy -
An interesting read and the reported lack of monitoring is concerning.

That said I would remind folks that Zostera japonica like the spartina is an exotic plant (historically found along the Asian coast). While I don't know much about either species of eel grass I can certainly see a situation where controlling the "duckgrass" would be necessary to allow the native (marina) eel grass and the ecosystem benefits it provides the opportunity to recover.

Curt


All of the oysters that folks are growing and removing the spartina for are exotic as as well. Unfortunately they are not providing any benefit to the greater ecosystem which some scientists for the NOAA science center have pointed out before, unlike the bad bad spartina. Single-species ecosystem management failures at its finest.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/15 10:32 AM

Where are we at in the GH & Willapa NOF process? Well Willapa is on hold until staff get guidance from the Commission on a interim harvest policy. The Grays Harbor season setting process is slowly going forward with the usual discord but so far staff has tried to get it right and stick to the management plan. For some used to the old ways where a select group have a disproportionate influence on the outcome it has been difficult. For myself and others it has been a journey to learn rules are rules and words have meaning. They tell you what you can and cannot do, not the old way of personal perception or ones favorite fishery maintained at the expense of another fishery as in the past. Believe me when I say those that had that influence in the past are NOT taking it well.

We have some issues to work around as we are in the 3/5 "penalty box". Now 3/5 is if we fail to make escapement 3 out of 5 years regardless of the number forecasted harvestable, only a 5% impact on that species in areas A,B, & D. For the Chehalis Chinook it is now at 4 out of 5 missing the escapement mark. So we are in the 3/5 "penalty box". In the Humptulips it is Natural Origin Coho (wild) that is pulling us down as they have not made escapement for over 20 years.

In the past most that put conservation first struggled with the concept that "all paper fish must die" The difference this year from past years is the fact that the Grays Harbor Management Plan requires 3 days a week net free (4/3) which makes for a real inriver Rec fishery and is a safety net for the fish if we blow the projected impacts in the harvest model.

So the Grays Harbor season setting process is slowly moving forward. With the wide spread in options thus far it is not worth the effort to do a detailed analysis until staff puts forth what is going into the CR 102. ( the CR 102 is the legal part to set the WAC / legal seasons & bag limits )

So as I said things are moving forward with much more to come I am sure. Steve Theisfeld has put out 4 harvest model runs for review and if anyone wants them PM me and I will forward them to you.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/14/15 07:04 AM

I recently sent this bit to my contact list as Region 6 is seeking feedback ( feedback now guys not blowback) on the following season changes. I cannot get the spread sheet in this but if one would want it fire a PM at me. So here they are the WDF&W staff suggestions on season modifications.

1. Skookumchuck River, delay opening until Oct 16
2. Chehalis River, upstream of Adna, Delay fall opening until Oct. 16
3. Wynoochee River, delay opening until October 1 and extend until (Dec) January 31
4. Newaukum River, delay opening until Oct 16

Number 3 is to protect Wynoochee Fall Chinook but to do so restricts the season for those who fish Coho on the Wynoochee. I requested the Wynoochee Dam trap reports and we still have harvestable fish in January. The Hump, Wishkah, Satsop, and Chehalis close January 31 so my input on that one is OK to the later opening but extend the season to January 31 as in the rest of the streams. What do you think?

Now here is where I really need help. 1,2,& 4 are restrictions to help Spring Chinook in the Chehalis. I am attaching the 2015 Spring Chinook forecast model ( no they do not put the information in the old presentation chart anymore) and hit the tab labeled escapement. Several years of Spring Chinook Escapement by stream are in the sheet so take a look.

The questions to me are :
A. Does this really do something to help Spring Chinook or is this "smoke & mirrors "
B. Does this put a undue burden on the upper basin inriver fisher? October 15th can be rather late some years but this is for the three tribs not the mainstem.

Yes I am very much aware that Region 6 has harvested the heck out of things in the past and then dumped conservation on the inriver fisher. That said I think this is a sincere request. Now I said I think it is a sincere request but more important is what do you guys think. So upper basin guys what do we have here?

Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/14/15 08:45 AM

whats the starting date for Hump, Wishkah Chehalis satsop ???
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/14/15 08:57 AM

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/
Link is to the pamphlet. They sorta move around with the Dec fishery a separate line. So take a peek.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/15 03:12 PM




Reminder on the GH Adviser Meeting for the 2015 North of Falcon. As always the public comment / participation is the last hour of the meeting.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Steven L Thiesfeld (DFW)" <Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:04:26 PM
Subject: Reminder: Grays Harbor Salmon Advisor Meeting tomorrow night



Hi Everyone,



Just a reminder that we will have a Grays Harbor Advisor Meeting tomorrow night. As has been our recent practice, we will reserve time beginning at 8:00 for any public comment or questions.



Cheers.



March 17

Grays Harbor Advisory Group Meeting

6 p.m.-9 p.m., Montesano Public Library, 125 Main St. S, Montesano


Steve Thiesfeld

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Region 6 Fish Program Manager

48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563

Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov

360-249-1201







http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/19/15 11:16 AM


Back to Willapa and here is the draft for the 2015 INTERIM harvest policy. The agency is seeking comment and everyone should take a look and what they like and do not. I have several issues with it but that is for another day so thoughts all?

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
2015 Willapa Bay Salmon Management Interim Guidance
March 13, 2015 Draft

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) shall use the following guidance for managing salmon fisheries in Willapa Bay and tributary rivers in 2015.

Fall Chinook Salmon:

The Department shall initiate a rebuilding program to conserve and restore wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. For 2015, limit harvest rates on Naselle and Willapa River natural-origin Chinook salmon to no more than 20% to initiate rebuilding the number of natural-origin spawners. Within the conservation constraints of the rebuilding program, fisheries will be managed within the following intent:

• Chinook salmon will be managed to provide for a full recreational fishing season with increased participation and/or catch.

• For all fisheries through September 30, close the area north of a line from Toke Point channel marker 3 easterly through Willapa Harbor channel marker 13 (green) then, northeasterly to the power transmission pole located at 46 degrees 43.19'N, 123 degrees 50.83'W.

• Commercial fisheries prior to August 8 shall be limited to one 48 consecutive- hour period. No commercial fisheries shall occur from August 8 through Labor Day. Commercial fisheries in areas 2T and 2U after Labor Day but before Sept. 16 shall use mark-selective fishing gear (6.5” maximum mesh or 4.5” maximum mesh tangle net) and recovery boxes.

• If it becomes apparent that scheduled commercial fisheries will exceed the aggregated pre-season natural-origin Chinook mortality expectation, the Department shall implement in-season management actions so that mortalities of natural-origin Chinook shall not exceed the aggregated pre-season projection.


Coho Salmon:

Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate spawner goal for Willapa Bay natural-origin Coho salmon. Within the conservation constraints of meeting the aggregate escapement goal, fisheries will be managed within the following intent:

• Prioritize commercial fishing opportunities during the Coho fishery management period (September 16 through October 14 and after October 31); and

• Provide recreational fishing opportunities.




Chum Salmon:

Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate spawner goal for Willapa Bay natural-origin Chum salmon. Within the conservation constraints of meeting the aggregate escapement goal, fisheries will be managed within the following intent:

• The maximum fishery impact shall not exceed a 10% harvest rate.

• No commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31.

• Provide recreational fishing opportunities. Recreational fisheries will be allowed to retain Chum salmon if retention is not prohibited in the commercial fishery.


Adaptive Management:

The Commission recognizes that adaptive management will be essential to achieve the intent of this interim guidance. Department staff may implement actions to manage adaptively and will coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/20/15 11:01 AM



Here are my thoughts at the moment on the Willapa interim 2015 harvest policy. I have put my thoughts in red so all can take a look at just to get a feel for what one can see as weaknesses in the WDF&W draft. That said the draft produced by staff is well above past efforts but still falls short for Rec opportunity and the needs future challenges will present.



Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
2015 Willapa Bay Salmon Management Interim Guidance
March 13, 2015 Draft

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) shall use the following guidance for managing salmon fisheries in Willapa Bay and tributary rivers in 2015.

Fall Chinook Salmon:

The Department shall initiate a rebuilding program to conserve and restore wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. For 2015, limit harvest rates on Naselle and Willapa River natural-origin Chinook salmon to no more than 20% to initiate rebuilding the number of natural-origin spawners. Within the conservation constraints of the rebuilding program, fisheries will be managed within the following intent:

In the AHA model runs it was a 14% harvest rate to graph upwards to recovery and limiting it to 20% on the Naselle can lead to serious issues on the Willapa for overharvest. Add to the mix that Forks Cr Chinook ( Willapa River ) production must be reduced to meet HSRG requirements for hatchery reform. Simply put in the transition cycle for Chinook ( the first four years ) to HSRG standards if we do not control natural spawner impacts to escapement with commercial over harvest it will be the Rec fisher in 2T & U who pays the price. In particular after the first four cycle and the Chinook hatchery production is reduced leaving the mix of hatchery / wild drastically reduced.


• Chinook salmon will be managed to provide for a full recreational fishing season with increased participation and/or catch.

A liberal bag limit needs to be clearly defined for both marine & freshwater Rec fishers. The old WDF&W standard that Recs cannot catch enough fish is driven by the heavy commercial harvest and restricted Rec opportunity. That must end and the Rec fishers release mortality is well below the commercial rate so they can harvest a much expanded number with much less impact on the limiting natural origin Chinook.

• For all fisheries through September 30, close the area north of a line from Toke Point channel marker 3 easterly through Willapa Harbor channel marker 13 (green) then, northeasterly to the power transmission pole located at 46 degrees 43.19'N, 123 degrees 50.83'W.

This is the North River exclusion zone and remains in place.

• Commercial fisheries prior to August 8 shall be limited to one 48 consecutive- hour period. No commercial fisheries shall occur from August 8 through Labor Day. Commercial fisheries in areas 2T and 2U after Labor Day but before Sept. 16 shall use mark-selective fishing gear (6.5” maximum mesh or 4.5” maximum mesh tangle net) and recovery boxes.

The commercials need to be out of 2T & U until September 16th, period. There is no need to continue to destroy the Rec 2T & U fisheries as has been done for the last four years.

• If it becomes apparent that scheduled commercial fisheries will exceed the aggregated pre-season natural-origin Chinook mortality expectation, the Department shall implement in-season management actions so that mortalities of natural-origin Chinook shall not exceed the aggregated pre-season projection.


Coho Salmon:

Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate spawner goal for Willapa Bay natural-origin Coho salmon. Within the conservation constraints of meeting the aggregate escapement goal, fisheries will be managed within the following intent:

• Prioritize commercial fishing opportunities during the Coho fishery management period (September 16 through October 14 and after October 31); and

• Provide recreational fishing opportunities.
Chum Salmon:

Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate spawner goal for Willapa Bay natural-origin Chum salmon. Within the conservation constraints of meeting the aggregate escapement goal, fisheries will be managed within the following intent:

• The maximum fishery impact shall not exceed a 10% harvest rate.

• No commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31.

• Provide recreational fishing opportunities. Recreational fisheries will be allowed to retain Chum salmon if retention is not prohibited in the commercial fishery.

Recreational opportunities should be allowed within the 10% if commecial impacts are allowed be it a directed harvest or incidental catch.

Adaptive Management:

The Commission recognizes that adaptive management will be essential to achieve the intent of this interim guidance. Department staff may implement actions to manage adaptively and will coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/15 04:20 PM




What we have here are the comments on the on both the Interim and permanent Willapa Policy from a meeting of participants of the Willapa Policy Process sponsored by the Advocacy.
WILLAPA PLAN http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/

From the meeting came agreement from those participating on most issues but not all which is noted. Take a look and draw your own conclusions but all should keep this in mind. To come to a compromise view takes just that, compromise. In some instances the document does not reflect my personal views but I support it. Why? Because it is a compromise. The meeting was an attempt to bring wildly differing views to a place that if not all most could support. In the world of fish in Grays Harbor & Willapa it has been in most cases "my way or the highway". The Advocacy is trying to chart a new way of doing things where issues are vetted and solutions found.

So take a look and if you have questions just e mail me as always. I was not able to get a perfect cut & paste here but is about as good as I could get it.


Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy

Meeting Minutes, March 18, 2015
Place: Timberland Public Library Community Room (Elma) Time: 3PM - 7 PM

Invitees:

XXXXXXXX

Meeting Purpose: Discussion of latest WB draft permanent policy and the draft interim policy for the 2015 season to determine where those invited could develop and agree or not agree on recommended changes for transmission to WDFW.

Actions Taken: Recommended changes to the draft permanent policy and the draft interim policy were adopted. All recommendations were adopted unanimously and the exception of 2 where two attendees voiced reservations.

Methodology: The Advocacy developed a meeting presentation that acted as an agenda. Region 6 Manager Steve Theisfeld provided copies of the interim policy that was being released and made a 45 minute presentation and took questions on the two drafts prior to the group going into closed session. Participants expressed appreciation for his attendance and efforts to find solutions to the problems in WB. During the closed session, participants in the meeting shared concerns over the current drafts of the permanent and interim policy drafts currently presented to the public in the workshops and ad hoc meetings. Different solutions to those concerns were presented orally and noted on the white board in a general description. Robust discussions occurred and all present stated their approval or disapproval of each solution placed on the board. The compromise solutions approved during the meeting are paraphrased (by Tim Hamilton) as “recommendations” in these minutes and identified below (not in chronological order). While all invitees have been provided a copy of these minutes, the minutes presented herein have not been formally approved by those present at the meeting.



Current draft WB permanent policy:

Recapping and highlighting some of the commentary:

• All of the AHA modeling conducted during the ad hoc process showed the different alternatives would require a reduction in the maximum harvest rate to 14% to reach long range recover goals in 16-21 yrs. The draft under all 3 Chinook Alternatives calls for a 20% harvest rate in the first phase which could delay the beginning of the recovery process up to 5 or more years. Further, the higher than modeled harvest rate proposed by the Dept. could continue the decline in NOR return run size to the point natural spawning recovery is delayed for decades and even limit future hatchery production (lack of NORs available for blending into hatchery broodstocks). While a 20% short term harvest would allow a greater harvest of returns from the higher past releases from hatcheries, the corresponding effect on NORs could create extremely difficult obstacles for the long term. The likelihood conservation goals could be reached would improve if harvest in the short term was reduced (10% suggested) to reverse the decline in NOR spawners and then raise it in the future to the 14% modeled using AHA.

• The Department historically has not effectively used inseason monitoring and adjustments to keep actual harvest from exceeding the preseason expectation. In 2014, the harvest rate was reduced from 30% to 20% yet the actual harvest came in at 37.5%. Fishing above preseason expectation simply must stop in order for any management plan to have a chance to be successful in reaching escapement goals and recovery of natural spawning Chinook in WB.

• Of the three Chinook alternatives, only Alternative C includes a harvest rate on both the Willapa and Naselle and sets guidelines for a commercial season that AHA modeling shows a potential to achieve recovery goals within a 16-21 year period, provided the harvest rate of 14% is not exceeded. Insuring an adequate NOR escapement in the Naselle is a key to increasing hatchery production that is shifted from the Willapa to the Naselle. Additionally, Alternative A and especially Alternative B, show little if any potential to ever reach the restoration goals over the next 2 decades.

• Down to 604 in 2013, the dramatic decline in escapement of Chinook in the Naselle from 2010 raises the question to whether or not the Dept will actually have enough NORs for blending into hatchery broodstocks to enable it to maintain current production levels let alone increase them to the goals under the “stepping stone” process set forth under Alternatives A & B. (Chart below was created from data in “WB Fram 3 Option K with Parenthesis in Coho, Chum value, fix NatChin-2.xlsx”).

The reduction of Chinook production in Falls Creek to 350,000 releases and the shifting of Chinook production to the south under all three alternatives was disturbing to those whose priority is recreational fishing in 2T & 2U for Chinook. If caution is not taken to reduce harvest rates on NORs in the short term (years 1-4), recreational fishing could be severely limited in the north bay in the future due to the decline in NORs resulting from the harvest rates installed in the short term targeting the hatchery runs from previous production at Forks Creek that will not be there in the future.

• The Coho section of the draft designates the Naselle as a “stabilizing” stream. Since the river itself does not align with HSRG definitions for stabilizing, the motivation seems directed at the recognition the weir problems in the Naselle currently fails to stop hatchery Coho straying. Rather than use a creative interpretation to avoid the problem (calling it stabilizing stands down HSRG straying guidelines), the Department should fix the weir problems.

• The Willapa by nature’s rule was historically a “Chum bay” with very large natural spawning Chum runs that have diminished. The Department proposes to review escapement goals for Chum. The concern is the Dept.’s motivation is to lower Chum escapement goals as a means to make an “end run” around the chronic failure to reach goals in order to increase commercial seasons targeting abundant Coho. A reduction in natural spawning would have impacts on the ecological balance in the basin and potentially interfere with future egg box and hatchery programs including “Ocean Ranching” possibilities. A unilateral decision by the Dept to change escapement goals (any of three species) without public input and Commission approval would not be an appropriate process and undermine the public confidence in the Department.

• Clarification is needed regarding language in the draft related to recreational seasons and other issues.

Draft Permanent Policy Recommendations
The following recommendations for changes in the current draft of the permanent policy were adopted:

• Replace the inseason adjustment language in the current draft borrowed from the GH policy that proved ineffective in 2014 with the greatly improved language contained in the draft interim policy just published by the Department.

• Regardless of the Chinook Alternative adopted, reduce the proposed 20% harvest rate in Phase 1 (Years 1-4) from 20% to the 14% used in AHA modeling to reach goals in 16-21 years.

• Chinook Alternatives- Reject Chinook Alternatives A & B and adopt Alternative C with the following modifications (all present ex. XXXXXX):

1. Replace the hatchery production goals expressed in Alternative C with the goals expressed in Alternative A & B.

2. The recreational seasons are expressed the same in all three Alternatives and shown below in italics. The following clarifications (deletions additions)are recommended:

a. “A full marine recreational season means that Willapa Bay will be open concurrent with Area 2, two rods will be allowed per angler, a daily bag limit of six adult fish, with release of unclipped Chinook salmon.”

b. “A full freshwater recreational season means an opening on August 1, in and unless constrained by a conservation purpose, for the full reaches of the Willapa, Nemah, and Naselle rivers, two rods will be allowed per angler, a daily bag limit of four adult fish, with release of unclipped Chinook salmon.” (all present ex.XXXXXXXX)

• Coho section. Change the stream designation for the Naselle from “Stabilizing” to “Contributing to align with definitions set forth in HSRG guidelines.

• Chum section. The following change is recommended:

c. Provide recreational fishing opportunities. Recreational fisheries will be allowed to retain Chum salmon if retention is not prohibited in the commercial fishery. Recreational impacts will not exceed 10% of the incidental impacts incurring during a non-targeted commercial fisheries.

3) Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate goal for Willapa Bay naturally spawning Chum salmon. Two expressed options (A&B) follow. Adoption of Option B is recommended.

• Adaptive Management- The following changes are recommended:

3) Review Spawner Goals. The Department shall review spawner goals to ensure that they reflect the current productivity of salmon and present a report with any recommended changes to existing goals to the Commission for its review and approval within the following timelines:

a. Chum: September 1, 2015
b. Coho: January 1, 2016
c. Chinook: January 1, 2020


Page 5, WB Policy Meeting Minutes 1/18/2015

Draft 2015 season Interim Policy Recommendations



The following recommendations were adopted for changes in the current draft of the 2015 season in- terim policy were adopted (expressed draft language shown in italics):

•“If it becomes apparent that scheduled commercial fisheries will exceed the aggregated pre- season natural-origin Chinook mortality expectation, the Department shall implement in-season management actions so that mortalities of natural-origin Chinook shall not exceed the aggre- gated pre-season projection.”

The improvement to inseason management language shown above is recognized by all present to be of extreme importance to prevent over fishing that undermines conservation goals. An additional support step is recommended. Add Section 7. of the draft permanent policy regarding monitoring, sampling and enforcement to insure the Dept continues to improve its ability to recognize if the season underway in 2015 is exceeding the preseason expectation.

•A harvest rate of 20% is set for the Willapa and Naselle. Having a harvest rate on both rivers is considered by many to be a key component for success in the future. The recommendation is to reduce the harvest rate in 2015 to the 14% modeled by AHA and begin the process without further delay and avoid installing a season that results in a further decline in NOR populations.

•Replace the Chinook commercial season guidelines proposed in the 2015 interim draft with the commercial season expressed under Alternative C of the draft for the permanent policy.

•Replace the recreational season guidelines proposed in the 2015 interim draft with the season details contained in the draft permanent policy as clarified by the recommendations provided earlier for the draft permanent policy.

The Advocacy thanked all for coming and the meeting adjourned at 10 P.M.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/25/15 08:15 AM


Reminder for Thursday's NOF Grays Harbor.

From: "Steven L Thiesfeld (DFW)" <Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3:42:15 PM
Subject: Reminder: Grays Harbor North of Falcon Meeting

Hi Everyone,

Just a reminder that we are scheduled for our final North of Falcon meeting on Grays Harbor this Thursday. I hope to see you all there!

Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion
6 p.m.-9 p.m., Montesano City Hall, 112 N Main Street, Montesano
Public discussion of Grays Harbor salmon forecasts and fishing opportunities.

Cheers

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager

48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov

360-249-1201
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/25/15 11:29 AM

It is time for those who can to submit your thought to the Commission and Fish Program (Jim Scott & Steve Thiesfeld) on how the GHMP did in 2014. The Commission is going to review the GHMP shortly. My input is below and it is important that those who wish do the same with YOUR thoughts.


December 25, 2015

Commissioners,

I am writing to place in the record my final thoughts on the Grays Harbor Management Policy (GHMP) performance in 2014. I am also providing copies of my previous comments on the GHMP. In looking back the issues remain similar but also different than I identified previously.

1. Three net free days a week. (4/3)
While I understand the Commercial opposition to 4/3 in the end it not only provided a real inriver Recreational fishery but was also a major factor in preventing a huge failure in Chehalis Chinook escapement. As the Commissioners are aware we again failed to reach our Chehalis Chinook escapement goal. While the state side restrained harvest (due to 3/5 which I will address later) the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) did not. As the finger pointing started I requested that Mr. John Campbell review and back math the 2014 Chinook harvest and identify where the harvest model failed. His response follows:

To try to answer your question I assume you mean for Chinook. I looked at the total harvest compared to the plan total which is mostly natural origin.

The actual run was smaller than the plan but it looks like it came in faster in the early weeks. Harvest was about on plan for the first two weeks, (weeks 39 and 40). Even week 41 was 72% of plan. After that it declined rapidly.

I do not think I could predict a short run until at least week 42 and by then all but the last 150 fish had been harvested. In my view I could not have said the run was small and the normal looking harvest was really going to go into escapement.

Simply put Commissioners the comanagers could not have been able to identify the harvest model failure until the damage was done. The saving grace was 4/3 and 3/5 which prevented the heavy non treaty commercial impacts of the past. Had not the GHMP 4/3 been in place it is likely the failure in not making escapement would have been of a scale not seen before.

Now with Chum it is different. In Mr. Campbell's review he found the following.

I just now looked at Chum. The picture is a bit different. The Chum run started out with less harvest than the plan and by week 43 one would conclude that the run was about 60% of the forecast size.

In this case again it was 4/3 that prevented a bad situation from being much worse. The difference here is both the QIN & WDF&W staff should have caught the over harvest due to a failure of the preseason forecast model. They did not and that is a substantial failure that both share responsibility for but regardless it was again 4/3 that prevented a much larger failure to make escapement.

Failure to make escapement three out of 5 years:
This provision in the GHMP addresses the failure to make escapement three out of five years and restricts directed harvest. It is known by the nickname "penalty box" and frankly Commissioners I really dislike it, will never like it and please do not substantially alter it. Strange as it may sound it is the tool that holds staff accountable and forces the public to stay engaged.

That said one can make the case that it should perhaps had a starting date of 2014? Additionally maybe more performance driven? By that I mean in 2014 it was not possible to catch the failure in harvest predictions (outlined previously) so perhaps that should not be a penalty box year for Chinook? On the other hand the Chum failure to make escapement could & should have been caught and harvest adjusted so this should be a penalty box year.

Foregone opportunity:
This issue is a difficult one to address. That the QIN took more than its 50% share but how does that compare with Steelhead which the state recreational fisher harvest more than the QIN fishers? Consider the impact on non treaty harvest of clams and crabs if the split was a hard 50%. So this issue deserves more thought and perhaps a wider look at the harvest of all the resources not just one species of salmon when setting salmon harvest in Grays Harbor.

Humptulips Natural Origin Coho:
The failure to make escapement for over twenty years is a issue that remains unresolved and needs resolution. That said it is a issue that only the agency, Commission, and the QIN can resolve. There is little citizen such as myself can do but bring the issue forward.

Aggregate of the Chehalis & Humptulips:
The QIN did not agree to the separation of the Humptulips and Chehalis for harvest management. As I understand it they wish to maintain the court driven mandates which allow aggregate management of all streams flowing into Grays Harbor. The issue remains unresolved.

Wynoochee Mitigation:
On this issue the agency has done absolutely nothing. Zero! Little can be said or should be said in defense of this total failure by staff to move forward on this issue. As in the prior twenty plus years the funds remain not being utilized to meet the requirements of the Tacoma City Light power generation mitigation that WDF&W has a legal requirement to meet. Big fat F- here.

GHMP clarification:
It is possible to read when breaking item a) word by word in the sentence that the 5% is to the aggregate not singular to a stock in the Chehalis or Humptulips. The key words are predicted fishery impact for that stock which is singular as to stock. The following words in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin then direct one to the aggregate of all streams flowing into Grays Harbor. The sentence finishes with will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Grays Harbor; and which continues to direct management toward the aggregate. This is how Chum are managed but not Chinook and Coho which is a conflict within itself. Region 6 is defining the verbiage as singular to a stock and some disagree and say regardless of intent the verbiage directs aggregate so clarification is needed.

From the GHMP:
As a component of the annual fishery management review, the Department shall assess if spawner goals were achieved for Chehalis spring Chinook, Chehalis fall Chinook, Humptulips fall Chinook, Chehalis Coho, Humptulips Coho, and Grays Harbor chum salmon. If the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years (beginning in 2009), the Department shall implement the following measures:

a) The predicted fishery impact for that stock in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Grays Harbor; and

b) The predicted fishery impact for that stock in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Grays Harbor; and

c) If a spawner goal for fall Chinook salmon is not achieved, the Grays Harbor control zone2 off of the mouth of Grays Harbor will be implemented no later than the second Monday in August and continue until the end of September.

In closing I would grade the GHMP performance as a solid B. It was successful in many ways in particular conservation. It also had failures but that should not be unexpected for a management policy in its first year. Solid B.

Sincerely,


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/15 10:25 AM

This is the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission’s April 9-10, 2015 meeting agenda. Please note the meeting is on Thursday (4/9) and Friday (4/10). The meeting begins at 8:00 a.m. both days. Both Willapa and Grays Harbor are on Thursday the 9th with Willapa in the morning and Grays Harbor after lunch. Note location change.

April 9-10, 2015

Preliminary Meeting Agenda
Download PDF version
FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 9-10, 2015
Capital Events Center
6005 Tyee Drive SW Tumwater WA 98512 - Mason/Lewis Rooms

Directions: www.capitaleventcenter.org/domain/97
THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 2015
8:00 AM 1. Call to Order
1. Commissioners’ Discussion
2. Meeting Minute Approval
8:15 AM 2. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda.
8:45 AM 3. Director’s Report
The Director will brief the Commission on various items.
9:15 AM 4. Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy – Briefing and Public Hearing
The Department will brief the Commission on Willapa Bay Salmon Management challenges, describe the public process, and seek guidance on draft policy sideboards. Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

10:45 AM 5. 2015 Interim Willapa Bay Salmon Management Guidance Policy – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will brief the Commission on Willapa Bay salmon management guidance for 2015, and seek direction for upcoming recreational and commercial fishing seasons.
Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

11:45 AM Lunch
12:45 PM 6. Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy Review – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will present an annual review to the Commission on the Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management Policy C-3621 as set in the Adaptive Management objectives of the policy.
Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

1:30 PM 7. Game Reserves and Other Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations – Decision
Department staff will request approval on the proposed updates and amendments to game reserves and other migratory bird hunting regulations.
Staff Report: Don Kraege, Waterfowl Section Manager
1:40 PM 8. Landowner Hunting Permits – Decision
Department staff will request approval to make adjustments to permit levels and hunt dates in accordance with landowner needs and recreational goals.
Staff Report: Brian Calkins, Small Game/Hunting Access Section Manager, Wildlife Program
1:50 PM 9. Trapping Seasons and Regulations – Decision
Department staff will request approval on proposed dates, bag limits and other rules for all furbearers.
Staff Report: Brian Calkins, Small Game/Hunting Access Section Manager, Wildlife Program
2:00 PM 10. Small Game and Hunting Restrictions – Decision
Department staff will request approval on proposed dates, bag limits and other rules for small game and other wildlife hunting.
Staff Report: Brian Calkins, Small Game/Hunting Access Section Manager, Wildlife Program
2:15 PM 11. Falconry and Dog Training Eurasian Collared Doves – Decision
Department staff will request approval from the Commission to add this species to the lists of other species that can be used for training purposes.
Staff Report: Brian Calkins, Small Game/Hunting Access Section Manager, Wildlife Program
2:25 PM 12. Mountain Goat, Bighorn Sheep, and Moose Permits and Regulations – Decision
Department staff will request approval on recommendations regarding permit levels for mountain goats, bighorn sheep, and moose.
Staff Report: Rich Harris, Ph.D., Special Species Section Manager, Wildlife Program
2:45 PM 13. Deer Areas, Elk Areas, Special Closures and Firearm Restriction Areas – Decision
Department staff will request approval from the Commission on proposed amendments to deer and elk area descriptions and special closures and firearm restriction areas.
Staff Report: Jerry Nelson, Ph.D., Deer and Elk Section Manager, Wildlife Program
2:55 PM Break
3:05 PM 14. Elk General Seasons and Special Permit Regulations – Decision
Department staff will request approval from the Commission on elk general seasons and definitions and special permits.
Staff Report: Jerry Nelson, Ph.D., Deer and Elk Section Manager, Wildlife Program
3:25 PM 15. Deer General Seasons and Special Permit Regulations – Decision
Department staff will request approval on deer general seasons and definitions and special permit seasons.
Staff Report: Jerry Nelson, Ph.D., Deer and Elk Section Manager, Wildlife Program
3:55 PM 16. Baiting of Deer and Elk – Decision
Department staff will request approval on a proposal for baiting rules.
Staff Report: Jerry Nelson, Ph.D., Deer and Elk Section Manager, Wildlife Program
4:15 PM 17. Hunter Orange Clothing Requirements – Decision
Department staff will request approval on the need for regulatory clarity to ensure Master Hunters wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing while hunting during hunting seasons that allow the use of modern firearms.
Staff Report: David Whipple, Hunter Education Division Manager
4:25 PM 18. Multiple Season Big Game Permits and Reduced Rate Combination Elk Hunting License – Decision
Department staff will request approval on the master hunter incentive for elk hunting and an adjustment to the date and procedure for purchasing a multiple season big game permit.
Staff Report: David Whipple, Hunter Education Division Manager
4:35 PM 19. Game Management Unit Boundaries – Decision
Department staff will request approval from the Commission on proposed amendments to game management boundary descriptions in Region 1 and Region 5.
Staff Report: Jerry Nelson, Ph.D., Deer and Elk Section Manager, Wildlife Program
4:45 PM 20. Importation and Retention of Dead Nonresident Wildlife – Decision
Department staff will request approval proposed amendments to importation and retention of dead nonresident wildlife.
Staff Report: Jerry Nelson, Ph.D., Deer and Elk Section Manager, Wildlife Program
4:55 PM Recess
FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 9-10, 2015
Capital Events Center
6005 Tyee Drive SW Tumwater WA 98512 - Mason/Lewis Rooms
Directions: www.capitaleventcenter.org/domain/97
FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 2015
8:00 AM 21. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda.
8:30 AM 22. Equipment Requirements – Decision
Department staff will request approval from the Commission on equipment requirements.
Staff Report: Jerry Nelson, Ph.D., Deer and Elk Section Manager, Wildlife Program
8:50 AM 23. Cougar Hunting Seasons and Regulations –Decision
Department staff will request approval from the Commission on cougar harvest and human-cougar conflict trends. Staff will also describe how the results from these topics are incorporated into the Department’s cougar management strategies. The Commission will also be briefed on the proposed 2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2017–2018 cougar hunting seasons and regulations.
Staff Report: Donny Martorello, Ph.D., Carnivore Section Manager, Wildlife Program
9:05 AM 24. Fall and Spring Black Bear Seasons and Regulations –Decision
Department staff will request approval of proposed amendments to 2015- 2017 fall black bear hunting seasons and regulations and 2018 Spring black bear seasons and regulations.
Staff Report: Donny Martorello, Ph.D., Carnivore Section Manager, Wildlife Program
9:20 AM 25. Steller Sea Lion and Tufted Puffin Status Review – Decision
Department staff will request approval from the Commission on the status review of the Steller Sea Lion and Tufted Puffin.
Staff Report: Penny Becker, Ph.D., Acting Diversity Division Manager and Gary Wiles, Biologist, Wildlife Program
9:30 AM 26. Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances – Briefing
Department staff will brief the Commission on two draft voluntary agreements aimed at providing assurances to landowners who sign up to conserve sage-grouse and fisher on their lands before they are federally listed.
Staff Report: Penny Becker, Acting Diversity Division Manager and Cynthia Wilkerson, Lands Conservation and Restoration Section Manager, Wildlife Program
10:00 AM Break
10:15 AM 27. Quilcene and Dabob Bay Flatfish Sport Rules – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will provide the Commission a briefing on proposed adjustments to the recreational flatfish fisheries within the Quilcene and Dabob bays.
Staff Report: Craig Burley, Fish Management Division Manager and Dayv Lowry, Ph.D., Research Scientist
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

11:00 AM 28. Results of the 2014 Puget Sound Dungeness Crab Fishery – Briefing
Department staff will provide an annual briefing summarizing the performance and harvest of both commercial and recreational fisheries during the 2014 season and regulation compliance data collected by enforcement and fishery management staff as required in Policy C-3609.
Staff Report: Rich Childers, Puget Sound Shellfish Manager and Mike Cenci, Deputy Chief of Enforcement
11:30 AM 29. Results of the 2014 Puget Sound Shrimp Fishery – Briefing
Department staff will provide an annual briefing summarizing for each management region the performance and harvest of both commercial and recreational fisheries during the 2014 season as required by Policy C-3610.
Staff Report: Rich Childers, Puget Sound Shellfish Manager
12:00 PM 30. Columbia River Sturgeon Update – Briefing
Department staff will brief the Commission on discussion results with stakeholder for Columbia River Sturgeon management in 2015.
Staff Report: Guy Norman, Region 5 Director
12:30 PM 31. Technical Amendments to Recreational Fishing Rules – Briefing and Public Hearing
The Department is proposing technical changes to several recreational fishing rules to update, clarify provisions, and ensure rule accuracy.
Staff Report: Joanna Eide, Criminal Justice Liaison/Regulations Coordinator
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

1:00 PM 32. Miscellaneous and Meeting Debrief
The Commission will discuss items that arise immediately before or during the meeting and after the preliminary agenda is published.
1:15 PM Adjourn
Contact the Fish and Wildlife Commission Office for further information:
Phone (360) 902-2267
Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov

Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/15 11:17 AM

Hello.......The following is what Rivguy posted but this is more readable:

WDFW Commission meeting April 9 & 10, 2015

Click on following link:


http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/agenda_apr0915.html.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/15 12:27 AM

Usually these meetings occur on a Fri-Sat..... not sure why this one is going Thu-Fri.

Will be unable to personally attend on Thurs.... 1st time thru the entire Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay policy development processes. Fourteen cases in the operating room 4-8, and they all need to be seen the next day 4-9.

May the "force" be with those who testify on behalf of recs.

Stand firm on NO AUGUST DIP IN for chinook!

They need to hear it early and often! DrifterWA, if you'd be willing to sign up to testify, I can script something for you to recite.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/15 07:55 AM

Can a person sign up twice????? I Want to chat about Wynoochee mitigation or lack of movement.....
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/15 08:20 AM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH


Stand firm on NO AUGUST DIP IN for chinook!

They need to hear it early and often! DrifterWA, if you'd be willing to sign up to testify, I can script something for you to recite.


Francis, I assume this is a commercial Willipa Bay issue? Melanie and I will make the afternoon Grays Harbor section, but we have to do our annual volunteer work at the Satsop Springs ponds moving trout around in the morning. Bob R
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/15 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
Can a person sign up twice????? I Want to chat about Wynoochee mitigation or lack of movement.....


Yes... 8:15 open pubic input for non-agenda item (Wynoochee mitigation)
Then again at 915 for WB policy after directors report (agenda item)
Then again at 10:45 for WB INTERIM (2015 only) after that (agenda item)
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/15 01:30 PM

Might wait on Wynoochee until afternoon session.....Grays Harbor...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/05/15 07:46 AM


This article is a interesting read. What I find most interesting is the commercial harvesters refusal to understand ( maybe accept is a better word ) what overharvest means. Some things never change.


http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...=article_bottom
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/05/15 11:25 AM

This is a letter I submitted to the Commission for clarification. In all fisheries be it Rec or Commercial you encounter and have a mortality impact on another species. The most glaring examples happen to be Commercial to be honest. We have had targeted Coho fisheries that get more Chum which many immediately call foul on. Now out of the many tribal legal actions came definitive seasons by species Coho / Chinook / Chum and they are by week. Now this can make sense in the tribal fisheries but WDF&W carries the definitions into the Non Treaty fisheries and that is the issue.

So I was asked to seek clarification and that is the letter below. Be interesting to see what the response is. Oh almost forgot I directed the question directly to the Commission and did a CC to WDF&W staff.


March 25, 2015

I have been asked to submit as a Grays Harbor Adviser for clarification the definition of the word "incidental" as it applies to harvest in both the Grays Harbor Management Policy (GHMP) and the currently being developed Willapa Management Policy (WMP).

Incidental is the term to used to describe the impacts of harvest on one species of salmon while harvesting another in both GHMP & WMMP. At the present it normally revolves around Chinook and Chum impacts while commercially harvesting Coho but it also occurs in the recreational fisheries also.

The question I am requesting clarification on is just what percentage of catch should be allowed as incidental? In both Willapa & Grays Harbor we have had targeted Coho fisheries that had greater impacts or nearly equal impacts on Chum. This primarily happens when guidelines or harvest policy limits a directed harvest on a species.

This leads to considerable confusion and lack of trust as many view this as a blatant attempt to circumvent policy guidelines. In discussing with others the meaning and implications of the term "incidental" they turn to the following definition of the word incidental.

(sometimes followed by `to') minor or casual or subordinate in significance or nature or occurring as a chance concomitant or consequence

I am requesting clarification of how the term "incidental" or any other term staff would choose to describe impacts on one species while harvesting another. I am not aware of a percentage utilized such as in a Coho fishery where 55% is Coho and 45% Chum or even reversed when a Coho fishery is 45% and "incidental" Chum is 55%. We do have verbiage such the 5% limiters & 10% but circumstances are seldom the same year to year and often the conflict in definition of impacts of a non targeted species is present.

Be it the word "incidental" or any other agency staff choose to utilize, when does the bycatch of one species while targeting another for harvest become in reality two targeted or directed fisheries? I am requesting clarification as many feel it is needed to end what they see as attempts to circumvent both the GHMP & WMP while others do not. The different views on the definition of non targeted impacts are not reconcilable so clarification is needed.

Sincerely,
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/15 10:16 AM



Here is the updated NOF schedule for setting Willapa fall salmon seasons. As Steve outlines below I think after this week's Commission meeting we will have a better idea of where we are headed.

Hi Everyone,

As you may recall, we postponed our North of Falcon meetings to discuss salmon seasons for Willapa Bay while we waited for the Fish and Wildlife Commission to provide some interim guidance for 2015. We are hopeful that guidance will be provided on Thursday. In preparation for moving forward with Willapa Bay salmon season discussions, we have tentatively scheduled the following meetings:

• Tuesday April 21st, WB advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
• Thursday April 23rd, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm
• Tuesday April 28th, WB Advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
• Thursday April 30th, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm

So please mark these dates on your calendars. Once we have guidance from the Commission, we’ll work to get a news release out (assuming Public Affairs deems it news release worthy).

Thank you all for your patience during this process.

Cheers.


Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/15 06:39 PM

OK on the Commission meeting today with Willapa & Grays Harbor on the agenda. First Willapa Policy ( long term ) was reviewed and after testimony all over the board the Commission requested another option (D) be developed using a 14% harvest rate. That sent shudders out and about. Keep in mind last year the agency used 20% which came out at 37%+ so that will be a challenge to meet with the NT Nets. Also the need for reform to insure no ESA and Federal control was aired out. This is the first time I can recall that the depth of the problem of overharvest of natural origin Chinook in Willapa was openly & frankly discussed. On the Interim Willapa Policy they accepted the agency draft ( which I will post as soon as I get a electronic copy ) but changed the harvest rate from 20% to 14%. Lot of rockin & rollin around that!

In the GH review the agency presentation was better and pretty straight forward. Now here one of the Commissioners ( associated with commercial interest ) attempted to amend the policy but that went down after it was pointed out it was a review not a "reopening". The Commercials really & I mean really hate 4/3 ( three days a week net free ) and went after it. Frankly the manner in which the Commercials present presented their case was, to say the least, lacking in thought and facts. Did not work well.

On the other hand the fact that the QIN gobbled up much of the Chinook savings was put forward but the agency did not do that well in defining the issue which created some confusion. The thing I find most striking is this simple fact, despite acknowledging the issue staff did not define how it was presented to the QIN. Back mathing the harvest model it was not apparent that the run was early and way short of preseason forecast. So if the run had come in at forecasted size the % the QIN take and escapement would have been different.

Tribal relations are as low as I have seen since the post Boldt years and it needs to be resolved but frankly this is a agency issue, one that a citizen will have little impact on, and rooted in the QIN mistrust of WDF&W. Now Steve Thiesfeld is new and is different from past WDF&W managers but like it or not he is saddled with years of history, most bad. Frankly having been around QIN fishers over the years they have very real reasons not to trust WDF&W. I mean like hell if the QIN had dropped days of there schedule WDF&W would have simply put in the NT Nets in their place. So on this one it is still finger pointing time.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/15 06:45 PM

Any GH policy discussion about the sliding scale thresholds for commercial chinook impact?

The newly adopted e-goals for Hump and Chehalis make the thresholds written in the current policy obsolete if not senseless... particularly for Hump chinook.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/15 06:49 PM

Quote:
Any GH policy discussion about the sliding scale thresholds for commercial chinook impact?


Not sure Doc but not much. Softbite off your notes do you recall the question being addressed?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/15 08:53 PM

The top-end chinook thresholds for the commercial sliding scales (Hump 4K and Chehalis 25K ) were set based on the OLD chinook goals (2.2K and 12.4K respectively). Do they still make sense in the setting of the NEW goals of 3.6K and 9.9K?

I think the obvious answer is NO! esp for Hump where 110% of goal is now just a handful shy of 4K. The precise numbers are 3982 (110% of goal) and 4070 (top end of sliding scale)…. that’s less than 100 fish to slide from 1.2% impact to 5.4% harvest. Mission impossible?

Conceptually, the top end was predicated on LARGE run sizes (defined as >182% of goal). 182% of old goal (2236) = 4070. To stay true to the policy's conceptual intent, the top-end Hump threshold should be increased to 6588 wild chinook.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/15 09:27 PM

eyeFISH, I did not hear any discussion of Grays Harbor sliding scale thresholds or newer escapement goals. The main discussion item was the meaning of adaptive management and how it should be used. It was in relation to a question about being able to direct harvest chinook in September if the total impact was below the 5% cap. Steve said it was up to the commission to allow violation of the policy, not the department.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/11/15 05:03 PM

Ok we have the interim the interim policy draft, and the final ( as of now ) Willapa Policy Draft Presentation and Interim can be sent to anyone wanting it, just PM me your address. The Grays Harbor presentation I do not have as it had a error in it so Steve is trying to get it fixed before it goes out & about.

Now on the draft it is full of strike outs and colors that make a C&P impossible so it is PM time here also. To put this in perspective in the interim policy only one change by the Commission the 20% harvest rate was reduced to 14%. WDF&W went with 20% ended up with 37% plus change. So now they have a problem how does WDF&W do something that they have always said they would / could do and have failed miserably at? No idea here but I certainly would not want Steve Thiesfeld's job!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/18/15 08:32 AM


Here is the Willapa NOF schedule & Willapa Interim Policy for those who do not have it. Should be interesting meetings to say the least.



From Steve Theisfeld:

As you may recall, we postponed our North of Falcon meetings to discuss salmon seasons for Willapa Bay while we waited for the Fish and Wildlife Commission to provide some interim guidance for 2015. We are hopeful that guidance will be provided on Thursday. In preparation for moving forward with Willapa Bay salmon season discussions, we have tentatively scheduled the following meetings:

• Tuesday April 21st, WB advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
• Thursday April 23rd, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm
• Tuesday April 28th, WB Advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
• Thursday April 30th, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm


So please mark these dates on your calendars. Once we have guidance from the Commission, we’ll work to get a news release out (assuming Public Affairs deems it news release worthy).

Thank you all for your patience during this process.

Cheers.


Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201


Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
2015 Willapa Bay Salmon Management Interim Guidance
April 9, 2015

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is providing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) staff with this guidance and expects specific fishing seasons, including time, manner, and place prescriptions, will be developed in the rule- making process that considers both the policy and any public input. The Department shall use the following policy guidance for managing salmon fisheries in Willapa Bay and tributary rivers in 2015.

Fall Chinook Salmon:

The Department shall initiate a rebuilding program to conserve and restore wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. For 2015, limit mortality rates on Naselle and Willapa River natural-origin Chinook salmon to no more than 14% to initiate rebuilding the number of natural-origin spawners. Within the conservation constraints of the rebuilding program, manage fisheries with the following goals:

• Manage Chinook salmon for an enhanced recreational fishing season to increase participation and/or catch including consideration of increased daily limits, earlier openings, multiple rods, and other measures.

• Structure recreational and commercial fisheries (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts:

o Commercial fisheries may be scheduled prior to August 8 but shall be limited to a maximum of one 48 consecutive-hour period.

o No commercial fisheries shall occur from August 8 through Labor Day in areas 2T and 2U.

• Promote the conservation and restoration of Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay by:

o Closing an appropriate area to protect North River Chinook, for example consider for all fisheries through September 30, close the area north of a line from Toke Point channel marker 3 easterly through Willapa Harbor channel marker 13 (green) then, northeasterly to the power transmission pole located at 46 degrees 43.19'N, 123 degrees 50.83'W.

o Commercial fisheries may be scheduled in areas 2T and 2U after Labor Day and before Sept. 16 but shall use mark-selective fishing gear (6.5” maximum mesh, 4.5” maximum mesh tangle net, or other alternative gear) and recovery boxes.

o If it becomes apparent that scheduled commercial fisheries will exceed the aggregated pre-season natural-origin Chinook mortality expectation, the Department shall implement in-season management actions so that mortalities of natural-origin Chinook shall not exceed the aggregated pre- season projection.

• Monitoring, sampling, and enforcement programs will adequately account for species and population impacts (landed catch and incidental fishing mortality) of all recreational and commercial fisheries and ensure compliance with state regulations.

Coho Salmon:

Manage fisheries with the goal of achieving the aggregate spawner goal for Willapa Bay natural-origin Coho salmon. Within this conservation constraint , fisheries will be managed within the following intent:

• Prioritize commercial fishing opportunities during the Coho fishery management period (September 16 through October 14 and after October 31); and

• Provide recreational fishing opportunities.

Chum Salmon:

Manage fisheries with the goal of achieving the aggregate spawner goal for Willapa Bay natural-origin Chum salmon. For 2015, limit the mortalities on chum salmon to no more than 10% to continue rebuilding the number of natural-origin spawners. Within the conservation constraints of meeting the aggregate escapement goal, manage fisheries with the following goals:

• No commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31 to further limit mortalities on natural-origin chum.

• Provide recreational fishing opportunities. Recreational fisheries will be allowed to retain Chum salmon.

Adaptive Management:

The Commission recognizes that adaptive management will be essential to achieve the intent of this interim guidance. Department staff may implement actions to manage adaptively and will coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/15 10:44 AM

My look at the Willapa NOF Adviser meeting last night.


First up a reminder on tomorrow night's Willapa NOF meeting. It is a public meeting so all can participate. I really urge all that can make it do so as this where I think the foundation for the 2015 seasons are coming into view for the first time.

• Tuesday April 21st, WB advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
Thursday April 23rd, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm
• Tuesday April 28th, WB Advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
• Thursday April 30th, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm

Next up the question how did the Adviser meeting go last night? Well I took notes but in the end I think some good things came to light as well as some serous failures on the agency side of things. So the highs & lows.

HARVEST MODEL: A substantial amount of work has been put into getting it to reflect reality. The impacts can be broken out by weeks, user, and location. The down side? They did not have the bloody thing ready to go as the Rec season inputted was simply last years. It may not sound like much but without the Rec season in the model the Commercial side is playing blind man's bluff trying to get there seasons modeled correctly and accurately. Process is process be it Rec or Commercial but it is totally inappropriate to ask those participating to do so without the tools to get the job done. Steve Theisfeld and staff are working hard ( one of the staff is also ill ) but this is a colossal failure. Had not senior staff ( Olympia ) spent what time was available at PFMC trying to reverse the Commission's decision to put in a 14% harvest rate and directed staff to immediately reboot off their preferred 20% things could / should / would have looked much different.

INTERIM POLICY: A bunch of questions from both the Commercial and Rec Advisers but it resulted in not much happening here. Again the questions on North River Chinook and the question is it a distinctive stock? Agency response was they had little luck getting out migrants ( 2 or 3 out migrants ) so no change here also.

COMMERCIALS: This was a bit strange. Several of the Commercial Advisers present refused to set at the table. It is their right but frankly it does not help getting the best season possible for them. On the other hand a Commercial Adviser who did participate immediately proposed going to October 15 go backwards into September as far as possible with what Chinook impacts were available. Straight ahead no BS and the gentleman deserves a hand for going to the rules ( Interim Willapa Policy ) rather than pout in the cheap seats with the public.

This is where my blood pressure went up also. Minus a working model with options for this year's Rec seasons inputted it is impossible to map a accurate season scenario for either the Commercial or Rec fishers. Again this was and is colossal failure for staff that over shadows all the effort put into getting the model ready.

Additionally two of the Commercial Advisers ( not at the table ) questioned the exvessel value ( dollar value of the harvest ) presented by staff. More to come here I am sure.

RECREATION FISHERS: From a Adviser came a in-depth proposal for the inriver season. It was clearly defined and well thought out. ( if I can get a copy I will put it out ) Big hand to the lady who just happens to be the only women representative on the Advisers. She did her homework, came prepared, and went at it. Not bad. Most do not realize that the inriver seasons have been horribly restrictive in past years right to the point of being punitive by design.

For the T & U fishers the limiter of Willapa and North River NOR ( wild ) Chinook came home. Not that bad here guys but a issue that has to be addressed. It will revolve around bag limits in the end and how you split impacts Rec freshwater / bay / Commercial nets. So again the failure to have a fully functioning harvest model did not allow much to be accomplished.

ODDS & ENDS: The Interim Policy directs staff to a enhanced recreational season. It was put forward that if the Commercials are not in T & U that this could be considered a " enhanced " Rec season. If you fish T & U one might draw that conclusion but if your inriver not so much. Which brought about one of the Advisers calling BS on that one. Again more to come I am sure.

Some concerns on if a expanded bag limit was in place it would draw crowds. Also the issue of the situation in Puget Sound Chinook fisheries again bringing more Rec fishers and crowds. This one I find to be very interesting to say the least. If one is going to have expanded Rec opportunity that is what will happen. The alternative? Utilize the Commercial fishery to the maximum for harvest as done in the past in Willapa and many other places. Expanded opportunity does not mean more fish for those who have fished a place but rather more fishers pursuing more fish due to reduced Commercial harvest. A better way to say it is a redesigned equitable sharing of harvest between Rec & Commercials. That is how you get economic justification for a expanded tourism driven harvest management of available impacts.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Kudos to all the Willapa Advisers who chose to participate and in particular the two previously mentioned. They came prepared, ready to do business, and expected to do business. It is unfortunate that senior WDF&W staff in Olympia wasted valuable time trying to undo the Commission's decision to use a conservation driven 14% harvest rate rather than direct Region 6 staff to immediately move to prepare for Willapa NOF. Again this was and is a colossal failure by staff driven by Olympia but Region 6 staff will take the criticism be it deserved or not.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/24/15 10:22 AM


The Willapa Harvest Model is available. It can be confusing but one can get a good look at things by hitting the Fishery Summary tab as most of the information will be there for most. The calendar tab will give the actual day of the month the listed week stat refers to. The Commercial schedule is to the right side of the page and the Rec season modeled right below. Keep in mind these are only PRELIMINARY suggestions and nothing is final. If you want the model just PM me your e mail address and I will get it to you.

WILLAPA NOF PUBLIC MEETING: So how did the Willapa NOF public meeting go? Ah, not sure as the agency stuck very tight to the premise of taking input only. The harvest model was ready with Rec & Commercial seasons put in but only ( a big only folks ) what had been asked for or suggested by the Advisers and public. This resulted in considerable confusion for some not so much for others. So the high and low points as see it.

COMMERCIAL SEASON: Utilizing the Commercial Adviser suggestion that inputted October 3 / week 40 backwards utilizing the Commercial share of Chinook impacts using standard gillnets which got them to September 13 / week 38 in T & U. They got another week in to September 6 / week 37 in N, R, M. Out for the month of October back in for the first 3 weeks of November.

It was suggested that the Commercials consider using tangle nets to reduce Chinook release mortality giving them a expanded season but those Commercials present did not want to selectively fish. By doing this they are passing on a lot of Coho available for harvest but they appeared to be determined not to selectively fish.

RECREATIONAL FISHERS SEASON: Staff modeled a greatly expanded inriver fishery with 6 fish / 4 adult bag limits. Some issues existed with portions of the season on certain streams but again staff only utilized input from the Advisers and public. The T & U Rec fisheries had a August 1 start 6 fish / 4 adult bag also. It was suggested that a earlier date is possible so July 16 was put up for consideration as the opening date for T & U.

The modeled Rec seasons also had a two pole endorsement but for both bay and inriver. This caused a little around & around the bush bit with folks as it was in the Nemah proposed season. Some banky advocates thought this was to much with large numbers of folks others not so much. In the other streams some thought if two poles go for a boat the banky fishers should also get it. It is one of those things that some feel one size fits all where others felt you use it where it is appropriate. Interesting discussion long overdue as it is a interesting question to be sure. If a stream layout and access is such that two poles could have issues with bank fishers do you then restrict the boat fishers or visa versa? Sometimes one size does not fit all so this dance will continue.

ACCESS FOR INRIVER: This was all over the board. Some present felt that opening up more river for the Rec would upset the local property owners. Others called BS that you do not shut off public waters to fishing because someone might trespass. This revolved around the Nemah but the Naselle jumped in the conversation with Willapa coming right behind.

This is always a thorny issue but as one who lives on the Chehalis River you deal with it. Just because I am fortunate enough to live where I do does not mean I own the river as it is public water for heaven's sake. Can people be a pain? In a word yes. I have had people tie up to my dock and use my fish cleaning station without asking, just many things. That said it is part of living next to public waters and I or no other property owner owns the river as it belongs to all citizens. Again more to come I am sure.

So next up is the Willapa Adviser meeting Tuesday April 28th, WB Advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm. Hope to see you there.


Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/15 01:51 PM

From the testimony given at the last meeting, the commercials are 100% convinced that the standard gillnet is the gear-type of choice. The option to use smaller-mesh tangle-net gear was offered up by a rec guy, but they (GN's) absolutely refused to accept that it could be feasible... too much grass, too much anchovies, too much....

Here's the bottom line.... they squelch any potential of their industry succeeding in a modern wild fish paradigm because they refuse to adapt. It has everything to do with clinging to an ancient industrial fishing method to benefit a a handful of folks who refuse to adapt their gear to modern realities.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/15 04:45 PM

The thing about dinosaurs is that they usually go extinct.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/15 05:17 PM

I've about had it with the NT'ers and all the reasons the tangle net should not be the option when netting Willapa or Grays Harbor.

#1 item from the WDFW Commission was CONSERVATION, loud and clear!!!! Change is needed, NOW, not somewhere down the line. If you can't adapt to a more conservation friendly way to take fish......Hang the net up, try to sell your GN license, move on....

Its happened before.....Railroad workers, and for sure people that worked with logging.......times change, tough to do, but need to move on....ITs not ever going to get back to times before the Bolt Decision or before all the dams were put in the Columbia River.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/15 05:47 PM

Remember that the major fleet reduction and buy commercial back program of the 1970s, impacting primarily the commercial trollers, was in the fishery that could have most easily gone to a selective harvest model.

Perhaps we should re think that.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/15 08:48 AM

Last call for NOF Willapa Adviser meetings tonight for those following the process. With the new model many have started inputting seasons and to see what is possible so it should be interesting to say the least.

Tuesday April 21st, WB advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
Thursday April 23rd, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm
Tuesday April 28th, WB Advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
Thursday April 30th, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm

Back to Grays Harbor and keep in mind this is Grays Harbor as things are different depending on which tribe is involved and what WDF&W staff is involved. After watching the finger pointing between Region 6 staff and the QIN over the years I think it is time for it to come to an end. It matters little as to who started it ( but I do believe WDF&W gets the dubious honor in Grays Harbor ) but rather that the poking each other in the eye stop. I doubt that staff of either the QIN or WDF&W have it in them so I am urging the Commission to look at another approach.


Commissioners,

I would like to thank the Commission for all its efforts in developing the Grays Harbor Management Policy ( GHMP ) over the past year as it has been a difficult journey for both the public and Commission. From my perspective it has been successful but during the Commission review of the GHMP on April 9, 2015 the issue of Quinault Indian Nation ( QIN ) harvest policy was discussed. What I was struck by was not the fact that this was a issue but rather the failure of WDF&W staff to provide a "big picture" view of the issue.

The driver of this conversation appeared to be that the QIN had taken more than its share negating any conservation gains provided by the GHMP. The GHMP mandates three net free days a week ( 4/3 ) and additionally the failure to make Chehalis Chinook escapement three out of five years resulted in GHMP mandated harvest restrictions. ( 3/5 "penalty box" ) With the information provided I can fully understand the Commission's concerns but the failure by WDF&W staff to fully present the "big picture" was very apparent to those familiar with the issue. What was not presented to the Commission was that after back mathing the Harvest Model it was apparent that neither the QIN or WDF&W staff would have known the Chehalis Chinook forecast was not materializing. This resulted in the QIN harvest numbers and escapement being very different than if the run had been as forecasted.

The discussion appeared to be driven by the issue of QIN 50% share of Chehalis Chinook being exceeded. What staff has told us in public recently but did not tell the Commissioners was the fact this often happens be it the state or QIN fisheries. If you look at the issue in totality it looks different. Take Steelhead where the non treaty Recreational fisher utilizing C&R targeting hatchery production harvest more than the QIN. If you factor in Summerrun Steelhead the states share gets even larger. With Razor Clams the QIN have allowed the state to use more than its share to keep the beaches open for Clam digging with significant economic benefit to the coastal communities. Let us not forget Crab and the state has harvested into the tribal share in the past without even asking.

Which brings me to the purpose of this letter. It is my belief that the relationship between the staff of both WDF&W and the QIN has become so toxic that it will not improve but rather continue to deteriorate at a ever increasing rate. I urge the Commission to consider a alternate approach. Frankly it is diplomacy that is needed. I ask the Commission Chair and Fish Committee to consider meeting with the QIN tribal representatives without either WDF&W or QIN fisheries staff. Not to negotiate but rather for both parties to have a conversation, listen, and begin to understand the others views. To see it " through the others eyes " is another way to describe it.

Commissioners after Boldt our community went through a turbulent time that was difficult to say the least. It could have been much worse had it not been for the QIN leadership under Joe DeLaCruz. Joe joined with Grays Harbor Port Commissioner John Stevens in proposing that all come together and work toward a different way of doing things. From this effort in Grays Harbor would come the Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group concept that was adopted statewide. We were able to convince the Northwest Renewable Resource Foundation to create what became Long Live the Kings Chinook restoration effort on the Wishkah River. Tribal fishers worked side by side with non tribal in Chinook broodstocking efforts on three rivers. The Confederation of Chehalis Tribes worked intensely with local volunteers with Chinook restoration efforts.

So after overcoming the aftermath of Boldt and leaving the past behind just how did we get to where we are? I can only give my thoughts that come from 34 years of involvement in fisheries in Grays Harbor and the Chehalis Basin. I do not believe it was any one thing but rather a death by a hundred cuts. The things that stand out most are the following.

• Region 6 under Tim Flint separated the Chehalis and Humptulips into separate management zones. The courts have given the QIN fishing rights to the aggregate of both rivers and the QIN did not and do not to the best my knowledge support or accept the separation. In fact some view the issue as requiring the QIN to accept a modification of the court decision to accept the separation of the Chehalis and Humptulips. I would also point out that the separation was not for conservation but rather to enable a Recreational bay fishery.

• When WDF&W implemented the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( never approved by the Commission ) it was followed with major use of mark selective fisheries in both recreational and commercial. It is my understanding the release mortality rates which were of greatest concern as they should have been. To be honest Commissioners the rates used by the state were simply in the words of a WDF&W Bio, SWAG. SWAG is term used meaning Scientific Wild Ass Guess. In fact in my Public Document Request I was able to verify that agency staff did not even know where the previously utilized 45% mortality on commercial Chinook releases came from.

• The harvest model did not reflect reality in any way as to actual harvest impacts, in particular the Recreation C&R or commercial selective fishing. Rather than fill a page with verbiage the actual impacts of the state fisheries modeled vastly understated the state share of the impacts. Add to the mix that WDF&W's relationship Confederation of Chehalis Tribes has deteriorated to the point that they no longer even report their catch which as a Non Treaty tribe is part on the state allocation, which is a issue within itself. One could attempt go back and year by year attempt to apply an appropriate harvest impact of the state fisheries to get the correct impacts but I am not sure that is even possible. What I am sure of is in the record of historical harvest the QIN numbers are reasonably accurate and the states harvest impacts are so understated that it places them close to being totally inaccurate.

• The Tacoma City Light Wynoochee Mitigation has not been accomplished for over twenty years. To move the process forward the local community working with the WDF&W Science Division under Jim Scott developed a proposal that was supposed to be presented by Fish Program to the QIN for review, comment, and input. It did not happen despite repeated attempts by citizens to make it so. In fact under Ron Warren Region 6 staff substantially altered the plan around 2010 without the public or the QIN being aware of it. I have attached both Mr. Warrens letter and QIN manager Ed Johnstone's response.

In closing again I urge the Commission to chart a new course and meet with the QIN leadership. Have the conversation that is so desperately needed. Look at the issues from QIN eyes and ask the QIN look through your eyes to. Listen to each other and find where common ground exist as well as where deep disagreements reside. If left to staff of both the QIN or WDF&W this thing is not going to go away but only continue to become more dire.

Sincerely,

XXXX XXXXXXXX

CC: Director Unsworth
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/29/15 10:19 AM



So now on to how did the Willapa NOF Adviser meeting go? Ok I think as long as one did & does not expect any definitive answers on what the 2015 seasons will look like. All the Advisers participated and outside the usual posturing provided a reasonable discussion. So high preverbal highs and lows.

THE MODEL: As one who is known to whack the heck out of staff when they mess up this is impressive. Staff pulled together and worked their collective butts off and you know what, they succeeded. The new Willapa model works and is reasonable to use once one is familiar with it. Additionally when issues such as the Rec Naselle catch appeared not to be correct rather than get defensive staff tore into the data proofed / fixed it. Kudos to staff they did it right.

COMMERCIAL SEASON: Several model runs with different seasons were presented. Ranging from complete tangle net to mix and match the results were pretty much all over the board as the 14% limiter on natural Chinook resulted in conservation driven outcomes. Tangle Chinook with release Chum in Coho season had the highest ex-vessel value ( dollar value of catch sold ) of over $900,000. While alternate model runs utilizing just release on Chinook came in at $500,00 to $600,000 ex-vessel value.

That said to say the commercials were opposed to tangle nets would be a understatement. It was bluntly pointed out if the agency and commercial fisher CHOOSE to not fish with tangle net alternate gear resulting in reduced harvest then do not bitch and wail when you have rather large hatchery surpluses. This one is interesting.

The issue of Steelhead be incidentally harvested in November was brought forward but data and observer reports said not much if any impact. Did not seem to make some folks happy but it is what it is.

RECREATIONAL SEASON: The modeled T & U fisheries looked OK with no nets to mid September in most of the model run presented. So that went OK. Now inriver was a bit different with a real dust up over the Nemah. A couple of property owners do not want it opened to Recs anymore than present. Others very strongly went the other way and this resulted in one of the few really pointed exchanges with staff. I think the following from a e mail pretty much capturing this bit. So now one Adviser is going to reach out to other property owners to seek out access for Recs.


1. If the the Piersons or anyone can dictate the closure of the entire upper section of the North Nemah for closure because they are concerned with the potential for trespassers on their private property - I can only assume that you will allow me to close down the entire lower section of the North Nemah when I get fed up with actual trespassers on my much larger section of the river regardless of who wants to keep it fishable!
2. I'm feeling this would smack of discrimination in the worst possible way if you failed to honor my request immediately if and when I chose to exercise this option.
3. By restricting the fishing opportunities to the lower part of the river you are placing the entire burden of access to the Williams, Wiss, Fleet and Crockford Families. Oh yes and the WDFW at the mouth of the river who refused to comply with signage.

3. Just checking to clarify the this issue?

Additionally below are the current proposed inriver seasons. Keep in mind this IS NOT final but a work in progress.

Enhancements to Recreational Salmon Fisheries in Willapa Bay for 2015

• 4 Adult bag limit in Marine Area 2.1 and freshwater areas. All areas release unmarked Chinook
• 2-Pole endorsement allowed in Willapa River and Naselle River Hwy 4 Bridge upstream to hatchery
• Willapa River
o Open from Sept 15 instead of Oct. 1 from Hwy 6 to Forks Creek
o Open Fork Creek upstream to Hwy 6 Bridge downstream from the town of Lebam
• North River
o Open through Jan. 31 instead of Dec. 31
• Nemah River
o Open from hatchery intake upstream to Hancock Bridge
• Palix River
o Open through Jan. 31 instead of Nov. 30
• Naselle River
o Open Hwy 4 Bridge upstream to the upstream entrance of the Naselle hatchery attraction channel
• Bear River
o Open through Jan. 31 instead of Nov. 30

So I have the revised Willapa harvest model if anyone wants it and Thursday is the public Willapa NOF meeting.

• Tuesday April 21st, WB advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
• Thursday April 23rd, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm
Tuesday April 28th, WB Advisory Meeting, Raymond High School Library, 6-9pm
• Thursday April 30th, WB Public Meeting, Raymond Elks, 6-9pm
Posted by: RB3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/29/15 03:23 PM

Has the director ever replied to your emails or is it usually filtered through channels?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/29/15 04:10 PM


Yes usually you get a response but the responses are written at the local level, reviewed and changed as it works through staff to the Director or Commission. Local staff is a bit busy at the minute with NOF so things will drag.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/29/15 09:59 PM

Couple of excellent talking points that are NOT resonating with the commerce sector:


"All of us should explore ways to commercially harvest and while doing so, reduce the fleet's impacts on the limiting natural spawning stocks. The failure to seek out alternatives to the historical fishing tactics used in Willapa Bay creates a far greater risk to the future of the commercial sector than any enhancement to the recreational season.

That raises a question. If not tangle nets, what suggestions do the experienced fishers within the commercial sector have to reduce historical gillnet impacts on natural spawning stocks? "
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/30/15 06:45 AM

Fish wheels and weirs worked fine 100 years ago. Both allow 100% sorting of wild from hatchery fish. Not that gillnetters would ever suggest it though.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/30/15 08:02 AM

Takes away from the "rugged individual" American model of success. As an individual gill netter, I can make more money by being the best/smartest netter. If we do a trap, it is fixed and I have to share.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/30/15 08:15 AM

For decades, they've lived by the gillnet. It's only natural they should die by the same....

Today, commercial fishing (not to be confused with processing and distribution, which are highly profitable) is a marginally profitable enterprise. I'm sure most commercials would gladly pursue any opportunity to harvest more of the target species were the gear adaptations associated with changing their methods not such a huge disincentive. It's probably legitimate to argue, considering the profit potential against the cost of switching gear, that switching gear is effectively cost prohibitive. I think this explains, almost entirely, why the commercials refuse to entertain the discussion. I sympathize with that, but no amount of sympathy will change the fact that gillnets are fast becoming a non-sustainable harvest method. If their tradition is to carry forward past the next few years, they will need to adapt.

One would think there would be a price point at which consumers would stop buying commercial fish, but I think we're finding that not to be the case. Consider, for example, the price per pound a sushi grade bluefin tuna commands, or recall the price per pound on spring Chinook in a low return year. No matter how outrageous the cost, people come out of the woodwork to pay it every time. Indeed, as a species becomes more scarce, the fugged-up nature of human culture makes that species a delicacy and a symbol of high social status.

Certainly, people won't be willing to pay those prices for Coho, but what's the breaking point there? I'm sure we haven't reached it. I guess my point is that if food fish are becoming scarce, and, as a result, commercially harvesting them is carrying an increasing cost/fish, the market price should reflect those circumstances. Don't want to pay sushi prices for a salmon fillet? Go sport fishing and catch your own (understanding that it will still probably cost you more per pound, but at least you'll have fun in the process).
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/10/15 08:21 AM



I was asked to post up the proposed REC seasons for Grays Harbor so here you are. Biggest changes are the return of the early summer fishery on the Chehalis, two rod endorsement for the Chehalis but only above the 101 bridge to the South Elma Bridge, and a two bag limit in 2C and a overall expanded season. The two rod bit will primarily help those fishing from boats but also the plunkers. 2C has limited ( & poor ) access. It works for those who want to dodge the crowds and put up with the inconvenience. Keep in mind this is only proposed at the minute and could change.


2015 Grays Harbor Fall Non-Treaty Terminal Area Planning Model
2015 schedule proposals, Cheh July Jack, Hump 2 Adults Chin Nov 15, Rec 2C Aug1-Sept15, comm 2A/D 4days 9 hr WK 43 and 45, 1 day 5hr and 1 day 4hr WK 42 , 2C 2 days 9 hr Wk 44 add H CHK Hump.
Model Run Description Preseason planning 03/05/2015
PFMC Option #
FRAM Run # 1408

Fishery Description
Sport Dates Bag Limit
Marine 2.2 Area 2D only Sept 16 - Nov 30 3 adult, release Chinook.
Area 2C only Aug 1 - Sept 15 2 adults, release wild Coho.

Chehalis River FW
Mouth upstream to South Elma Bridge May 1 - Jun 30 1 adult bag: 1 Chinook
July 1 - Nov 30 3 Adult bag: release adult Chinook, two pole endorcement July 1 -Nov 31.
Dec. 1 - Jan. 31 3 Adult bag: 2 wild Coho, release Chinook and Chum

South Elma Bridge to Black River May 1 - Jun 30 1 adult bag: 1 Chinook
Sept 16 - Nov 30 3 Adult bag: release adult Chinook
Dec. 1 - Jan. 31 2 Adult bag: 1 wild Coho, release Chinook and Chum

Black River to Hwy 6 May 1 - Jun 30 1 adult bag: 1 Chinook
Sept 16 - Nov 30 3 Adult bag: release adult Chinook and Chum
Dec. 1 - Jan. 31 2 Adult bag: 1 wild Coho, release Chinook and Chum

Hwy 6 to high bridge Oct 1 - Nov 30 3 Adult bag: release adult Chinook and Chum
Dec. 1 - Jan. 31 2 Adult bag: 1 wild Coho, release Chinook and Chum

Hoquiam Oct 1 - Nov 30 2 Adult bag: release Chinook
Dec 1 - Dec 30 1 Adult bag: release Chinook

Wishkah Sept. 16 - Nov 30 3 Adult bag: 2 wild Coho, release Chinook
Dec. 1 - Jan. 31 2 Adult bag: 1 wild Coho, release Chinook

Wynoochee Sept. 16 - Nov 30 2 Adult bag: release Chinook; mouth to White Bridge
Dec. 1 - Jan. 31 2 Adult bag: 1 wild Coho, release Chinook , mouth to White Bridge

Satsop Sept. 16 - Nov 30 3 Adult bag: release wild Chinook
Dec. 1 - Jan. 31 2 Adult bag: 1 wild Coho, release Chinook

Black River Oct 1 - Jan 31 2 Adult bag: release Chinook and Chum (After Nov 30, only 1 wild Coho)

Skookumchuck Oct. 16 - Nov 30 3 Adult bag: release Chinook and Chum
Dec. 1 - Feb 28 2 Adult bag: 1 wild Coho, release Chinook and Chum

Newaukum Oct. 16 - Nov 30 3 Adult bag: release Chinook and Chum
Dec. 1 - Feb 28 2 Adult bag: 1 wild Coho, release Chinook and Chum

Elk and Johns Oct 1 - Nov 30 1 Adult bag: release Chinook
Humptulips River FW Sept. 1-Sept 30 2 Adult bag: of which 1 may be a Wild Chinook, release wild Coho
Oct 1 - Nov 15 2 Adult bag: of which 1 may be a Chinook, release wild Coho
Nov 16-Jan 31 2 Adult bag: release Chinook, wild Coho, and Chum
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/10/15 05:03 PM

Quote:
comm 2A/D 4days 9 hr WK 43 and 45, 1 day 5hr and 1 day 4hr WK 42


Do you know if these were proposed in the spirit of 4/3?
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/10/15 05:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Eric
Quote:
comm 2A/D 4days 9 hr WK 43 and 45, 1 day 5hr and 1 day 4hr WK 42


Do you know if these were proposed in the spirit of 4/3?


It didn't make sense to me. 4days 9 hr wk 43 and 45? How much time in the water does that mean?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/10/15 05:58 PM

looks like it says .. 4 days in weeks 43 and 45 for 9hrs a day = 36hrs a week
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/10/15 08:32 PM

Correct... as literally stated, it adheres to the 4/3 principle.

However, commercial advisors recommended a schedule that reverses the 4/3 to 3/4 in week 45.

4/3 vs 3/4... BFD? Who cares? There's still 3 days of escapement, right?

WELL.... not so fast.

It wouldn't be such a big deal... EXCEPT that the QIN is going 5/2 in stat week 46.

So for the two stat weeks 45 (3 off/4 on) and 46 (5 on/2 off), you get a combined schedule that looks like 3/9/2.... with the 9 consecutive gillnet days falling on Nov 4 thru 12.

That WILL be devastating to the inriver guys thinking they're poised for prime-time coho action.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/11/15 05:48 AM

Quote:
8) Recreational and WFDW-managed commercial fisheries shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur. If the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week.


There is the verbiage from the plan. Does it violate the spirit of the plan was the question back a bit. Yup but that is WDFW. Staff has fought implementing the plan from the beginning as they just can not turn loose of the NT Nets. One should keep in mind that the Rec season was taken out of one proposal ( as staff said no changes to Rec they are satisfied with what they have ) and three more commercial net season proposals have been directed to staff.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/11/15 06:38 AM


Below are my comments on the last Commercial proposal and many questions that swirled around the others are addressed in it.

To: Steve Theisfeld
Jim Scott

After reviewing of the Commercial Proposals submitted on 5/1/15 several issues are present. In looking at the modeling of the proposed seasons by the Commercial sector, revised by WDF&W, I propose the changes outlined below. I also have attached a modified copy of the WDF&W spread sheet reflecting the changes.

It appears that the model failure of not reflecting harvest impacts of prior harvest be it Recreational or NT Commercial prior to the QIN fisheries is still present. I should not be able to place NT Commercials in seven days a week with the QIN fishing 4 days and show zero impacts to the QIN fishery. This was corrected for the Recreational fishery last year but it appears staff failed to do so for the QIN fisheries.

Also the model does not provide ex-vessel value for the NT Commercial harvest. This is a serious failure by staff to provide all the information necessary to evaluate any NT Commercial season proposal. This should be addressed immediately and added to the model as was done in the revised Willapa Harvest Model.

Recommended Changes To the 5/1 Commercial Season Proposal:
Week 42:
On October 11th the proposal places the NT Nets directly in front of the QIN scheduled fishery on October 11th. This is inappropriate and appears to be intended to strike out at the QIN & GHMP. This is inappropriate and should be removed from any further consideration.

On October 14th the proposal has the Non Treaty fishers going in directly as the QIN fishers are pulling their nets completing fishing for the week. With limited boat ramp availability and the combined number of QIN, NT, and Recreational boats intermixed in such a small area the potential for safety issues and conflict exist. I suggest a minimum of a 1:30 PM start for NT fishers to allow the QIN and Recreational fishers who choose to do so to get their catch and boats off the water safely without unnecessary conflict.

Week 43:
The proposed season is utilizing the aggregate for Humptulips and Chehalis Chum but taking the vast majority on the Chehalis side. This is inappropriate and vastly increases the probability of serious damage to the Chehalis Chum stocks should the runsize forecast meet predictions and guarantees substantial damage to Chehalis origin Chum if run does not exceed preseason expectations. This differs greatly with the QIN proposed seasons with harvest projections of a Chum harvest of 2916 Chehalis origin and 1275 Humptulips origin which seek to maintain somewhat of a balanced harvest. The proposal also places the NT Commercial fleet in the river at 2A & D at Aberdeen thus removing the weekend fishery for the family Mom & Pop recreational fishery. This particularly egregious as 2A is the primary bank fishing area for handicapped Recreational fishers This is totally unnecessary as it can be avoided by simply utilizing other days of the week. To address this issue and the imbalance between the harvest of Chehalis and Humptulips Chum in the aggregate I propose a reduction to two NT Commercial days on October 21 & October 22 in week 43.

Regardless of what days of a week WDF&W staff choose to install the NT Commercial fisheries in 2A & D Saturday or Sunday should not be utilized for Commercial days to avoid the Recreational and Commercial gear conflicts which was a goal of the GHMP.

Week 45:
The proposal in week 43 results in gear conflict between Recreational & NT Commercials as the proposal places the NT Commercial fleet in the river at Aberdeen in 2A & D thus removing the weekend family Mom & Pop and handicapped recreational fishery. This is totally unnecessary as this can be avoided by utilizing other days of the week. To accomplish this a week 45 fishery of November 1 through November 4 is necessary with a start time of 1:30 PM on November 1st to avoid conflict with recreational fishers is required. This allows for four days of NT Commercial harvest.

Additionally the schedule outlined previously for week 45 allows for three days between the NT Commercials and QIN which allows for limited impact to the quality of the QIN and Recreational fisheries.

The final issue I wish to address as a GH Adviser is the failure to record or take formal minutes of the May 1st Adviser meeting create a record of the meeting which is also inappropriate. It was my understanding that this issue had been resolved some time back and WDF&W would create the required permanent record of Adviser meetings. If staff has changed or altered the manner it creates a permanent record I would appreciate you provide me the revised procedures.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/11/15 08:54 AM


I thought I would add Steve's E mail about the dust up over how the NT Commercial is going. If you want the two model runs that came with this e mail just PM me your e mail address and I will get them to you.

FROM Region 6:

Hi Everyone,

I want to bring folks up to speed on Grays Harbor. First I want to clear up any misconception about the model we sent out last Thursday. That model was not a proposal from WDFW. It was the juxtaposition of the two schedules (treaty and non-treaty) to help folks see where we had issues, especially with the 4/3. The purpose of Friday’s meeting was to hear ideas for resolving the issues.

Second, there have been a couple of requests for copies of the model the advisors worked on at Friday’s meeting. I have attached 2 models for everyone. These are not WDFW proposals. One is the commercial sector’s schedule request for meeting the issues identified in the previous paragraph. The second one is that same request with some trimming to meet Chum escapement. Please note that we have not gone over these with a fine tooth comb looking for problems, so there might still be an issue that we have missed.

Thank you.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/15/15 05:48 PM


The latest draft of the Willapa Management Plan is out for comment & the link is below. It is a bit to get your arms around though.

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
May 15, 2015
Contact: Steve Thiesfeld, (360) 249-1201

WDFW seeks comments on Willapa Bay salmon policy
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking public comments through June 3 on a new draft policy to improve salmon management in Willapa Bay.

State fishery managers have been working since last October with a citizen committee and the public to develop draft options for a new policy for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries. The revised policy includes provisions to conserve wild salmon, clarify catch allocation, and reduce conflicts between sport and commercial fishers in the bay.

The policy is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/. Written comments may be submitted via email to willapabay@dfw.wa.gov or by mail to Steve Thiesfeld, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091.

At its April meeting, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, asked the department to provide options that immediately accelerate the recovery of natural-origin chinook salmon. These options would reduce the incidental catch of wild fish while encouraging the harvest of hatchery chinook.
WDFW has developed two new options, bringing the total of alternatives for consideration to five.

WDFW staff members will provide a briefing on the options to the commission at its June meeting. The commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on the policy and is expected to take action at the meeting Saturday, June 13, in Olympia.
Information about upcoming commission meetings can be found online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/ .
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/15/15 06:29 PM

Gonna start a list of my objections here... edit and add to it as I go. Anyone can feel free to copy/paste for their own public comments that they wish to submit.

Page 3, item 8) That nasty word "aggregated" was suck in there. Needs to be stricken.

Page 4 and 7 and 11, in reference to impact cap of 20%.... must be limited to 14% in ANY of the alternatives A/B/C. The commission has already seen the pitfall of adopting 20%.... it simply CANNOT fulfill the intended conservation objective of the policy. The commission understands 20% is a recipe for certain failure... so much that they planted a 14% rate in the interim policy for 2015. Adopting 20% can only be seen as a step backward in moving the conservation agenda forward.

...

OK ... holy krap! Two more alternatives (D/E) since the last draft. Alternatives A/B/C should just be taken off the table since they all propose an irresponsible 20% harvest rate. D/E have no transition period and jump straight to the 14% rate in the first year.

Will review D/E side by side against the rest of the A/B/C options.

....

OK, I put A and D up side by side in two windows, same size/font, and they are identical EXCEPT for the elimination of the 20% transitional phase-in during the first 4 years. Willapa Primary and Naselle undesignated with a 'pie in the sky' ramp up to 3.3 million chinook production.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/15/15 07:06 PM

FYI Alternative E is basically a synopsis of the essential policy elements endorsed by the Twin Harbors Advocacy as well as the WB Advisory Members representing the recreational and conservation sectors.

...

The principal difference between D and E is that Alternative E seeks a Contributing stock designation for Naselle chinook without the 'pie in the sky' ramp up to 3.3 million hatchery production. Instead a much more realistic and sustainable hatchery production goal od 0.8 million is proposed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/16/15 05:56 AM


You pegged the "aggregate" Doc but they stuck it in for all three species. That lets them create a "kill zone " fishery in the South Bay.
Not good.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/18/15 09:51 AM


Some had questions on why the GH & Willapa Rec seasons were not in the NOF so below is Steve's response to the question.


With the delay on Willapa, we had to do them separately. Hopefully she will be getting out soon.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone



Hey,

I am being bombarded by folks wanting to know why GH & Willapa Rec seasons worked out in the local NOF are not in the CR 102 Ashbook sent out for comment below. Could you enlighten me so I can let folks know?

Dave

From: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW) [mailto:Charmane.Ashbrook@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 3:24 PM
To: Ashbrook, Charmane E (DFW)
Subject: Recreational Salmon Fishing Rule Process: Public hearing, CR-102 Filing, & How to receive future information

Good Afternoon,

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing rule changes for recreational salmon fishing. The agency developed these changes through a pre-season planning process known as “North of Falcon” that includes a series of public meetings with federal, state, tribal and industry representatives and other concerned citizens. Rules based on the North of Falcon planning process change from year to year to reflect resource availability and achieve conservation goals.

The CR-102 and proposed WAC can be viewed and downloaded at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html.

In accordance with RCW 34.05.320, a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 9, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., at the Natural Resources Building, Room 682, 1111 Washington St., SE, Olympia, WA, 98504.

Please also be aware that to reduce paper and associated costs, from now on this information will be provided through email and public news release. To continue receiving this information, please sign up at this website, http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/, and select “WDFW Regulation Updates.” The public news release will continue to provide contact information for those that need a hard copy.

In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing, you may submit written comments to me, Charmane Ashbrook, as shown below. WDFW must receive comments by June 9, 2015. For an electronic or printed copy of the proposed rules, please email me at Charmane.Ashbrook@dfw.wa.gov or call me at 360-586-0734.

Charmane Ashbrook
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
via e-mail at Charmane.Ashbrook@dfw.wa.gov
via fax at (360) 902-2183.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/27/15 06:26 AM



Attached and below are comments on the final draft of the WMP put together by the Advocacy. I think that about 18 of us signed on to the letter which is a bit of a shock as getting on the same page was similar to herding cats! Key things?

• A 14% harvest rate for both the North & South portions of the bay.
Modified
• 2.Modified Option E is the only way to go.
• Also staff is playing games with a couple things identified.

So take a look and see what you think. I have some additional thoughts I will get out in the next couple of days but we are getting close to closing time.





WB Request For Adoption Of An Interim Policy For Willapa Bay Fisheries



May 26, 2015 Via Email

The Honorable Members
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091

RE: WB Salmon Management Policy Recommendations

Dear Commissioners:

The 17 individuals who have served on the Ad Hoc Committee or regularly attended the public meetings in Raymond that are shown as endorsees below have reviewed the latest draft for a new salmon management policy for Willapa Bay. We respectfully reject Alternatives A-D and endorse Alternative E. Further, we offer several suggestions for improvements to Alternative E that we believe would prove helpful to restoring natural spawning stocks and increase the likelihood that recovery can be attained within the next two decades.

Our suggestions to Alternative E have been incorporated into the latest draft produced by the Department and attached in a PDF file format. The attachment shows deletions in red strikethrough and our additional language or changes in blue (see Strikethrough_Option E with improvements.pdf).

We offer the following comments and recommendations to the members of the Commission regarding the numerous alternatives for Chinook management.

Alternatives A-D All of these Alternatives are fatally flawed for the following reasons:

1. The AHA modeling during the ad hoc process found a maximum harvest rate of 14% on both the south and north tributaries would be required in order for natural spawning to recover within 16-21 years. The harvest rate of 20% or 14% on only a single river (Willapa) with no limitation on others will delay recover further into the future and creates a scenario where recovery is likely to never be achieved in the majority of tributaries throughout the rest of the bay. Last season, the harvest rate was capped at 20% in the Naselle only. The end result was a harvest at 38.8% in the Naselle and significantly higher in the Willapa. Having a single stream harvest rate has led to the Department setting seasons that dramatically increase the harvest against the other streams that are provided little if any protection from over-harvesting. The harvest occurring on the non- index streams during seasons installed by the Department has exceeded the harvest rate maximum for the index stream by a factor of 3-4. Use of a single stream as a harvest index will effectively delay if not block entirely, the restoration of natural spawning on the other less fortunate streams.

2. The use of "aggregates" creates similar problems for in season adjustments and managing for escapement goals. In essence, all the stocks in all the different tributaries are combined for harvest management or spawning escapement into a single Chinook, Coho, and Chum for the entire bay. While the Department's harvest model and the AHA model separates the different river runs for harvest rates and escapement goals, Alternatives A-D basically allow the Department to ignore over-harvest occurring on Chinook in one or more streams by linking in season adjustments to an aggregate number for the entire bay. The same linkage is installed for escapement goals for Coho and Chum. The use of aggregate thresholds allows the Department to regularly fail to reach its goals for harvest or escapement as long as it can get a portion of the Bay to compensate for the other. One example would be having Chinook restoration occurring in the northern tributaries where recreational priority has been limited while over-harvesting with the commercial sector on all the southern tributaries is preventing escapement from occurring. A reverse example would be having Coho in the south coming out of the Naselle with its problem weir cover for a decline in Coho occurring in the Willapa or North River. Hatchery Reform should apply to the entire bay, not just a single stream.

3. The Chinook hatchery production in the future will drop dramatically out of Forks Creek in the Willapa River. Restoration of the natural spawning production quickly as possible is of critical importance if one wishes to have any meaningful harvest opportunity once the past hatchery releases have cleared. It is therefore imperative that hatchery runs returning to the Willapa River over the next 4 years be allowed to jump start natural spawning (adverse impacts to current natural spawners is not expected as the stray rate has been historically high as 4-1 hatchery fish over the last decade). The Chinook "stage up" in the lower stretches close to the mouth of the Willapa in late August and early September in the lower reaches of the Willapa River waiting to spawn. These staging areas are included in marine Area 2U and open to commercial harvest approximately 5 miles up from the mouth of the river to the 101 bridge in Raymond. Alternatives A-D install the commercial fleet in 2U after Labor Day in the first four years and then not prior to September 16 in the second phase. While filling nets with the last of the large hatchery releases will be financially rewarding to the commercial sector over the first 4 years, it will leave the Willapa River effectively "clear-cut", delay recovery, and at the same time, provide little meaningful harvest opportunity in the future for others once the nets are cleared back.

4. Hatchery Reform seems to the public to be a procedure for operating hatcheries in a manner that is compatible with the native spawning populations. The creative use of stream designations contained in Alternatives A-D that move streams with existing hatcheries down to the lowest ranking of stabilizing effectively negates the implementation of Hatchery Reform. As an example, the Naselle has one of the better Coho natural production spawning capacities that warrants recognition as either a prime or at least a contributing but also has a hatchery with a weir problem that allows excessive hatchery straying into the spawning grounds. The most obvious simple solution would be to cure the problem with the weir. The solution contained in Alternatives A-D is to creatively insert a stream designation of "stabilizing" to the Naselle for Coho effectively making an "end run" around HSRG standards for straying. To label hatchery streams like the Naselle as stabilizing effectively stands down hatchery reform except in those areas where no hatchery exists.

Alternatives E The general language of the full policy and the hatchery production levels create problems for many in the public sector. Such is especially the case for those who recreational fish for Chinook in the north who will see Chinook production in Forks Creek decline dramatically due to the lack of a weir in the mainstream of the Willapa
River. Alternative E is the only alternative that rises to the challenge of installing hatchery reform and seeks to achieve restoration of natural origin populations during most of our lifetimes. Simply put, AHA modeling shows that it is unlikely to achieve restoration within the next 27 years unless a maximum harvest rate of 14% is installed for both, the Willapa and the Naselle. Having a harvest cap for both provides necessary protection from seasons being set that over-harvest in either end of the bay. Without a cap on both, one end of the bay or the other is not likely to ever see natural spawning populations recover. Therefore, Alternative E is the only alternative that provides a potential for successfully recovering natural spawning Chinook in Willapa Bay.

We offer several suggested changes to Alternative E that we believe would greatly enhance the policy in fulfilling its purposes and reaching the goals. The changes are relatively easy to install and are included in the draft language markup that is attached. The changes are as follows:

1. (Addressing the aggregate problem) Under the "Guiding Principals" section, add a new subsection as follows:

12) When managing fisheries using an “aggregate”, the Department shall utilize an aggregate of streams flowing into the north of Willapa Bay (Areas 2T, 2U, 2K) and an aggregate of streams flowing into the south of Willapa Bay (Areas 2N, 2M, 2R, 2P).

2. (Addressing the need to let the next four years of Chinook hatchery returns accelerate the restoration of natural spawners in the Willapa River) In Alternative E, delete the early start time of commercial seasons in the north set forth in Phase 1 and use the start times found in Phase 2
for years five and beyond. The effect of this change would be to move the commercial start time back from “after Labor Day” as set in the current draft for Phase 1 until September 7th in the south and September 15 in the North as set forth under Phase 2.

3. (Addressing the two options for Chum harvest) Under Section 3) of the Chum Salmon heading, select Option B for harvest impact limitations which is based on the language contained in the GH Policy.

Again, the individuals listed below that have served on the ad hoc committee and attended the public workshops in Raymond for all these months are requesting that the members of the Commission incorporate Alternative E into the new policy. Further, while the suggested changes shown above might seem relatively minor to some, the recommended improvements to Alternative E listed above will greatly improve the chances of success for the new
policy. Therefore, we strongly encourage the members of the Commission to consider our suggested improvements to Alternative E for incorporation as well.

Sincerely-
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/29/15 11:28 AM


The following are comments from a AD HOC member of the Willapa Management Policy Advisers. I think his comments mirror what many others are saying. It is time for all to get their thoughts on the WMP into the Commission. For all whatever your thoughts the 14% harvest rate for the ENTIRE Willapa Estuary is critical.




Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:36 PM
To: 'director@dfw.wa.gov'; 'commission@dfw.wa.gov'
Subject: Willapa Bay Policy.

Dear Commissioners and Director,

I am writing to provide feedback on the ongoing Willapa Bay salmon policy development process.

I was recruited as an ad-hoc member last year and have been following the process closely, including attendance at several of the town hall meetings, advisory meeting, and commission meetings. As a recreational angler for salmon, I view the process through the prism of angler opportunity and have advocated for a policy that maximizes economic benefits while achieving the commissions stated conservation goals.

In particular the chinook policy options under consideration fail to maximize economic benefits relative to natural origin chinook spawners, and only one (option E) has any hope of achieving the stated conservation goals 20 years from now. As the policy process has evolved, it has become increasingly clear that WDFW staff are pursuing an agenda independent of public input that maximizes gillnet harvest at the expense of both conservation goals and other user groups. If this is really the intent of the policy, it should be clearly stated as such, and I will accept this. As it stands, the policy suggests that commercial harvest and recreational opportunity are balanced priorities secondary to achieving conservation goals.

The actual situation deviates considerably from the stated policy. At the outset of the policy development process, the commission articulated a vision for a recreational priority for chinook management giving some hope that the very least a balanced approach to allocation issues might at last be achievable. From that initial guidance, WDFW staff have somehow arrived at a policy where 4 out of 5 options will clearly increase gear conflicts between the commercial and recreational sectors and all options allocate the vast majority of impacts to the commercial fleet.

Equally important, all policy options are predicated on a more than 10-fold reduction in hatchery chinook production at Forks Creek (from 3,200,000 to 300,000) which supports the majority of marine recreational chinook opportunity and over a third of the Willapa bay tributary freshwater opportunity for chinook. Please see attached information. Both these changes will dramatically reduce recreational chinook catch and meaningful opportunity. I fear that once fully implemented the policy will essentially eliminate meaningful marine recreational chinook opportunity in Willapa bay.

To conclude, it is difficult to imagine how I could be more dissatisfied with my involvement in the policy adoption process. It has become crystal clear that the entire process is governed by political considerations rather than science/conservation or public involvement. It is equally clear that all of my input to WDFW, based on a good faith analysis of existing data provided by WDFW staff, has been disregarded in the decision making process. Likewise, the process itself has been tarnished by the unprofessional behavior of several members of the advisory committee.

Taken together, my experience with the Willapa Bay advisory group and the general outcomes at NOF over the past several seasons suggest that WDFW is doing a poor job of managing the state’s salmon resources; management decisions are clearly focused on the desires of select special interest groups rather than the needs of the majority. If this downward trend continues, my family will spend its time on the water, license fees, and recreational fishing dollars outside the state of Washington as our neighbors to both the north and south do still seem to value recreational salmon fishing for its considerable economic impacts.

Sincerely,
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/31/15 07:18 AM


What we have here are my final comments on the Willapa Management Policy draft. ( WMP ) Myself and others worked with the Advocacy to address most issues in the WMP draft which was posted previously.

So take a look and see what you all think. The critical thing for all is the 14% harvest rate for Chinook in the entire Willapa Estuary. Without that all the miles running around to meetings will have been a total waste of time. Also several side bar issues remain with Coho & Chum which I commented on.

Regardless of your views I urge all to submit your final comments on the WMP to the Commission. commission@dfw.wa.gov I would also urge all to CC the Director director@dfw.wa.gov . It really is your last shot as a citizen to put forth your thoughts for consideration.





Commissioners,

Myself and many others that participated in the Willapa Management Policy ( WMP ) process have worked to develop comments on the final draft of the WMP with the Advocacy for your consideration. Difficult as it is to get the views of all captured in a workable document I do believe the modifications suggested are well thought out and doable. I urge the Commissioners to adopt the modified option E and other changes suggested by the citizens working with the Advocacy.

As the WMP process evolved it was a difficult journey for all. Deep divisions were apparent between user groups and to be honest agency staff did not help with the manner issues were addressed. That said what the agency did do well was the AHA model. The intense effort to proof the AHA model by staff and the contractors was apparent with excellent results. Despite considerable opposition from both Recreational and Commercial fishers staff stayed the course and got it right.

So why do we have a problem? AHA model identified that a harvest rate of 14% for the entire Willapa Estuary ( both North & South regions ) was needed for recovery. It is not that the AHA model failed but rather staff and many others did not like the answer it provided. At a Commission meeting early in the process Commissioner Mahnken told all that the WMP effort to comply with HSRG was going to be difficult and painful which it has been, is at the present, and will be in the future. Because HSRG standards may be difficult to achieve is not a reason to stand down HSRG standards but rather should be viewed as the catalyst to motivate agency staff, Commercial & Recreational fishers, and Conservationist interest to change how we do business. For Recreational fishers it will mean changes in what areas we fish. Conservation driven advocates will need to accept something less than perfection. Commercial fishers will need to move to alternate harvest methods rather than the traditional gillnet. For the agency the effort to redefine how the Willapa Estuary Hatchery Complex production is produced will be very difficult. The AHA model dictates a 14% harvest rate for recovery and must be maintained in the future. Frankly as difficult as it will be it is the only hope to recover and redefine conservation driven harvest in the Willapa Estuary in the future. I urge you to continue the recovery process in the Willapa Estuary and adopt a maximum of a 14% harvest rate for both the Northern and Southern streams in the Willapa Estuary.

Additionally I would like to comment on two other issues. Throughout the WMP process staff has constantly altered and moved stream designations ( primary/ contributing/stabilizing ) to enable different levels of hatchery production. HSRG stream designations have definite definitions / requirements and are not intended to be multiple choice to stand down HSRG standards. While this is clearly an attempt to skirt HSRG requirements in the case of the Naselle Coho it is driven by the inability to stop hatchery origin Coho adults from straying. Dependant on flows the Naselle weir is removed around October 15th which simply means straying of hatchery origin Coho above acceptable HSRG levels is guaranteed. Staffs response in the draft WMP is to designate Naselle River as a stabilizing stream for Coho to allow much higher straying rate but bring the hatchery broodstock to contributing requirements. Again Commissioners this is a failure to meet HSRG requirements on straying and an attempt to skirt HSRG requirements. As one of the two largest streams in the Willapa Estuary the Naselle River is at the least a contributing stream or primary for Coho and those standards should be applied.

So what to do is the question. Regardless of what the Commission chooses to do the simple fact is that for the first four years of the WMP the agency and users will be in a transition from the current production to that required by HSRG. I urge the Commission to consider a alternate approach for the Naselle River Natural Coho and hatchery Coho production.

A. Designate Naselle as contributing Coho stream for Natural Origin Coho Recruits ( NOR ) which is compliant with HSRG.

B. Allow the agency to utilize the first four years as a transition period for the Naselle Hatchery to allow staff to develop a solution and seek funding required for what is necessary to comply with HSRG.

C: If after four years the agency fails to obtain funding to modify the Naselle Hatchery or develop a HSRG compliant alternate solution for hatchery straying then all the requirements of a contributing stream be immediately applied with no exceptions.

Throughout the WMP process users, ( both commercial & recreational ) elected officials, and special interest have put forth a wide range of ideas. Some were doable, many were not but nearly all have a price tag in dollars. So this is the challenge for all. To meet HSRG requirements the Naselle hatchery needs weir modification, replacement, or a alternate solution compliant with HSRG. It falls not on the agency alone to attempt to obtain funding for this but ALL mentioned previously. In simple terms on this issue it is time for all users and their supporters to work with staff and our elected officials to seek funding for a solution. If we fail to do so, so be it and implement all HSRG requirements for a contributing stream, no exceptions.

Again it will be difficult but this can be done Commissioners. Whatever the Commission's solution to the Naselle Hatchery Coho issue what should not be done under any circumstances is to stand down HSRG requirements as has been the agencies response to this issue.

The other issue that I wish to address and formally object to revolves around Chum escapement goals. During the WMP process three times the lowering of the Chum escapement goal was discussed between staff and Commercial fishers. In fact when pressed by a Commercial fisher staff identified the new escapement goal looked to be around 17,000 & change. Two things come to mind. First it is highly inappropriate for staff to have conversations with only the Commercial interest on a issue such as this without the public being aware or provided the same opportunity and information. Secondly Commissioners the Willapa Estuary was the premier natural Chum producer in the state for most of the last century. That Willapa Estuary Chum are struggling is a given but the cause other than overharvest has not been identified or put out for review by the scientific community. In fact many believe the cause is not entirely the streams and overharvest but the bay itself and human activities such as spraying chemicals. The failure by Region 6 District 17 staff to clearly define the cause of declining Chum numbers should not be accepted by simply lowering the Chum escapement goal.

I urge the Commission to require any changes to any Salmon stock escapement goals ( of greatest importance being Chum ) be brought to the Commission for review and the supporting documentation made public for a full scientific review by third parties before implementation of any reduction in escapement goals. Frankly Commissioners I think my neighbors comments about capture the issue. " They ( the agency ) make a mess out of things and rather than find out what went wrong WDF&W wants to lower escapement goals. Why don't they find out what went wrong and fix it? When does it stop? At zero? " I think John's questions captures the issue.

Sincerely




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/31/15 09:22 AM


I thought I would post this paper sent to the Commission on the Willapa Estuary & its condition by a local advocate. I think he captures the issue.


Executive Summary

The ecological status of Willapa Bay, Washington, has changed rapidly in the last fifteen years, and not for the better. All of its iconic wild species of animals and plants are in a deteriorated state. These changes are impacted by action of state agencies, recently at an accellerated pace. While the bay suffers from long term neglect of salmon management standards and habitat protection statutes, recent actions are piling on losses at a more alarming rate. Where goals exist, they are not being met. " No net loss of ecological function" is the law of the state. Unmonitored net loss, or monitored with no effective corrective action, has been the practice in Willapa Bay.

Analysis

A major invasion of the plant spartina proceeded over several decades. It was displacing eelgrass and needed to be removed. Suddenly, about year 2000, excess caution was replaced with no caution and a massive spray campaign ensued. As a result, spartina was largely removed, and by 2008 large, collateral damage resulted. Chum salmon and waterfowl immediately declined. During the bulk of spartina removal, eelgrass net loss was not monitored, in keeping with tradition. Only one aerial survey of eelgrass can be found, published in 2007. Even this late survey shows Zostera marina where it is now absent and has never returned. None have been published since. Waterfowl surveys were suspended during the entire spartina campaign. The larger eelgrass, Zostera marina, and the smaller eelgrass, Zostera japonica, which we call "duckgrass" suffered major collateral damage. Pacific Brant, which rely on marina, have never recovered, nor has marina. Duck grass recovered more rapidly in the more suitable areas, as did the ducks that depend on it. Waterfowl surveys, reinstituted in 2012, showed good numbers for two years, followed by a crash in 2014 with the onset of a spray campaign directed at eelgrass. Chum and Chinook salmon escapement of Natural Origin Spawners (NOS) failed to meet WDFW goals starting one spawning cycle after the spartina program did, and have never recovered. The NOS Chinook do not show up in acceptable numbers, and those that do are genetically, statistically, overwhelmed on the spawning beds by by more numerous hatchery fish that are less reliant on bay habitat to survive the juvenile portion of their life cycles. This is now true for every major river in the Willapa Drainage. In the North River they are essentially gone. This is one of the two rivers earmarked for NOS Chinook recovery several years ago, when there were many more present. Poorly situated overharvest finished the job on North River. Endangered Green Sturgeon and white sturgeon are gone fron Willapa Bay. We have new leadership in WDFW. It is concentrating on harvest. We have hope. Still, WDFW seems to have little to say about habitat, the other root cause. This must follow.


Historically both species of eelgrass were protected by a state " no net loss" requirement. Their restoration was required, and this was not monitored or enforced. In 2011, WDFW removed duckgrass from protected habitat status. This was the enabler for a chain of events involving multiple state agencies which ended in early 2014 with issuance of a Department of Ecology NPDES permit to chemically remove duckgrass, along with marina on the bed being treated. In keeping with tradition, this permit requires no monitoring on net loss of marina, and no restoration. It is backed by an Environental Impact Statement that assumes waterfowl forage requirements one thousand times less than truth. The major math "error" that caused this has been pointed out, and remains uncorrected. At the request of the state Departent of Ecology, an appeal of this permit has been delayed until October 2015, allowing another year of wide open spraying. In 2014, waterfowl numbers crashed again in Willapa Bay. Along the Long Beach peninsula, where there are normally several thousand ducks at peak, there were 32 widgeon and zero pintail observed. The bay wide peak average of 85,000 over the previous two years dropped to 22,000 in 2014. Such a drop has not been counted in thirty years. In 2014 flyway numbers were above average, but not in Willapa Bay. In Puget Sound eelgrass is being restored, while it is being removed in Willapa Bay. Both species are protected in Puget Sound, although Ecology has now asked them not to.

To the casual observer, it must seem shocking that things can happen so fast, with spraying that "should" be diluted by tides and carried out to sea. This was the claim of the state permit's impact statement. Actually, bad things can happen fast because Willapa Bay has a peculiar circulation pattern which moves seawater and pollutants with a net inflow on the west side. It goes south of a dispersion or low flushing zone and stays there for many weeks. The average age of water south of Nahcotta and Bay Center is 45 to 60 days. Eventually this water and contents are carried back out on the east side to the North. When a certain seasoned oceanographer pointed this out, the state attorney general labelled him unqualified to speak. Back in the day, such estuarine types were called Vertical Boundary Estuaries. Today a more recent UW paper on Willapa Bay has different labels, but has shown exactly the circulation of such an estuary. It contains exquisite detail, makes the same points about flushing and circulation, and receives the same state consideration, i.e. none. Apparently DOE has repealed density gradients and Coriolis Force, along with fish biology and waterfowl carrying capacity math. Chemicals that, in minute concentrations, can retard plant growth without killing or deforming, are circulated and retained in a situation that should be alarming. The ducks knew the condition of their food, ate what little was there, and left. Salmon and sturgeon are stuck in this cycle. With any overharvesting, they just disappear.

After ten years of " no targeted harvest", chum salmon, which used to fill a bay with a carrying capacity of 80,000 to 200,000 now cannot make an escapement goal of 35,000 fish. Chinook have made their escapement goal once in fifteen years. Brant are almost gone. Ducks are at a 30 year low. Sturgeon are gone, with zero retention allowed. Green sturgeon are endangered. After a few decades of removal of their favorite forage, burrowing shrimp, it is over for them. We now can see that carrying capacity, in addition to harvest control, is the key to all of the above and the bay has lost much carrying capacity for our iconic species. They all depend directly or indirectly on eelgrass. This key habitat is being removed under state permits and negligence of our own standards.

The waters of Willapa Bay were put here by the world's great flood. Under the waters are the eelgrasses. Under the grass are their words. How long will these words haunt us?


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/15 06:48 AM


I thought I would get this Letter To The Editor out that was published in the Chinook Observer May 27th. It is a interesting read and I think relevant to the Willapa Management Policy that is soon to be adopted. So read on and a big hand to Marlisa Williams Dugan for speaking out!



Sport fishing great in bay in 2015

Past commercial over-harvesting of our naturally spawning Chinook has placed natural-origin spawners at critically low levels. Protecting this population today is urgent to avoid possible Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing in the not so distant future. Our best science tells us that even with a reduced 14 percent commercial impact on Chinook we can only hope to make our projected escapement goals in 16 to 21 years. Good grief, some of us might not live long enough to see that happen.

We can’t control global warming and changing ocean temperatures, which will likely contribute to a decline in future salmon returns. But we can begin to control how many Chinook salmon get to the spawning grounds. It’s high time we began managing for a self-sustaining wild population in meaningful numbers along side the abundant hatchery productions we all need to have a decent fishing day.

ADHOC committee members like myself strongly advocate for more recreational fishing opportunity. The gillnetters have been consuming around 93 percent of the returning salmon population, with the recreational fishing community getting approximately 3 percent. It’s like running a handicapped race, with no legs.

1. Selective fishing gear is required for recreational users: barbless hooks, no nets, release all wild Chinook, fish the bay after the commercial fleet has cleaned it out, and freshwater opportunity is the trickle down left over theory.

2. The commercial fleet has been allowed to use a non-selective gillnet and kill nearly the entire projected run of the wild Chinook population in 2014. They’ve had inadequate monitoring by the Department of Fisheries and have never fished within the projected impacts given. If the Willapa gets ESA listed it will be the fault of every gillnetter and Fisheries Department personnel who assisted in creating the commercial gillnet seasons on Chinook.

I want to believe there are good administrators within Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Fish and Wildlife Commission today who are willing to make a stand with conservation and to allocate our salmon evenly between the user groups — 50 percent of the returning Chinook salmon should belong to the commercial fleet and 50 percent should belong to the marine and freshwater fishers. The commercial fleet should be held to fishing within the impacts allowed on troubled species, end of story, no dispute!

The quicker we can jumpstart these declining Chinook and chum populations, the quicker commercial impacts will increase to more acceptable numbers. Alternative, selective commercial fishing methods are needed to allow targeting the abundant hatchery Chinook populations.

Sadly, throughout the advisory meeting process only one single gillnetter continued to attend the meetings and work the process, discussing the dreaded tangle net, and that was Allan Hollingsworth. Through adversity and disappointment he conducted himself like a gentleman. The political fallout from being on the opposing side of this struggle between the commercial gillnetters and the conservation supporters has recreational fishers and conservation supporters being attacked by gillnet propaganda.

First, let me state my support of Miranda Wecker from Naselle. Miranda has conducted herself with political decorum we can all learn from. The citizens of the state of Washington are fortunate to have an individual of this caliber appointed to the commission. Amidst underhanded political maneuvering to remove her from her influential position as the chairperson on the Fish and Wildlife committee she stands tall and resolute, trying to do the right thing for your fishing future. She has seen the scientific data and listened to the information presented by biologists, the Department of Fisheries and the ADHOC committee members. She understands the importance of taking preservational steps today, the importance of getting our head out of the sand and beginning the process of rebuilding our naturally spawning Chinook salmon before we get ESA listed on Willapa Bay Chinook.

For the record, I support commercial fishing to feed those who don’t fish for themselves. Commercial ocean fishing and inland bay commercial fisheries are facing changing times. Willapa Bay had more Coho than the commercial fleet could catch in 2014, fishing seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Good for them! I’m glad for these extravagant returns and hopefully a silver lining in their pocket books. As long as they can fish on a targeted species without deprecating another, have at it. There is room to share our salmon populations with more equal distribution among conservation, commercial and recreation.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission, after much resistance, has been able to implement an interim policy for 2015 that guides the Washington Department of Fisheries to manage the wild Chinook fisheries with greater conservation. This policy opens the door for the selective sports fisherman to scoop up thousands of abundant hatchery fish this year:

1. No commercial fishing until after Labor Day in 2015.

2. The commercial fleet is reduced to a 14 percent impact on wild Chinook. This means once they have killed 14 percent of the naturally spawning Chinook they cannot fish again until the Chinook run is out of the bay. This new policy has re-directed the commercial fishermen to using their impacts after Labor Day, focusing on the Coho season in September — placing the commercial focus on Coho.

3. Recreational marine bag limits will be six fish, four adults, release all wild Chinook.

Willapa Bay is considered a build up fishery. The Chinook start migrating into the bay in late July and early August in meaningful numbers. They begin staging for the different rivers moving into separate areas of the bay as the season progresses. The Coho and the Chinook start to be a mixed bag in mid-August. In 2015, the bay should be piled with abundant hatchery Chinook and Coho with the absence of all commercial fishing until Sept. 8 this year

Freshwater fishing promises to be excellent also, with a four adult bag limit — all freshwater areas — release all wild Chinook at the start of the fishing season.
Recreational advisors have been advocating the re-opening of closed freshwater areas on the Naselle, Nemah and Willapa for 2015 to increase recreational opportunity … legal issues are being addressed regarding the ability of the Department of Fisheries to keep rivers closed where and when no conservation limitations apply. All Willapa tributaries should see Chinook entering the rivers in larger numbers prior to Sept. 8 this year due to gill net restrictions. The next four years promise a freshwater recreational opportunity on Chinook prior to Labor Day on the Willapa and the Nemah unlike anything we’ve seen. Abundant hatchery Chinook could flood these rivers with a little rain at the right time. It’s time to dust off the fishing gear and pursue your share.

Please remember to respect private property. Property owners who post their land expect you to stay off. Scoping out permission in advance this year could give you an advantage. Ask permission prior to entering or get guidance to publicly available areas. Trespassing violations can be prosecuted. Williams Park on the North Nemah is stepping up to provide additional recreational opportunity by sponsoring a day of fishing in August for the Wounded Warrior Program — disabled veterans can make contact at fishthenemah@comcast.net for details. I am coordinating the event. A non-disabled companion must accompany each disabled fisherman. Day parking and restrooms are available. Golf carts can assist with transportation to and from the river for those that need it. The event honors our wounded military men and women.

If I were the South Bend Chamber of Commerce I would be busy facilitating extended parking for the Ron Craig Boat Launch. Some type of overflow parking and shuttle service will be needed or boaters will go elsewhere. Unparalleled Chinook and Coho fishing opportunities will continue in 2015 through 2019 regardless of budget cuts or hatchery productions to come in the future. These salmon are already out there, growing and on their way back to the Willapa. This, combined with the ESA listing of Puget Sound Chinook, has thousands of boaters looking for somewhere else to fish. The protected water of Willapa Bay offers an attractive alternative for those unwilling to brave ocean fishing or the Columbia. South Bend and Raymond are woefully unequipped to facilitate camping and housing to keep these recreational dollars from escaping. Picturesque South Bend could become the new Tillamook of the west coast if they can keep the salmon supply steady. Opportunity is knocking, it will be interesting to see if the business community can rise to the bait.

I would love to see South Bend and Raymond overflow with a fishing tourist trade this summer … someone should address the boat parking issue.

Marlisa Williams Dugan


Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/15 07:44 PM

WDFW has dropped the CR-102 for the 2015 WB commercial season and the public hearing is set for Tues June 9 2015 9:00 AM at the NRB.

I see that the entire August "dip in" has been eliminated.

First comm opener is delayed until Sunday Sept 13 in areas south of the usual/customary rec fishing zones.

2T opens Monday Sept 14 AFTER the weekend rec fishery is done.

These are GOOD things that have happened due to the diligent work of non-commercial advisors and the Twin Harbors Fish/Wildlife Advocacy. Give them a BIG round opt applause!

I suspect the commercial sector may show up in force to object to the proposed season in the CR-102.

If you are unable to attend the hearing, written comments in support of the CR-102 can be submitted to:

Charmane Ashbrook
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
via e-mail at Charmane.Ashbrook@dfw.wa.gov
via fax at (360) 902-2183.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/15 07:40 AM

At a first look both Grays Harbor & Willapa appear to comply with the management policies for both. In GH the putting the NT nets in on Sunday is a bit problematic as it takes away the Lakeside ( above the 101 bridge ) and Port reach's for the weekend fishers. ( it is a mom & pop type fishery ) As they have a unique way of calculating partial days one does not want to drop in days for impacts without the numbers so I have requested the models so one can see the projected impacts by species.

As to fresh water ( inriver ) those changes are not in the Rec NOF CR102 that was filed. I assume that staff will use a emergency rule to update those. Assume is the key word here.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/15 10:07 AM

Is the CR-102 on the Dept's website? I couldn't find it.
Posted by: J. T. Piscator

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/15 10:38 AM

The CR 102 for Commercial Fishing in the Harbor is on the web site. I am concerned because I have been trying to obtain the CR 102 for Sportfishing in the Grays Harbor area rivers. I was told that it was filed the same day as the CR 102 for commercial fishing and would be posted on the website but is has been 2 1/2 days but it is not there.
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/15 11:43 AM

You can find the CR 102 rule making links here:


http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/15 12:25 PM

Thanks. thumbs
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/09/15 12:50 PM


Here is a link to the proposed GH & Willapa REC seasons modeled up on FTC. It is a bit to transfer off Excel and formatting goes nuts. So hope this helps. Remember this is PROPOSED.

http://fishingthechehalis.net/daves-blog
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/09/15 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
In GH the putting the NT nets in on Sunday is a bit problematic as it takes away the Lakeside ( above the 101 bridge ) and Port reach's for the weekend fishers. ( it is a mom & pop type fishery )


WDFW, this is unacceptable! there are handicapped and elderly people who fish there because it is the only place they can get to easily. These non tribal gillnetters need their umbilical welfare lifeline cut, and right now. Just [Bleeeeep!] get it over with for crying out loud. Enough manipulations. JUST SAY NO TO IN-RIVER GILL NETTING!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/09/15 08:39 PM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains

WDFW, this is unacceptable! there are handicapped and elderly people who fish there because it is the only place they can get to easily. These non tribal gillnetters need their umbilical welfare lifeline cut, and right now. Just [Bleeeeep!] get it over with for crying out loud. Enough manipulations. JUST SAY NO TO IN-RIVER GILL NETTING!


WDFW does not hear this....2A, in river, is the one of the very favorite netting area to some of the "favorite gill netters".....this has been approached many, many, many, many, times over the past few years.

All the past WDFW Region 6 "upper personnel" have refused to listen to any approach to 2A as the area of the Chehalis River that should be small boat and handicapped fisherpersons over NT gill netting.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/11/15 06:51 AM


Last heads up for the Commission meeting with Willapa Management Policy front & center. As hard as it is to give up a Saturday I urge folks to attend and participate. I can say for sure at this minute senior agency staff & Commercial interest are in a all out full court press to roll back reform in the Willapa Estuary. It is in the trenches time guys or accept the outcome that staff is pushing to throw conservation under the bus.


NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/
June 9, 2015
Contact: Commission Office, (306) 902-2267
Commission will consider salmon policy
for Willapa Bay, discuss wildlife-conflict rules
OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is expected to take action on a new management policy for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries and a proposal to reopen fisheries for some flatfish in two bays in Hood Canal at a public meeting June 12-13 in Olympia.

The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the Governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), will also invite public comments on new rules addressing conflicts between people and wildlife.

The commission will meet both days in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E., on the state Capital Campus in Olympia. A complete agenda is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html.
State fishery managers have been working since last October with a citizen committee and the public to develop options for a new policy for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries. The current proposal, which would take effect next year, includes provisions to conserve wild salmon, clarify catch allocation, and reduce conflicts between sport and commercial fishers in the bay.

In separate action, the commission will consider a proposal by WDFW to reopen recreational fishing for flounder, sole and other flatfish - except halibut - in Quilcene Bay and the northern portion of Dabob Bay in Hood Canal.

Due to low-dissolved oxygen conditions, Hood Canal has been closed to fishing for flatfish since August 2004, but fishery managers believe they can allow recreational fishing for some flatfish in Quilcene and Dabob bays while providing adequate protection for those stocks.
WDFW is also seeking a variety of changes in state rules addressing crop damage, predation on livestock and other sources of conflict between humans and wildlife. One proposal clarifies requirements for a crop or livestock producer to receive state compensation for losses caused by wildlife. Another provision modifies certification requirements for state Wildlife Control Operators.

WDFW will also accept written comments on this issue through June 30 online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/wildlife_interaction/ or by mail to "Wildlife Conflict Rules," Wildlife Program, at 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501.
In addition, WDFW is proposing to acquire 15.4 acres to improve elk fencing in Kittitas County, and purchase two smaller parcels in Kitsap and Snohomish counties for mitigation purposes. The department also proposes granting an easement for a water pipeline in Clark County, and auctioning off four properties in Skagit and Whatcom counties that have not provided suitable habitat for fish and wildlife.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/11/15 12:55 PM

I just thought I would post my public comment to the commission concerning the new Willapa Bay policy. The 9:00 am Saturday meeting will be worth attending.

After extensive modeling with the new AHA model the department demonstrated that the maximum exploitation of Naselle natural origin Chinook is 14% if recovery of the run is to be achieved in 16-21 years. Anything beyond 14% will result in perpetuating the decline. It was disappointing that the department focused on a 20% exploitation rate in proposed versions A, B, and C. After the commission asked the department for a plan using a maximum of 14% exploitation there are now five proposed versions, A, B, C, D, and E. It should be an outright embarrassment to the leadership that these first three versions at 20% exploitation are still on the table.

The department’s long term focus on harvesting to the last theoretically available fish clearly shows in these models. Recovery of weak natural origin stocks seems to be a concept that the department does not buy into. At first the commission’s request to model 14% exploitation seemed extreme because it would limit harvest. Upon further reflection this is really the maximum exploitation rate possible if recovery is ever going to be achieved. Imprecision in the model or over exploitation by the harvesters may result in never achieving recovery. The department really should have presented a plan that was based on one or two percent less exploitation than the theoretical maximum.

The remaining plans D and E both consider harvesting to the theoretical maximum exploitation but version D considers an unrealistic hatchery production rate, leaving only version E as a viable choice among the five versions. The Twin Harbors Fish And Wildlife Advocacy presented a modified version E which I signed onto and support. Thank you for your consideration of the modified version E.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/11/15 01:15 PM


This is the inriver season announcement for the CR102. Hit the link and read away.



The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing rule changes for recreational salmon fishing: Coastal Freshwater. The agency developed these changes through a pre-season planning process known as “North of Falcon” that includes a series of public meetings with federal, state, tribal and industry representatives and other concerned citizens. Rules based on the North of Falcon planning process change from year to year to reflect resource availability and achieve conservation goals.

The CR-102 and proposed WAC can be viewed and downloaded at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html.

In accordance with RCW 34.05.320, a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m., at the Region 6 Fish and Wildlife Office, Conference Room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA, 98563.

Please also be aware that to reduce paper and associated costs, from now on this information will be provided through email and public news release. To continue receiving this information, please sign up at this website, http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/, and select “WDFW Regulation Updates.” The public news release will continue to provide contact information for those that need a hard copy.

In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing, you may submit written comments to me, Charmane Ashbrook, as shown below. WDFW must receive comments by July 3, 2015. For an electronic or printed copy of the proposed rules, please contact Charmane.Ashbrook@dfw.wa.gov or call (360) 586-0734.


Charmane Ashbrook
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
via e-mail at Charmane.Ashbrook@dfw.wa.gov
via fax at (360) 902-2183


Regards,

Charmane
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/13/15 05:15 PM

RE: Willapa Bay:

DONE.... discussion/public input/decision this morning in Olympia.

Option E with phase-in modifications tweaked by the Fish Committee passed 6-3 at the WA Fish/Wildlife Commission hearing today.

A very BIG day for conservation and a BIG win for the fish!

Full news release forthcoming.... soon.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/15 05:02 AM

My observations, on Saturday 6/13/2015

1. Fish committee of the WDFW did lots of thinking on this final draft of the Willapa Plan.

2. Closed a loop hole that I've hated, that was if the "fleet caught to many fish" in a season, the general attitude was "Oh well". WDFW fish committee put in a penalty box, " if too many fish are taken over the 20% limit", then in the next season that amount will be taken off their total for the new season. No one will ever convince me, that the fleet doesn't know when they are 16 - 20% over what they are entailed to catch.

3. NO netting in 2 T and 2 U, until September 16!!!!!!


I don't even fish Willapa, just been VERY interesting to watch the NOF process this year....

Should be a very good sport fishery, go for it !!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/15 06:38 AM


All should understand the 20% harvest rate is for the next 4 years then 14 % after in the future. You know folks there where several key players in WMP process. That said it was not those folks that truly carried the day but it was the citizen participation. A large number of people made every bloody meeting and stayed with the process. Then we have everyone that followed the process on PP and other places. In the end most came to the position do right by the fish, no more than 14% harvest rate and followed up with comments & e mails. It made a difference!

So for myself my greatest satisfaction is the simple fact that most got past personal desires and stuck to conservation first. Sure the Rec lost some & gained some depending on the fishery but the real winner was the natural order and natural spawning fish.

In the not to distant future the Steelhead issue will becoming toward the Commission. The manner in which citizens participated in Grays Harbor & Willapa Management Policies is a template to follow in other regions in the state. It takes effort, time, a willingness to learn the agency processes, and putting the fish first. It can be done as Grays Harbor and Willapa Management Policies have shown.
Posted by: fp

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/15 10:09 AM

Thanks to Rivrguy and all that stayed in the game with you.

It is hard to believe that the sporties won one.

Mebbe one of these days I'll get out there and catch one.

fp
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/15 12:01 PM

Originally Posted By: fp

It is hard to believe that the sporties won one.


fp


Make that TWO, fp. Can't forget about the big WIN in Grays Harbor last year.

As far as WB, you got til Sept 16 in 2T to catch one.

As SZ likes to say...

GOOD LUCK!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/15/15 09:57 AM

This is, without question, an overdue improvement for the sport fishery. Congratulations and thanks, Rivrguy and Co.!

I'm pleased to see progress toward managing for recovery as well, but I'm concerned about the phased impact reduction rate. If 14% was the accepted maximum impact for recovery to occur within 20 or so years, how far out will another 4 years of exceeding that target impact by 30% or more move the recovery goal? How will the record heat and dryness this summer (and likely for much of those next 4 years) impact the ability of the wild fish to recover, or for that matter even sustain their current status?

The other concern is that 4 years is a lot of time for the gillnetters and their political puppets to get the plan overturned, while still harvesting at a rate near to what they did last year in the meantime. This fight is likely far from over.

Putting aside the future for a moment, let's get back to the present, and the much-improved sport fishing prospects for Willapa Bay. If we're to continue progress toward recovery, we'll need to keep impacts on wild fish as low as possible. No doubt, the gillnetters will be complaining loudly to the Legislature about the devastating impact this brand of management has on their livelihood. Our best defense will continue to be the economic impact of sport fishing vs. commercial. That means we need to collectively put our money where our mouths have been. The increased sport opportunity in WB this year needs to result in a proportional increase in benefit to the local economies. That means not only flocking to WB from places far and wide, but also buying gas, bait, food, and lodging in Pacific County. If participation doesn't increase dramatically, the gillnetters will be able to legitimately argue wasted opportunity, and they'll be right there with a hand out to scoop up anything we don't use.

All you 206ers who are getting royally screwed in Areas 9/10 this season should plan a trip to WB to ease the pain a bit. Please....
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/15/15 12:35 PM

The 20% phase-in rate has incentives/disincentives built in.

1) First is the disincentive for over exploitation. If they go over in one year, the following year impact WILL be proportionately REDUCED.

2) Then there's the incentive for selective gear in each of the 4 years. A certain amount of the 20% is held back, to be used only by partipants who want to make the change toward more selective gear. The "selective" benchmark will be a release mortality rate of no greater than 35%

Year 1 will only see 19% max impact allocated to std gillnet gear.... with a 1% holdback for selective gear.
Year 2 will see only 18% max impact allocation for std gear... 2% holdback for selective gear.
Year 3 and 4 will see a 14% max impact allocation for std gear... 6% holdback for selective gear

Without significant "selective gear" adoption by the fleet, we're effectively at 14% after the first 2 years.

If they eventually do come along, then congratulations to them for finally stepping into the 21st century.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/15/15 01:37 PM

Glad to see those disincentives to continuing the status quo built in. It will be interesting to see if the gillnetters decide to invest in more selective gear, but I share your doubts on that one.

Thanks again, guys. This really is a remarkable result, and it definitely looks like progress.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/15/15 02:23 PM

They went with Option B on Chum also which is basically similar to what we got in the Grays Harbor plan. It penalizes failure to make escapement.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/15/15 02:55 PM

Official announcement here...

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jun1515a/

Final policy document posting is pending the additional amendment language introduced and approved by the commission over the weekend.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/15/15 09:56 PM

Gotta say having been intensively involved in this that I don't think its really a win in the long term for recs. For conservation sure, but that conservation is mostly on the backs of meaningful marine rec Chinook opportunity.

In the short term we made out fine. Its finally back to the 2000-2009 status quo. No nets in 2T/2U until mid sept.

In the long term, we lost the farm. No forks creek production will mean no decent fishing east of tokeland for chinook, which is where the marine rec fleet catches most of its fish. Kiss good fishing just downstream of southbend goodbye. Also forget about any willapa river chinook fishing.

The biggest loss is that this fight has cost us Wecker as a commissioner. The ramifications of that will reach far beyond Willapa
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/15/15 11:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Geoduck


The biggest loss is that this fight has cost us Wecker as a commissioner. The ramifications of that will reach far beyond Willapa


Is that speculation or is there something more substantive to that comment?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/16/15 05:40 AM

Quote:

In the long term, we lost the farm. No forks creek production will mean no decent fishing east of tokeland for chinook, which is where the marine rec fleet catches most of its fish. Kiss good fishing just downstream of southbend goodbye. Also forget about any willapa river chinook fishing.


Well frankly you missed the boat on that one. The Recs never had access to the full Forks Cr production. At best after Commercial the Rec may have had access to adults produced at maybe 40%. That would be around the adults from 560K smolt. The new production of 300k is lower than necessary by about 50k AND if they got the PNOB up they could get it to around 600k to 650k. Then no loss in real terms as the nets are out to September 16th. Bulk hatchery production can but seldom is completely beneficial to Rec fishers as the impacts of the Commercial harvest drastically reduce access to returning adults & catch.

Now if ones problem is with hatchery reform then no one can help you much. The days of old are gone with just produce fish at a hatchery and damn the consequences. The fundamental issue with the Willapa hatchery complex is that Chinook production should not have reached the level it is. The baseline natural spawner population was way to small to avoid wiping out the gravel with commercial harvest. Then we have the straying of the Forks Creek Chinook production is about 20% of the returning adults AFTER harvest which resulted in 2 / 4 / 5 to 1 hatchery over natural in the gravel. Couple this with little natural brood in the hatchery egg take you end up with what we have.

Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/16/15 09:58 AM

Eyefish,

I don't have any firsthand knowledge nor crystal ball as to what will transpire with Wecker, but the Gov and D's in the Senate seem to be opposed to her serving further. In the long run that's not going to go well, unless the R's in the senate take a unified supportive stance and peel off a few D's to confirm her. The other option is the Gov eats crow on this. Not something politicians usually do willingly. The logical conclusion is that her service on the commission will end within the year. I dearly hope I am wrong.


Dave,

You are wrong. The marine recs did have full access to the forks creek hatchery production as they fished in front of the nets from 2000-2009-- the nets did not go into the bay until sept 15. The nets still got most of the fish, but the opportunity for the recs was there and anglers both local and from afar to great advantage.

The goal for any marine rec fisherman that was serious in this WB process was to return to something resembling the glory years. We got the seasons right, but absent hatchery production (10% of the plant of the glory years) to support a fishery. Now the recs will have to try and adapt and learn to fish the jaws of the bay and/or south bay to target hatchery chinook. That leaves the local populations of south bend/raymond (approximately half the rec fleet) mostly on the beach as it will be a big boat show.

An alternative to what we had now was to keep naselle primary, force a low harvest rate and leave willapa as it was:
Conservation goals met, check
Rec fishery intact, check.
Gillnetters unhappy, check.

WDFW staff decided they would rather place the conservation burden on the marine rec fleet than the gillnet fleet so they switched the primary eliminating meaningful rec fishery and maximizing chinook in the nets while meeting conservation goals.

The message to the marine rec anglers is that fish are in the ocean and south bay, go find them. It will be an experiment. I will certainly be taking the challenge, but in 2020 you will see the CRCs on chinook catch in MA2-1 tank and much complaining about how poor the fishing is out of southbend and raymond.

The funny thing is that the gillnetters will probably sue over a 50% reduction in their fishery, but the marine rec and willapa river fishers are cellebrating a decision that will reduce their fishery by 90%.

Its all very bizarre to me.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/16/15 11:41 AM

Oh I did not back up to 2000 as it is irrelevant with the production movement in the past decade. My point is at two places. 2009 when HSRG became mandated & 2010 when the former plan went into effect. Naselle primary would only have gotten the 10% differential for straying between primary and contributing. As to the 90% reduction, nah but it will be different to be sure. Then your good days had the inriver behind wall to wall nets with punitive season setting. So if all one gives a whack about is the 2T fishery it is ouch time to a degree a bit down the road. U in the long run should balance out. The freshwater seasons are the best in years and they were part and parcel of the process. The Rec should have good access to N with the later start of the nets as they do not get in much early time without burning NOR impacts.

You know not to beat a dead horse but HSRG is about rules one has to comply with. Staff could not have changed much as to Forks Cr because it does not have the ability to stop straying. They will have the same issue in Naselle Coho also as that weir comes out on or about Oct. 15 so the fish run past. So if ones thoughts are more fish for me and HSRG is BS I want to kill fish in my favorite fishery, your right you loose. If ones goal was a conservation driven management plan you and the fish win. I am in the second one as for me the fish come first.

Another thing is the entire matrix was with average ocean survival when it drops ( which it will ) the commercial fleet will have problems staying on the water without blowing the NOR numbers in a NY moment.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/16/15 02:43 PM

All I am saying is that a plan that met conservation goals and supported a robust rec marine fishery was possible, but not chosen due to the priority on commercial harvest.

Its called implementing the 2010 plan with hard caps on NOR chinook. You might have to lower naselle impacts to 14%, but it could have been done. Under the 2010 plan willapa R was stabilizing, which left forks cr production intact.

I agree the plan approved is not the worst possible outcome for the recs, but it s a long ways from the best possible outcome.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/17/15 06:40 AM


For those not involved in the WMP this may look like a bit of a dust up between Geoduck and myself but in reality it is not. The point made about stream designations was always a hidden driver in the WMP process. So lets try this.

&#61550; Primary—biologically significant, core, key, highly viable, important to recovery. Historically were a large segment of the population structure. Need to be at low risk of extinction.

&#61550; Contributing– of some significance, are viable but lower in abundance than Primary. Contribute to diversity.

&#61550; Stabilizing—a population, but may not have ever been a large segment of the population structure.

These are the three stream designations from HSRG. Each allow for a different degree of hatchery influence ( straying ) and requirements for PNOB. ( wild spawners incorporated into the hatchery eggtake ) In the previous Willapa Policy the agency basically assigned what ever stream designation to a stream that matched the production level it desired to reduce requirements for straying. For myself it is not a choice but rather you apply the designation that matches the historic value of the stream. For others not so.

The thing is as long as the WMP process was this issue was not fully vetted. Conversation to be sure but never & I mean never a in-depth look at the definitions and criteria for how they should be applied. So Geoduck has a valid point. That I have a different view is irrelevant, that it was not fully vetted is. Is the WMP different than how WDF&W has done it in other regions of the state? No idea but words have meaning. HSRG was not about what is best for the harvester but rather guidelines for how we produce fish for harvest without destroying the natural order.

It matters little what I or Geoduck feel at this stage of the game but what does matter is staff avoided a in-depth look at the issue in the WMP process. Now that should not have happened.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/17/15 07:52 AM

GeoDuck:

I don't fish Willapa Bay or any of the rivers, well not in 35+ years. I started going to the meetings to find out how WDFW could allow a net kill rate that was around 85-90 % of the fish taken during a season.....then wanted more.....

Who's going to feed the general public???? Was a theme that the netters, would bring up at meeting after meeting. People adjust, shortage here or there, go to plan B.

General attitude at many meetings was "gill nets" are the only way to fish Willapa Bay......mmmmmmm, guess we'll find out. Do I have an answer?, no, but I sure have to make adjustments when changes in the law force me to....ie, barbless hooks or having to fish, in Grays Harbor, above 2 different net fisheries, QIN and NT, and a major Marine fishery.

Change is very late in coming to Willapa Bay but Change is coming, just that the Native stocks have been depleted or non-existence in many of the tribs., for sure not the fault of the sport fishery.

Pain will be felt and only get worse unless selective fishery is the "norm" for Willapa Bay.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/17/15 11:33 AM

Riverguy,

I completely agree with your outlook. We disagree some, but mostly it doesn't matter. The policy is done and we've launched into an fisheries managment experiment where the one certainty is there will be more attention paid to NOR fish.

I think our difference comes for the fact that I have a higher tolerence for self criticism and I understand that when someone has invested as much as you and I have in the process we want to believe we've done good. Unfortunately I view my involvement in the processes as an abysmal failure, personally.

For example, the only habitat consideration in the aha model is a single integer input as a factor representing habitat quality. No actual quantitative modelling of habitat was ever made (unlike on the Big C). I think when AHA is used in this way, it is not much of an improvement over the previous models because habitat is not even really considered in a meaningful way.

I've argued all along that the WB stream habitat is margninal chinook habitat at best and that we should pick the very best habitat in the basin and focus on that stream. The 2010 plan did the same in theory (with primary naselle designation), but in practice WDFW didn't do anything to reduce harvest then declared nasselle primary a failure and bought the gilnnetter argument that it was habitat that was the problem.

The upshot is we gave up on arguable the best habitat in the naselle and switched primary to the Willapa for the sake of harvest expediency. This decision was not driven by any habitat analysis whatsoever.

I asked repeatedly for serious analysis of habitat quality and economic impacts of various allocation decisions, but failed to get any traction as the department didn't want to do either. Rather the focus was on getting to a policy that met management expediency criteria as quickly as possible without considering anything that might derail staff's management considerations or cause legal questions to arise.

As a scientific endeavor the process sucked. As a public policy exercise I also found it to be disappointing. I wish it could have been done better.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/17/15 12:15 PM

Quote:
I think our difference comes for the fact that I have a higher tolerence for self criticism and I understand that when someone has invested as much as you and I have in the process we want to believe we've done good. Unfortunately I view my involvement in the processes as an abysmal failure, personally.


Oh I disagree! Your participation was very valuable but I think you got lonesome out on that limb trying to get science first. Hopefully that changes in the future, I take that back, it has to change in the future.

Quote:

As a scientific endeavor the process sucked. As a public policy exercise I also found it to be disappointing. I wish it could have been done better.


We have consensus! One thing good came from the process, the education in real terms as to what hatchery reform means post Phil Anderson. PNI, PNOB, PHOS all the terms that the Commissioners tried to get a hold of and understand in the beginning they now know what they mean ( and do ). Next time out the gate they will be ready regardless of what region of the state it is. That is what the Willapa process did for everyone. The Commission is no longer a rubber stamp for staff. They know the difficult decisions will have a price for all users & the fish. In the long haul your effort to bring science to the discussion did not get much traction. What you did do is get the bloody door open for the future & Commission. You can loose a battle and win the war. In the long haul your thoughts are correct and each time change comes science will continue to be a greater part of the discussion. You did not loose the discussion but rather staff dodged it AND the Commission knows this. You accomplished way more than you give yourself credit for.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/17/15 12:50 PM


Here it is guys!!!!!



FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
POLICY DECISION

POLICY TITLE: Willapa Bay Salmon Management POLICY NUMBER: C-3622

Cancels or Effective Date: June 13, 2015
Supersedes: NA Termination Date: December 31, 2023

See Also: Policies C-3608, C-3619 Approved June 13, 2015 by:
Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission



Purpose
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. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the commercial and recreational fishing industry in the state, provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences, and an appropriate distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Willapa Bay Basin. Enhanced transparency, information sharing, and improved technical rigor of fishery management are needed to restore and maintain public trust and support for management of Willapa Bay salmon fisheries.

Definition and Goal
This policy sets a general management direction and provides guidance for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) management of all Pacific salmon returning to the Willapa Bay Basin. The Willapa Bay Basin is defined as Willapa Bay and its freshwater tributaries.

General Policy Statement
This policy provides a cohesive set of principles and guidance to promote the conservation of wild salmon and steelhead and improve the Department’s management of salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) recognizes that management decisions must be informed by fishery monitoring (biological and economic), and that innovation and adaptive management will be necessary to achieve the stated purpose of this policy. By improving communication, information sharing, and transparency, the Department shall promote improved public support for management of Willapa Bay salmon fisheries.

State commercial and recreational fisheries will need to increasingly focus on the harvest of abundant hatchery fish. Mark-selective fisheries are a tool that permits the harvest of abundant hatchery fish while reducing impacts on wild stocks needing protection. As a general policy, the Department shall implement mark-selective salmon fisheries, unless the

wild populations substantially affected by the fishery are meeting spawner (e.g., escapement goal) and broodstock management objectives. In addition, the Department may consider avoidance, alternative gears, or other selective fishing concepts along with other management approaches provided they are as or more effective than a mark-selective fishery in achieving spawner and broodstock management objectives.

Fishery and hatchery management measures should be implemented as part of an “all-H” strategy that integrates hatchery, harvest, and habitat systems. Although the policy focuses on fishery management, this policy in no way diminishes the significance of habitat protection and restoration.

Guiding Principles
The Department shall apply the following principles in the management of salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin:

1) Prioritize the restoration and conservation of wild salmon through a comprehensive, cohesive, and progressive series of fishery, hatchery, and habitat actions.

2) Work with our partners (including Regional Fishery Enhancement Groups, nonprofit organizations, the public and Lead Entities) to protect and restore habitat productivity.

3) Implement improved broodstock management (including selective removal of hatchery fish) to reduce the genetic and ecological impacts of hatchery fish and improve the fitness and viability of salmon produced from Willapa Bay rivers (see Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policy C-3619). Achieve Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) broodstock management standards for Coho and Chum salmon by 2015, and work toward a goal of achieving standards for Chinook salmon by 2020.

4) Investigate and promote the development and implementation of alternative selective gear. The development of alternative selective gear may provide an opportunity to target fishery harvests on abundant hatchery fish stocks, reduce the number of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas, limit mortalities on non-target species and stocks, and provide commercial fishing opportunities.

5) Work through the Pacific Salmon Commission to promote the conservation of Willapa Bay salmon and, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, pursue the implementation of fishery management actions necessary to achieve agreed conservation objectives.

6) Within the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) process, support management measures that promote the attainment of Willapa Bay conservation objectives consistent with the Council’s Salmon Fishery Management Plan.

7) Monitoring, sampling, and enforcement programs will adequately account for species and population impacts (landed catch and incidental fishing mortality) of all recreational

and commercial fisheries and ensure compliance with state regulations. Develop and implement enhanced enforcement strategies to improve compliance with fishing regulations and ensure orderly fisheries.

8) If it becomes apparent that a scheduled fishery will exceed the aggregated pre-season natural-origin Chinook mortality (impact) expectation, the Department shall implement in-season management actions in an effort to avoid cumulative mortalities of natural- origin Chinook in excess of the aggregated pre-season projection.

9) Salmon management and catch accounting will be timely, well documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable. The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements in the transparency of fishery management and for effective public involvement in planning Willapa Bay salmon fisheries, including rule- making processes. These shall include: a) clearly describing management objectives in a document available to the public prior to the initiation of the preseason planning process; b) enhancing opportunities for public engagement during the preseason fishery planning process; c) communicating in-season information and management actions to advisors and the public; and d) striving to improve communication with the public regarding co-management issues that are under discussion.

10) Seek to improve fishery management and technical tools through improved fishery monitoring, the development of new tools, and rigorous assessment of fishery models and parameters.

11) When a mark-selective fishery occurs, the mark-selective fishery shall be implemented, monitored, and enforced in a manner designed to achieve the anticipated conservation benefits.


Fishery and Species-Specific Guidance
Subject to the provisions of the Adaptive Management section, the following fishery-and species-specific sections describe the presumptive path for achieving conservation objectives and an appropriate distribution of fishing opportunities.


Fall Chinook Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage fall Chinook salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following additional guidance:

1) The Department shall initiate a two-phase rebuilding program to conserve and restore wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. The progressive series of actions is intended to result in achieving broodstock management standards by 2020 and spawner goals by years 16-21. Within the conservation constraints of the rebuilding program, Chinook salmon will be managed to provide for a full recreational fishing season with increased

participation and/or catch anticipated in future years.

2) Rebuilding Program - Phase 1 (Years 1-4). The objectives of Phase 1 shall be to increase the number of natural-origin spawners and implement hatchery program modifications designed to meet broodstock management standards in the subsequent cycle.

a. Implement hatchery broodstock management actions to promote re-adaptation to the natural environment and enhance productivity of natural-origin Chinook salmon in the North/Smith, Willapa, and Naselle rivers:

• North/Smith – Manage as Wild Salmon Management Zone with no hatchery releases of Chinook salmon.

• Willapa – Implement an integrated program with hatchery broodstock management strategies designed to achieve broodstock management standards consistent with a Primary designation in the subsequent cycle.

• Naselle – Implement hatchery broodstock strategies designed to achieve broodstock management standards consistent with a Contributing designation in the subsequent cycle.

b. Pursue implementation of additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear to enhance conservation and provide harvest opportunities. The Department shall provide to the Commission by January 2017 a status report and by January 2018 an assessment of options to implement additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear in Willapa Bay. The assessment shall identify the likely release mortality rates for each gear type, the benefits to rebuilding naturally spawning populations, and the benefits and impacts to the commercial fishery.

3) Rebuilding Program - Phase 2 (Years 5 – 21). The combination of fishery and harvest management actions is projected to result on average in the achievement of spawner goals for the North, Naselle, and Willapa populations in the years 16-21. Additional fishery and hatchery management actions will be considered during this time period if the progress toward the spawner objectives is inconsistent with expectations.

4) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Achieve spawner goals for the North, Naselle, and Willapa stocks of natural- origin Chinook and hatchery reform broodstock objectives through the two phase rebuilding program described above.

b. Provide for an enhanced recreational fishing season. The impact rate of the recreational fishery is anticipated to be ~3.2% during the initial years of the

policy, but may increase in subsequent years to provide for an enhanced recreational season as described below:


• Manage Chinook salmon for an enhanced recreational fishing season to increase participation and/or catch including consideration of increased daily limits, earlier openings, multiple rods, and other measures.

• Conservation actions, as necessary, shall be shared equally between marine and freshwater fisheries.

c. Provide opportunities for commercial fisheries within the remaining available fishery impacts.

5) Fishery Management in 2015-2018. To facilitate a transition to the Willapa River as the primary Chinook salmon population, fisheries during the transition period will be managed with the following goal:

a. The impact rate on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin fall Chinook in Willapa Bay fisheries shall not exceed 20%. Within this impact rate cap, the priority shall be to maintain a full season of recreational fisheries for Chinook salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin.

b. To promote the catch of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon and increase the number of natural-origin spawners, within the 20% impact rate cap the following impact rates shall be set-aside for mark-selective commercial fishing gear types with an anticipated release mortality rate of less than 35%:


Fishing Year Mark-Selective Commercial Fishing Gear Set-Aside
2015 1%
2016 2%
2017 6%
2018 6%

The Commission may consider adjustments to the set-asides for 2017 and 2018 based upon the Department’s reports to the Commission on commercial mark- selective fishing gear (paragraph 2(b)) or other adaptive management considerations.

c. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2T and 2U prior to September 16.

d. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R until after Labor Day.


6) Fishery Management After 2018. Fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will be managed with the goal of:

a. Limiting the fishery impact rate on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin fall Chinook salmon to no more than 14%.

b. No commercial fisheries shall occur within areas 2T and 2U prior to September 16.

c. No commercial Chinook fisheries shall occur in areas 2M, 2N, 2P and 2R until after September 7.

7) Maintaining Rebuilding Trajectory. If the postseason estimate (as presented at the annual Commission review) of aggregated natural-origin Chinook salmon mortality (impacts) exceeds the preseason projection, the Department staff shall make a recommendation to the Commission regarding an adjustment to the allowable impacts for the subsequent year. The recommendation shall be based upon the percentage by which the postseason estimate of impacts exceeded the preseason projection, but may consider other factors such as the predicted abundance or other relevant factors.

8) Hatchery Production. Within budgetary constraints, and at the earliest feasible date, the Department shall seek to implement the following hatchery production of fall Chinook salmon:

• 0.80 million at Naselle Hatchery
• 3.30 million at Nemah Hatchery
• 0.35 million at Forks Creek Hatchery


Coho Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage Coho salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:

1) Broodstock Management Strategies. Manage Coho salmon with the following designations and broodstock management strategies:

North/Smith Willapa Naselle
Designation Primary Primary Stabilizing
Broodstock Strategy No Hatchery Program Integrated Integrated

Coho salmon returning to all other watersheds will be managed consistent with a Contributing designation.


2) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for Coho salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Manage fisheries with the goal of achieving the aggregate spawner goal for Willapa Bay natural-origin Coho salmon. When the pre-season forecast of natural-origin adult Coho is less than the aggregate goal, or less than 10% higher than the aggregate goal, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return;

b. Prioritize commercial fishing opportunities during the Coho fishery management period (September 16 through October 14); and

c. Provide recreational fishing opportunities.


Chum Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage Chum salmon fisheries and hatchery programs consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:

1) Broodstock Management Strategies. Manage Chum salmon with the following designations and broodstock management strategies:

North/Smith Palix Bear
Designation Primary Contributing Primary
Broodstock Strategy No Hatchery Program No Hatchery Program No Hatchery Program

Chum salmon returning to all other watersheds will be managed consistent with a Contributing designation.

2) Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for Chum salmon, in priority order, are to:

a. Achieve the aggregate goal for naturally spawning Chum salmon and meet hatchery reform broodstock objectives (see bullet 3);

b. Provide commercial fishing opportunities during the Chum salmon fishery management period (October 15 through October 31); and

c. Provide recreational fishing opportunities. Recreational fisheries will be allowed to retain Chum salmon.

3) Fisheries will be managed with the goal of achieving the aggregate goal for Willapa Bay

naturally spawning Chum salmon. Until the spawner goal is achieved 2 consecutive years, the maximum fishery impact shall not exceed a 10% impact rate and no commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31. If the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years, the Department shall implement the following measures:

a. The predicted fishery impact for Chum in Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return.

b. When the Chum pre-season forecast is 85% or less of the escapement goal, the predicted fishery impact for Chum in Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 5% of the adult return.

4) The Department shall evaluate opportunities to increase hatchery production of Chum salmon. If Chum salmon hatchery production is enhanced, beginning as early as 2018, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin may be implemented with a fishery impact limit of no more than 33% of the natural-origin Chum salmon return.


Adaptive Management
The Commission recognizes that adaptive management will be essential to achieve the purpose of this policy. Department staff may implement actions to manage adaptively to achieve the objectives of this policy and will coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions.

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.

Components of the adaptive management will be shared with the public through the agency web site and will include the following elements:

1) Conduct Annual Fishery Management Review. The Department shall annually evaluate fishery management tools and parameters, and identify improvements as necessary to accurately predict fishery performance and escapement.

2) Improve In-season Management. The Department shall develop, evaluate, and implement fishery management models, procedures, and management measures that are projected to enhance the effectiveness of fishery management relative to management based on preseason predictions.

3) Review Spawner Goals. The Department shall review spawner goals to ensure that they reflect the current productivity of salmon within the following timelines:

a. Chum: September 1, 2016
b. Coho: January 1, 2016
c. Chinook: January 1, 2020

4) Comprehensive Hatchery Assessment. The Department shall complete a comprehensive review of the hatchery programs in the Willapa Bay region by June 2016. The review shall identify the capital funding necessary to maintain or enhance current hatchery programs, identify changes in release locations or species that would enhance recreational and commercial fishing opportunities, identify improvements or new weirs to increase compliance with broodstock management, and the use of re-use water systems, water temperature manipulation to increase production hatchery capacity.

5) Ocean Ranching Opportunities. The Department shall complete by January 2016 a comprehensive review of opportunities and constraints to implement ocean ranching of salmon in Willapa Bay.

Delegation of Authority
The Commission delegates the authority to the Director, through the North of Falcon stakeholder consultation process, to set seasons for recreational and commercial fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin, and to adopt permanent and emergency regulations to implement these fisheries.

This guidance establishes a number of important conservation and allocation principles for the Director and agency staff to apply when managing the fishery resources of Willapa Bay.
While this policy establishes a clear presumptive path forward with regard to many of the identified objectives, those principles and concrete objectives are intended to guide decision- making and are not intended to foreclose adaptive management based upon new information. Nor does this guidance preclude the need to gather and consider additional information during the annual process of developing fishery plans and the associated rule-making processes that open fisheries in Willapa Bay. The Commission fully expects that the Director and agency staff will continue to communicate with the public, and the Commission, to consider new information, evaluate alternate means for carrying out policy objectives, and consider instances in which it may make sense to deviate from the presumptive path forward. That is the nature of both adaptive management, and policy implementation, when faced with a dynamic natural environment.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/15 09:46 AM

Anyone watching the water temp in the river? We are warming up fast ( the river now guys ) and had 70 for water temp today at the dock. I am in tide water and with the light tides the water is not going out much so it is always up a bit but this is a rather high water temp for this time of year. This warm weather has the river really out of sorts with algae and not much catching going with the fish thing.

I received the Power Point presentation by staff to the Commission on the Willapa Policy at the last Commission meeting. If anyone wants it e mail me and I will send it on to you. Some very good graphs on value of Rec & Commercial fisheries. Also a break down on Chinook status for our coast. I think some will be surprised to see the rate of decline.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/15 10:01 AM

Agreed. The river is full of green and brown goo, and it is alarmingly warm. I don't know how much the overgrowth of algae should concern us, but we know, based on the fact we have observed fish kills in the upper basin when temps have been only slightly higher than they are now, that the temperature is a real concern. The 10-day forecast suggests those critical temps may be reached much sooner this year and prolonged to a point that may be catastrophic for fish. Let's hope that doesn't happen....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/15 10:16 AM

Accu BS is not to good day to day but it the month button and walk up into August. Kids will love it the fish not so much!
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/central-park-wa/98520/weather-forecast/2254018


And just when you thought it was done ...................... here comes rep Blake & cronies at it again. Some might want to track this hearing.


From: WALEG Committee Agenda Update [mailto:Committees@updates.leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 8:36 AM
To: _________
Subject: Agenda Update; House Agriculture & Natural Resources

This message was sent to the subscribers of the
House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee update list.
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
Remove work session on Coastal fisheries management and the Endangered Species Act. Add work session on Willapa Bay salmon harvesting and the Endangered Species Act.
Agriculture & Natural Resources - 6/25/2015 8:00 a.m.
House Full Committee
House Hearing Rm B
John L. O'Brien Building
Olympia, WA

REVISED ON 6/23/2015 AT 8:34 AM

Work Session: Willapa Bay salmon harvesting and the Endangered Species Act.
________________________________________
Please help us reduce our use of paper by accessing legislative committee documents online once the meeting has started: https://app.leg.wa.gov/CMD/meeting.aspx?cid=8221&agency=3&year=2015

________________________________________
Due to House and Senate committee changes, subscribers may wish to review the jurisdictions for House standing committees and Senate standing committees and change their subscriptions accordingly.
If you plan to visit the Capitol Campus in Olympia, please keep in mind parking is very limited. For directions, maps and information regarding parking, public transit and the free shuttle service please see: http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/Parking.aspx
________________________________________
This message was sent to the subscribers of the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee update list. Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.
This service is provided to you at no charge by Washington State Legislature.
________________________________________


Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/15 10:46 AM

I'm very concerned about water temps. too. A buddy of mine who lives in the vicinity of the upper Willamette and it's tribs down in Oregon says they are already seeing springer mortalities from the warm water. Bright fish floating down the river belly up.

July and August are gonna suck around here if conditions don't change. I wouldn't be surprised to see more emergency closures on the horizon. Already had one on the Sol Duc.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/15 10:51 AM

If there was ever a year for daily management of the fisheries, this is it. If the streams are too low or warm for fish to move they will stage somewhere. This will likely lead to higher harvests as the fish just pile up.

Updates, if they ever do them, are based on fish moving through. If they don't move through, but just keep building, we will get a false sense of abundance.

In recent years, in the Fraser, sockeye escapement goals were actually raised to account for losses on in-river migration due to high temps. Maybe GH and WB should cut target harvests in half unless the water cools and flows increases.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/15 11:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Maybe GH and WB should cut target harvests in half unless the water cools and flows increases.



I agree, hope WDFW and QIN, have a Plan B for both GH and then in the Willapa.

GH could be a Giant kill zone, from Johns River to South Montesano, UNLESS the rains of November come early. Even If 4/3 in in effect, and it is, the fish will go back and forth in the tide water......kill going up river, kill going back down river...

Rain dance need to start early and often.....IMO
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/15 06:28 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Maybe GH and WB should cut target harvests in half unless the water cools and flows increases.



I agree, hope WDFW and QIN, have a Plan B for both GH and then in the Willapa.

GH could be a Giant kill zone, from Johns River to South Montesano, UNLESS the rains of November come early. Even If 4/3 in in effect, and it is, the fish will go back and forth in the tide water......kill going up river, kill going back down river...

Rain dance need to start early and often.....IMO


Thank God for NON-biters!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/15 08:20 AM

Well just when one thinks things are settling down along comes the games. The bit below is a budget amendment to shut down the Nemah hatchery put forth by Rep Lytton of the 40th district who is also the Dem Floor leader. Now the question is why and who put her up to it? Well we have several likely candidates but Rep Blake is the most likely candidate. You couple this with the hearing redefined to look at Willapa then one can see it is game time again. One might ask Rep Lytton & Rep Blake just what are they doing?


1106-PS2 AMH APP JOND 061


By Representative Lytton
P2SHB 1106 - H COMM AMD (TO H-2884.1/15)
By Committee on Appropriations




1 On page 109, after line 29, insert the following:
2 "(11) The department shall relocate all fish production at the
3 Nemah hatchery to the Naselle hatchery. If the fish and wildlife
4 commission determines that fish production capacity is insufficient to
5 meet fish production needs at the Forks Creek or Naselle hatcheries,
6 the department may continue fish production at the Nemah hatchery."



1106-PS2 AMH APP JOND 061 Official Print - 1
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/15 08:30 AM

Non-biters, only affect the "sport fishermen"..........think of all the fish that head up river "on the tide", gill nets and set nets will for sure pick off lots of fish. Once up river, still in the tidal influence, hit the high temps/low water flow and head back down river......nets of death take another share of the fish.

A couple of weeks of 4 days of netting COULD take a large amount of the September/October Chinook. My concern is the slowness to recognize a problem early enough to make decisions to help fish, not just fish the days scheduled. Once dead, is forever dead!!!!!!!
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/15 12:59 PM

Dave,

Letters written to my reps about this nonsense.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/15 01:34 PM


Thanks. This one folks needs to do as Rep Lytton is Vice Chair of the Ag & resource Committee which Rep Blake Chairs and if you think the Vice Chair did this without the Chairs knowledge or encouragement ( more likely a request ) I have a bridge I would like to entertain a offer from ya on.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/15 02:01 PM

Lord have mercy we also picked up that he is trying to get 400K cut from mass marking ( and loose fed matching funds ) which is about as anal as one can get. Any of you that follow this type of thing let all of us know where the mass marking thing is hiding in the budget.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/25/15 07:40 AM


Well tunnel vision will get not get you anyplace fast! Here is a CCA Alert that has everything in a nice neat run out. I think everyone is a bit tired of all this BS from several of the Coastal Caucus legislators but we have to follow things through to the end or get screwed right along with the fish.


ACTION ALERT
Hi CCA Member,

We are closing in on the end of the legislative session and new threats to our fisheries have emerged. On Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee approved a 2015-2017 operating budget that proposes to cut funding for hatchery salmon production. The Committee also accepted an amendment from Representative Kristine Lytton (D-Anacortes) that would undermine the Willapa Bay salmon fishery reform policy recently adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Please take just one minute to CLICK HERE and send your state representatives a pre-drafted email asking that they reverse these bad policies. With a handful of days remaining in the current legislative session we must act now!

The House budget proposal would cut funding for the marking of hatchery salmon by over $400,000. Since state law requires that all hatchery salmon be marked, this will result in a direct cut to hatchery salmon production, including Chinook and Coho. Every previous version of the House and Senate budgets have included this funding, so there's a chance we can save this funding if we act now!

Meanwhile, Representative Lytton succeeded in attaching a last-minute budget policy "rider" to undermine the Willapa Bay salmon management policy adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission on June 13. The rider would maintain the status quo harvest and hatchery policies in the Willapa, which have led to over harvest and under-escapement of wild Chinook. The Commission's policy seeks to improve the conservation of Willapa Bay wild Chinook populations and prioritize recreational salmon fisheries by placing reasonable constraints on non-selective commercial gillnet fisheries. Last year, intensive gillnet fisheries in Willapa Bay exceeded exploitation limits on wild Chinook stocks by nearly 100 percent!

Rep. Lytton's amendment appears to be coordinated with the efforts of Representative Brian Blake (D-Aberdeen) to reverse the Commission policy, including an upcoming "work session" recently scheduled by Blake's Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee for this Thursday.

We can't let our fisheries continue to lose out to these status quo policies championed by a handful of legislators. Please take just a moment to CLICK HERE and send your legislators a pre-drafted email asking for their support (you can personalize the draft email to increase its effectiveness).

Are we going to complain about how our fisheries are being managed or are we going to take action? The time is now.


________________________________________
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/28/15 12:55 PM


Well just when you thought it could not get much sillier along comes this e mail from Rep Blake below in blue. Now I realize "spin" is accepted now a days but lord this one is way out. As the email circulated it drew some interesting comments of which one is below.

Comment:

Naturally, he spins it as a pro rec proposal. Forgets to mention that the license fee bill he sponsored increased license fees primarily on the backs of the recs and the increase for commercials was nearly insignificant. This bill did not pass due primarily to the position that any increase on the recs could not be used to further subsidize commercial fishing. As the process for a Willapa plan is wrapping up, he leads a charge on the Governor's office to remove Wecker which is an obvious attempt to discipline the members of the Commission. Then, once the interim Willapa Bay policy was passed, within hours Blake drops a bill to cut the rec license fees going to the Department during a budget crisis in an attempt to force the Commission to back track on the permanent policy which also failed. Then, the permanent policy was passed and he lays out another bill that attempts to deliver on the threat that the commercials raised time and time again during the process that developed the new policy.

I remember the commercial reps stating or implying time after time in the public process that if they didn't get what they wanted (continuation of the over-harvest by the commercial fleet) that their legislative supporters would close hatcheries and rec fishing hampered even further. Blake chooses the Nemah which produces more Chinook for rec harvest than the other hatcheries combined if I remember the numbers correctly. Remarkably, he then tries to portray all these efforts on behalf of the commercial gillnet fleet as somehow being pro-recreational.


Rep Blakes E mail:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: House budget proposal devastates salmon fisheries and coastal wild salmon protection
From: "Blake, Rep. Brian" <Brian.Blake@leg.wa.gov>To: "@HDC Members" <HDCMEMBERS@leg.wa.gov>CC: "@HDC LA's" <HDCLEGASSIST@leg.wa.gov>,"@HDC Staff" <HDCSTAFF@leg.wa.gov>
Good morning,

Several colleagues have received emails concerning the House budget proposal devastates salmon fisheries and coastal wild salmon protection. For your information I am providing my email response to constituents below. The constituent email is included at the bottom of this email for your review. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance regarding this issue.

Representative Brian Blake

______________________________________
Constituent Response:

Thank you for your email. I sincerely appreciate your effort in contacting my office and providing your input. Your message expressed concerns regarding the House proposed 2015-17 operating budget and specifically salmon fisheries on the Washington coast.

As you may know, hatcheries in Washington produce more fish than will ever be caught by sport and commercial fishermen. The production of these fish are mainly paid for by general fund tax dollars in the Washington State budget. Each year, an estimated 750,000 fish return to the hatcheries. These extra fish provided by general fund tax dollars are sold at a loss to private corporations to produce cat food and other similar products. A smaller percentage of these fish are donated to food banks. In Pacific County, WDFW operates Forks Creek Hatchery, Nemah Hatchery, Naselle Hatchery and Grays River Hatchery. Combined, all yield thousands of surplus fish each year.

In order to maximize recreational fishing opportunities in the 19th Legislative District, a plan to revise hatchery production at the Naselle Hatchery has been proposed. As you may also know, there are three boat launches that provide recreational fishing access to hatchery stock released from the Naselle Hatchery. There are no public boat launches on the Nemah River that I am aware of. According to the proviso language revising hatchery production, if production at the Naselle hatchery is at capacity, DFW has the authority to produce salmon at the Nemah hatchery.

Regarding the $400,000 cut in the general operating budget, I have supported increasing fees in commercial fishing to stave off these cuts, but have been unsuccessful in getting this legislation through the process. Not only have I proposed legislation to increase fees on commercial fishing, I have also proposed decreasing fees for sports fisherman.

Again, thank you for informing me of your views. I always welcome your contribution as your remarks and those of other constituents help my decision-making.

Sincerely,

Representative Brian Blake
19th Legislative District

_______________________________________________
Constituent email:
Subject: House budget proposal devastates salmon fisheries and coastal wild salmon protection

Dear Representative,

I urge you to oppose two provisions included in the latest version of the proposed 2015-17 operating budget currently working its way through the House. These provisions would harm salmon fisheries across the state and also include an effort to roll back protections for wild salmon on the Washington coast.

The House's latest proposed budget would cut over $400,000 from WDFW's hatchery marking and production activities necessary to maintain current hatchery salmon releases consistent with requirements for wild salmon protection. This reduction will harm recreational salmon fisheries, which are a key part of the $1 billion recreational fishing industry that also represents the largest source of revenue for WDFW through fishing license sales. The previous House and Senate budgets have included this funding and I hope you will work to restore it.

I am very concerned about an amendment recently added to the House budget that seeks to undermine new protections for wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. The Fish and Wildlife Commission has adopted a new policy for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries that reduces commercial gillnet harvest rates on wild Chinook and promotes more sustainable fishing methods, including selective recreational fisheries. A policy rider adopted in the committee seeks to reverse these reforms by mandating the location of hatchery salmon production in Willapa Bay, including the Naselle River. I hope you will join me in opposing this policy rider.

I appreciate your efforts to finalize a budget solution for our state and urge you to oppose these two budget proposals.

Sincerely,



Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/28/15 01:27 PM

I guess we'll know in a couple days (once the budget is finalized and signed) if the rider died….yes?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/30/15 06:32 AM


I think your correct but we have to wait to see and always the question what does the final budget have in it for WDF&W O&M is out and about.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/30/15 06:55 AM

This is what is commonly called a constituent response & it is from Rep Blake. I have received this from three different sources so I am posting up for folks to take a look. This is on the Nemah / Naselle hatchery dust up and a interesting spin. The thing is folks if one thinks that the number two member of a legislative Committee drops a bill that effects the Chairs District ( which the lady did ) WITHOUT the Chair asking or being aware of it I still have the bridge I am trying to sell. Anyhow read away.


Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: House budget proposal harms salmon fisheries and coastal wild
salmon protection


Good afternoon,
Thank you for your message concerning the WDFW budget specifically regarding salmon fisheries on the Washington coast. As you probably already know, the Legislature is now in a Third Special Session while budget negotiators continue to hammer out a budget agreement before a looming government shutdown that is unprecedented in the history of the State of Washington. The sentiment toward reaching an agreement before the clock strikes midnight on Tuesday, June 30th changes moment to moment with every new proposed plan and revised proposal. That’s why I am providing an update regarding hatchery production as your concerns, and the concerns of other constituents in the 19th Legislative District, help in the decision making process.Rather than passively waiting for the budget negotiators to get the job done, I spent Sunday actively advocating on behalf of the 19th Legislative District constituents in Olympia to remove the proviso language requiring the WDFW to move production from the Nemah hatchery to the Naselle hatchery and replace it with direction to WDFW to maintain the production at the Naselle hatchery at two million eight hundred thousand fall Chinook salmon per year.

The result of this revised proviso language would be the production of an additional 2 million Chinook salmon at the Naselle hatchery annually. From the messages I have received from constituents like you, I believe an increase in fish production is what the local fishing constituency of the 19th district would like. In addition to advocating for a Chinook production increase, I was able to advocate to restore the $400,000 proposed cut to the hatchery mass marketing program recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. Thank you for sharing your views and caring about hatchery production in our state. I will keep your views in mind and do the best job I can. Please feel free to contact me in the future. I value your input.

Sincerely,
Representative Brian Blake
19th Legislative District

To: Blake, Rep. Brian
Subject: House budget proposal harms salmon fisheries and coastal wild salmon protection
Dear Representative Blake,
I urge you to oppose two provisions included in the latest version of the proposed 2015-17 operating budget currently working its way through the House. These provisions would harm salmon fisheries across the state and also include an effort to roll back protections for wild salmon on the Washington coast. The House's latest proposed budget would cut over $400,000 from WDFW's hatchery marking and production activities necessary to maintain current hatchery salmon releases consistent with requirements for wild salmon protection. This reduction will harm recreational salmon fisheries, which are a key part of the $1 billion recreational fishing industry that also represents the largest source of revenue for WDFW through fishing license sales. The previous House and Senate budgets have included this funding and I hope you will work to restore it.

I am very concerned about an amendment recently added to the House budget that seeks to undermine new protections for wild Chinook salmon in Willapa Bay. The Fish and Wildlife Commission has adopted a new policy for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries that reduces commercial gillnet harvest rates on wild Chinook and promotes more sustainable fishing methods, including selective recreational fisheries. A policy rider adopted in the committee seeks to reverse these reforms by mandating the location of hatchery salmon production in Willapa Bay, including the Naselle River. I hope you will join me in opposing this policy rider.I appreciate your efforts to finalize a budget solution for our state and urge you to oppose these two budget proposals.

Sincerely,




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/30/15 04:01 PM


What we have here is a letter to the Senate from Director Unsworth. I am told ( but have not seen ) the House letter is similar. So rather than me beat up my keyboard read and make you own mind up.



Dear Honorable members of the Washington State Senate,

I recognize that as you work on reaching consensus on what has been a very challenging budget process this session you are dealing with many concerns on budget policy. However, I need to share my unease about the following issues in the House and Senate budget proposals in regards to the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s operating and capital budgets.

Operating Budget

Transfer of Hatchery Production
A budget amendment adopted during the House Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday directs the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to relocate all salmon production at the Nemah Hatchery to the Naselle Hatchery effectively nullifying recent Fish and Wildlife Commission policy on the Willapa Bay.

Moving salmon production to the Naselle locations will impact a specific salmon population that has been designated with a higher brood stock management standard. The policy in the House budget severely limits our ability to remove hatchery fish off of the spawning grounds. This separation is necessary so that hatchery salmon do not interact with wild stocks. Adding more hatchery fish to the Naselle area complicates (if not makes impossible) our ability to meet this standard and comply with required hatchery reform principles.

If this policy is adopted in the conference budget the state will not be able to meet the scientific standards set by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) and attain hatchery reform goals. I respectfully request that the Legislature refrain from making policy decisions that abrogate Fish and Wildlife Commission Policy on these complex resource management issues.

Mass Marking Funding
WDFW is required by state and federal laws to mark (by removing adipose fins) hatchery raised chinook and coho salmon in order to maintain mark-selective fisheries. WDFW can only release salmon that have been marked. The House proposal that passed the Appropriations Committee on Tuesday reduces the Department's ability to mark hatchery fish and will result in a reduction in hatchery production that will impact salmon fishing opportunity. Please maintain this funding at the level in the Senate budget.

Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP)
The Senate operating budget removes $800,000 that is needed to finalize an over ten year planning partnership (a $20 million investment to date) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Completion of the plan is the next step in efforts to leverage nearly $800 million in federal funding to advance Puget Sound recovery. The policy in the Senate budget eliminates the funding needed to finalize the plan (throwing aside the $20 million investment) and will halt all effort to bring nearly $1 billion of federal funding to support Puget Sound restoration projects. Please maintain the funding at the level in the House budget.

Capital Budget

Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP)
WDFW has worked closely with local partners to develop WWRP proposals for acquisition, easement and restoration effort to advance recreational and conservation opportunities. These WDFW projects are all supported within their local communities. While I support the Legislature’s efforts to investigate WWRP reform that addresses current public values, I respectfully request that the current process, projects and funding levels as proposed in the House budget remain intact.

Thank you for your hard work and consideration.

Sincerely,
Jim Unsworth Director
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Posted by: JustBecause

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/30/15 05:27 PM

Looks like neither the mass-marking reduction or the language directed at the Nemah/Naselle made it into the final budget.

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/01/15 09:09 AM

That's good form for Unsworth.

Blake is lower than pond scum.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/03/15 04:22 AM

I have been told that the Willapa Gillnetters filed in Pacific County court to over turn the just passed Willapa Policy. As I do not have a copy yet I have few details but as soon as I get it or someone else does it will be up. The thing is I can not get my arms around is why not wait for the WAC? Commercial interest have already gotten their collective butts kicked suing a policy before. Oh well forward we go and the article below from the newspaper as some information.


CHINOOK OBSERVER:

Gillnetters begin legal challenge to new Willapa Bay salmon policy
Katie Wilson

Published:

July 2, 2015 4:42PM

Gillnetting group files petition for judicial reveiw of new Willapa Bay salmon management policy

A group of commercial gillnet fishermen filed a petition June 30, seeking judicial review of a new salmon management policy on Willapa Bay.

The Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association (WBGA), represented by attorneys Ryen Godwin and Gregory Jacoby of Tacoma-based McGavick Graves, argues the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife acted outside of statuary authority when it placed restrictions on fishing times, place, manner and fishing method in the policy instead of in a rule.

The attorneys also claim the department acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” way when it used specific models to analyze justify how much harvest of salmon the new policy would allow as well as determine the current economic impacts of both commercial and sport fishermen in Willapa Bay.

“The DFW determined the current economic impact in Willapa Bay based upon a state-wide study published in 2008 of all gear types, all locations, and all species of salmon,” the petition states. That study looks at ex-vessel value for commercial fishermen — the price fishermen receive for fish landed at a dock — and, for sport fishermen, the number of days available for them to fish.

“The state-wide study is not generally accepted as a reliable basis to determine economic impacts on a particular region,” the petition continues, “… There is no rational relationship between the economic impacts identified in the state-wide study and the Policy’s actual economic impacts on Willapa Bay.”

The petition also took issue with the allowed impact rate to naturally spawning Chinook salmon — fish that do not return to the state-run hatcheries and spawn on their own in nearby rivers and streams. Under the policy, gillnetters are allowed 20 percent impacts; once they hit a certain number of these natural or wild Chinook, fishing must cease in that area. In coming years, this allowed impact will be stepped down to 14 percent, which could potentially further restrict commercial harvest on Willapa Bay.

Local fishermen have called that percentage a “nail in the coffin,” and said there would be little reason to continue fishing on Willapa Bay under such an impact rate. In the past, they were allowed anywhere from 30 percent to nearly 40 percent impact, and, the petition says, this impact helped the natural origin fish, keeping spawning ground from becoming overrun.

WDFW, its commission and conservation groups, however, have argued that lowering the impact rate to 20 and then 14 percent is necessary move to restore wild salmon runs there. Fishermen and processors have countered that there are no true wild runs on the Willapa, only hatchery fish that failed to return to the hatcheries and have instead begun to spawn on their own.

“The facts found by the DFW as recently as 2013 show that a (30) percent impact rate ensured the protection of natural origin adults and removed hatchery adults that might otherwise have a negative influence on natural counterparts,” the petition argues, and later states, “there is no conservation benefit to reducing the impact rate from (20) percent and then to (14) percent after the initial transition period outlined in the Policy.”

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, whose commission passed the new management policy last month as part of a legal settlement with the Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy group last year, has 20 days to respond.

A spokesperson for the department said WDFW’s counsel advised the department not to comment on the petition outside of the courtroom, but sent the Chinook Observer copies of materials received from the WBGA’s attorneys.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/03/15 11:11 AM

Lets try this...
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/03/15 11:13 AM

OK that worked... sort of.

Sorry I had to chop the document in three pieces due to file-size restriction here on the board 146KB

And yes, you need Adobe to see it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/03/15 11:22 AM


THX Doc you did wayyyyyyyy better than my puny attempt to get it up! All that education you got paid off! grin
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/03/15 02:27 PM

It reads just like the WDFW Commission wanted....I didn't feel that the WDFW Fish committee, left many openings or loose ends for anyone to "come back at them".

This needs to get done....so people can make plans to vacation in this area, so the Netters that want to stay in their business can move on with their lives.

Change is tough, but fish must be place higher up the list, than what they have been for the past 100+ years.....

Wish everyone well. Its been an interesting process.....hope its over!!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/06/15 12:04 PM

For those interested the hearings for coastal fisheries CR 102's ( creating a WAC ) are tomorrow. Steve Theisfeld put out the e mail below to help folks out.

THX Steve.


Hi Everyone,

There appears to be some confusion about the North of Falcon salmon regulation hearings tomorrow. There are 3 hearings scheduled for tomorrow:

11 am – 12 noon: Coastal freshwater recreational salmon regulations (all freshwater systems from Willapa Bay to the Hoko River).

1 pm – 3 pm: Willapa Bay commercial salmon regulations.
Please note that we have recently filed a supplemental CR-102 and there will be a second hearing on August 4th. I would have cancelled the Willapa Bay hearing scheduled for tomorrow, except I didn’t meet the cancelation deadline. We will take comments at both hearings, but for the fall fishery folks should focus on the supplemental CR-102 and the hearing in August.

3 pm – 5 pm: Grays Harbor commercial salmon fishing regulations.

If you need to refresh yourselves on what regulations we have filed, they can be found here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#15-12-115.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/15 07:32 AM


Catching up time. Region 6 is going through the drought exercise also. In a conference call with the GH Advisers that wanted to participate the issue was aired out. Long and short of it we are running just above record lows and on the Olympic side below as no snow pack. Water temperatures punched to 74 in the upper basin but we got to 72 in tidewater. This morning the cool weather had the river setting on 69.5 in tidewater which is helpful.

A couple of dead fish have been seen ( salmon ) but no massive die off or anything and to be honest this is normal for the Chehalis Basin except ( ah yeah the except thing ) we are running about 5 or 6 weeks early. The conditions we have now are what is usually in August.

The extended forecast does not have much rain but temperatures look to be hanging out at normal or below. The coast will run low but it looks as if appears we are in the no rain but marine air thing which makes for typical coastal weather. Inland warmer but not that much above or below average. So we wait and watch.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/14/15 09:16 AM

Now this is a bit different. I would imagine as ocean survival and down the road a bit the fall out from low survival from the drought comes home 2 or 3 years down the road we will see more of this. Tribe vs tribe, Rec vs Rec, Commercial vs just everybody. Interesting is not the word I would choose, unorganized chaos comes to mind. Anyhow read away.



The Daily World

A Federal District Court Judge handed down a decision Thursday that found the Quinault Indian Nation and Quileute Tribe has usual accustomed fishing rights 30 miles from their territory.The ruling comes after the Makah Indian Tribe filed a suit in 2009 saying at the time of the Treaty of Olympia, signed in 1855, the two tribes only had fishing areas five to ten miles into to the ocean from their territory.Judge Ricardo Martinez found that at the time the treaty was signed, the two tribes did have usual and accustomed fishing rights for 30 miles in the ocean from their territory based on evidence presented at trial, said Seattle-based Lawyer Eric Nielsen, one of the attorneys who represented the Quinault Nation.

The treaty between the United States and the Quinault and Quileute Indian Nations reserved both tribes’ rights to continue fishing in familiar areas in exchange for giving parts of their territory to the U.S.The suit was part of the 1974 U.S. v Washington (Boldt) case which confirmed tribal treaty fishing rights. That case was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978.“We make every effort to avoid intertribal conflicts such as this, and that was certainly the case here,” said Quinault Nation President Fawn Sharp. “But the Makah Tribe, joined by the State of Washington, brought this lawsuit to limit the Quinault Nation’s treaty ocean fishing so Quinault was forced to defend its treaty rights.” - See more at: http://thedailyworld.com/news/local/judg...h.xg9Q4J5K.dpuf
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/14/15 09:42 AM

Why does no one question why the QIN can fish 43 miles from their original land. Do the research, they NEVER had any fishing or other trade with the Chehalis. The Chehalis were very territorial. The Chehalis should file a lawsuit to remove them from the Chehalis river, and the humptulips too!

I've never understood why the feel they have "rights" to a river they NEVER fished historically. Any judge could figure that out.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/14/15 10:07 AM

Got to get busy before the heat but yes/no
Quote:
Do the research, they NEVER had any fishing or other trade with the Chehalis.


Ah yes/no. The QIN and the Chehalis tribes are composite as to heritage. At one time we had a Satsop tribe with a reservation but it was moved as was the Ocean Shores tribes. After the Stevens treaty the tribes got bunched up to two reservations at Taholah & Oakville. If I recall correctly the QIN did come to GH but more to forage the land surrounding the bay rather than fish. The coastal tribes were wide ranging hunter gathers that traveled to where they could find whatever food they were pursuing be it seals, whale, fish, or natural plants. Also there were many small groups ( tribes ) that most do not know even existed. Disease brought by the Europeans that the tribes had zero immunity too nearly wiped out many.

The last full blooded Satsop tribal member died of exposure in a ditch near Schafer Park way back. The settlers around at that time just drove right by and let her die. That is how things worked back then.

The Chehalis tribe is non treaty as at the time of the signing one chief shot another in the azz so the Chehalis went home and did not sign. Fuzzy on the details as it was a tribal member who was a story teller ( verbal historical record ) that I learned from but been a few years so if anyone recalls that help out.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/15/15 10:29 AM

Word is that AD Jim Scott has taken another position in the agency and they are bringing up someone from the Columbia region (5?) as interim Fish Program AD. My understanding is they will open the application process outside the agency. I know they do that all the time then keep the interim person on.

So let us watch and see. Mr. Unsworth is a study in contrast to previous Directors as he is from the outside and frankly has simply ............. no track record? Unlike Mr. Shanks who went for the gusto and bit the dust, or Mr. Anderson's status quo approach, Mr.Unsworth appears to take more of a measured approach. So we wait.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/15 09:22 AM

I have been asked by some folks what is going on with fishing in the local rivers with the lack of rain and low flows. Well not much but that is what one would expect. This does not mean that bad things are not happening but rather wrong place. The low flows will have a effect on survival of the juvenile Coho & Steelhead in creeks and ponds and only time will tell to what degree. So in the next couple of years we will find out good / bad / or you choose.

SPRINGERS: As to adults returning it has been a little strange since July. In the latter weeks of July a substantial number of salmon were moving up but then slowed way down. The question was are the Springers late or Summer Chinook early? Best guess I think is the back end of the Springer run was larger than normal ( not to be confused with a larger than expected run ) and late.

SUMMER CHINOOK: The Summer Chinook are around but not in any numbers that would lead one to believe they are coming in early. Last year is a example of how difficult this is to judge. The QIN or WDF&W blew it on escapement but could not have known. The fish came in normal then just were not there. The run was early and tailed out sharply so by the time they caught it was too late to do much. So we wait to see what shows and when.

COHO: Coho showed in July as always. Never many as always but folks have been catching one here and there. So far normal timing and numbers, maybe?

SUMMERRUN STEELHEAD: Early season for Summerrun Steelies was miserable, just very few fish. It stayed that way for a few weeks then they showed in good numbers. This is a easy one. They were late but run looks OK.

So what's next? No idea but the August temperature forecast is above normal, not so good. September on the other hand has a long range forecast of below average temperatures. This is about the best news we could have in particular for the bay fishery. The thing is the river conditions we have now are normal for a dry year. Yup things warmed up early but we just got to August in July! Bad for juvenile rearing not much effect on adults. So in the Chehalis it is poke around time & waiting for things to light up.

Just to confuse things a bit things are a little different in the Willapa. Word came back from a local resident that Chinook made the Nemah the earliest in the last 35 to 40 years. Additionally they showed in the Naselle. So they are early but numbers, no idea. 2T fishing has been good so far also.

So there we are, a mixed bag at this time but it will sort itself out for sure. If the weather performs as the long range forecast projects then things should be OK. In the end it will be the when it rains thing and how much. We hit mid October without rain then that is not unusual. ( a quarter of a inch of rain is a shower not rain ) If we get into November without rainfall then fishing should be fine as the fish will stage up low in the streams. When working with the hatchery return of Coho it is always a guessing game. Always Coho slowly work their way up but many just plain park and wait, particularly wild Coho. Our guide was the beaver ponds & brackish water. When we get enough rain that the beaver ponds & swampy areas dump and that dark brackish water comes Coho will head home like they have a rocket attached to them.

So we wait and watch. The Chehalis & Willapa Estuaries are rain driven and in most years this puts the screws to us with blow outs. This year with the lack of snow pack many streams are suffering but our streams do not depend on snow and no rain & low flows are normal. Our salmonids stage and move differently. Time will tell if this saves our bacon this time around.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/05/15 07:32 AM


I received this from down South for those that are interested.


Last week's single day of rain brought a small number of Kings into the tidal water of the North Nemah. I awoke to the south of rain pelting the tin roof of the wood shed...I shot out of bed in the dark thinking this will bring fish. My city bred husband thinks I'm crazy but swears I can smell the fish. Sure enough by the low night tide a fair number were flopping and rolling.

This week however no amount of flailing the water will produce a bite. No visible movement yesterday or today.These early fish surge in and out with the tide . I also feel they are heavily preyed upon by the seals and river otter.

Interestingly enough, there have been fewer cutthroat.

I will keep all interested apprised.

M---------
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/05/15 09:31 AM

Different topic but have the final net schedules been posted for WB and GH yet?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/05/15 09:53 AM


In the models ( if you have the latest & in the APA / WAC process )

CR 102 for Willapa http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2015/wsr_15-14-124.pdf

CR 102 for GH http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2015/wsr_15-12-116.pdf
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/15 08:15 AM

What we have below is a e mail regarding the NT Gillnetters Commercial seasons this fall. To boil it down to its simplest terms WDF&W proposed to put the NT commercials in on Sunday which effectively wipes out the handicapped access in the Lakeside reach above the 101 bridge and the Mom & Pop troll fishery at the Port of GH. Oh but we have another option, just dump the Grays Harbor Management Policy ( GHMP ) 4/3. 4/3 is the provision that requires 3 consecutive days in a calendar week be net free. It takes a three day window to pass fish ABOVE the QIN nets. Do one or two days or not 3 consecutive days the fish do not clear the QIN fishers below South Monte but rather simply get caught below South Monte vs being caught in down town Aberdeen. How about another thought, do not put NT Nets in on Sunday or at least as I suggested to staff keep the nets out until 1:00 PM so working folks can fish on their day off!

Additionally I will point out if not for the 4/3 provision last year we would have devastated the Chinook run as it came in early and short ( and did not make escapement again ) which was not detected until after harvest. 4/3 is our and the fishes safety net and the balancer between inriver & marine fisheries.

In the past ( prior to the use of lap top computer modeling ) staff utilized escapement plus 10% to create a pad for escapement. In recent years with computer modeling we do it down to the last " paper fish " and frankly this has resulted in our failure to make Chinook escapement and devastated the week upriver Chum returns. The reason and the only reason we fail to make Chinook escapement and upper Chehalis Basin Chum struggle is overharvest.

So off we go ............... again. In my personal opinion this is about the rudest method of operation I have seen in years. Well maybe not the full court press in San Francisco at PFMC out of the public eyes to invalidate the Willapa Policy pretty much is the top vote getter I guess. Think of it this way. One day before a discussion at the Commission level Region 6 sends out the heads up e mail on something as important as handicapped access and the 4/3 provision. One day, no press release, no nothing. These guys give the word rude a bad name.

More to come for sure and as soon as we find anything out I will let all know but this constant assault on the GHMP by staff behind closed doors without notifying the citizens in our community needs to stop. They might try looking up the definition of the word rude as it certainly describes staff conduct on this issue.

RUDE: offensively impolite or ill-mannered.



FROM STEVE THEISFELD:

Hi Advisors,
I want to alert you to a discussion we will be having with the Fish and Wildlife Commission’s - Fish Committee tomorrow. As you are aware, there were 3 Sunday fisheries proposed in areas 2A-D. We heard concern expressed by the recreational sector about those days and moving the start time back. While that is an option, another option is to move a couple of those days to Thursday. So we are going to have a discussion with the Fish Committee tomorrow about whether moving October 11 to October 15, and October 18 to October 22 makes sense or not. If the days are moved, there would still be 3 consecutive days between fisheries, but they would not be 3 consecutive days in the calendar week. I’m not sure whether the Fish Committee will be supportive or not. If they are, the issue would be brought up to the entire Commission on Friday or Saturday. I don’t know the specific mechanism, it could be a briefing by the Director or the Fish Committee chair. If folks want to weigh in on the issue, the Open Public Comment period would be a great opportunity to provide some thoughts. I will send out an email after the Fish Committee meeting tomorrow evening to let you know if the issue will be moved forward for additional discussion or not.
I’ll send an email to interested parties in a few minutes, but thought I would let you guys know first.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/15 08:25 AM

OK all done now. It appears from Steve's E mail that screwing with the GHMP did not go over all that well. Now all should keep in mind that putting the NT Nets in on Sunday does meet GHMP requirements. The policy is the policy and it is guidelines to how you do things as to harvest but staff do have the flexibility to manage user seasons within the policy guidelines.

Now on the other hand when previous R-6 staff moved the marine boundary from the 101 bridge to Lake side they knew full well that they were dumping on the handicapped and low income folks best fishing location and for many the ONLY descent location. Staff knew full well what they were doing but did not care. Once something is implemented it is difficult to get change let alone something done years ago. So the dance goes on but I am glad this one is over ............. hopefully.



FROM STEVE THEISFELD:

Hi Again Everyone,

There was not support for continuing discussion about moving days in the Grays Harbor commercial salmon fishery. Therefore this issue will not be brought before the Commission.

Have a great weekend!



From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:35 PM
Subject: Grays Harbor Commercial Rules
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/15 07:17 AM

Couple of things going on. First in Willapa those fishing might have noticed crab pots abandoned in a rather bad location. So here is a bit from a citizen bringing it to R6's attention and the response.

To Region-6:
Steve- I have been getting calls from guys who have fished the Willapa today. We apparently have a crabber down there who decided to protest in some fashion by placing what are being described as 8-10 commercial pots out in a line near Marker 2 that is a favorite trolling line for recs fishing for Chinooks. I advised the callers to leave the pots alone and I'd contact WDFW. I use the word "protest" as commercial and rec crabbing has been closed nearly all year down there including the latest emergency reg filed on August 5 that closed the entire coast and the bays from the Columbia River up to the Queets on the N. Coast. The closure leaves me with the only rationale I can come up is some sort of protest aimed at rec fishing in the Willapa.

With the closures, I don't see any way that these pots could be in the water legally. I'd ask that enforcement be notified immediately so they can address the problem and I be informed of the approximate time and the date of enforcement's arrival and a description of any actions taken by the Department.

And The Response:
We have been working to try and get the pots out of there for over a week. The Pots are stuck and we do not have the ability to pump them out. The Sergeant has been in contact with the owner who is making arrangements to remove them. I understand from the Sergeant that the owner said today or tomorrow he should have them out. We have looked into the report that this is a commercial/rec issue and feel it is just a commercial fisherman who has not made the effort to go out and pump his gear. If you have any other questions feel free to call me. Thank you.

Followed by:
Thank you. As a supplement to this conversation, I was contacted today by several locals who claim they've reported abandoned pots to Region 6 enforcement not only in this location but others in the Bay as well.

They were very upset with the reaction they had been receiving from a local enforcement officer and claimed he stated it wasn't the Department's problem if boating accidents, etc. occurred due to abandoned commercial pots as it was the public's duty to avoid dangerous situations while on the water. Not happy campers comes to mind. Naturally, all is second hand. For what it is worth.......

On The Chehalis:
Meanwhile on the Chehalis e have had two press releases on closures to ALL fishing the Black & Newaukum. Both are to protect Spring Chinook due to low flows. Are the full closures justified? No idea but remember the Chehalis is rain fed so dry years are normal but maybe R-6 has information not available to all so I will ask for the documentation utilized. I think or we feel will not fly. If harm is being done what is the numerical value of dead fish? 1? 5? 20? Just how many fish have been impacted is not just important but critical in the thought process. That has been the problem with R-6 for years. No data no nothing just off we go. The best example is when in the recent past they shut the bay fishery down due to concerns of over harvest by the Rec fleet. Documents obtained in a PDR showed staff had zero idea on how many fish had been caught but they counted boat trailers. So more to come I am sure.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/15 10:27 AM



I thought I would put for folks a couple of issues brewing now that NOF is done with, hopefully, and it looks like next up and coming fast is the dry conditions / low flows in our streams. Being 67 ( and getting older than dirt ) and being raised on a farm with haying, working construction in the woods for 39 years, and broodstocking fish for 25 years my memories of weather go way back. Most folks do not have that memory and do not realize we have not had really dry summers for over 15 years. We have been in a mild ( damp ) thing for some years so it just was not a issue. It appears Mother Nature is out to put an end to that.

So what to do? Not much I am sorry to say. Our loses ( and it looks like they are going to be large ) are primarily in the juvenile rearing areas. Think of it this way, the damage is greatest at this minute in the small streams, beaver ponds and sloughs. Water temperatures are up, Dissolved Oxygen ( DO ) will be down in slack water environments and juveniles will parish. It has already happened on Black River which is rather like the "canary in a coal mine" as Black River is where this normally shows first.

What can be done is this. If you see a fish kill take a picture, get the location down pat, and let WDF&W staff in Montesano know. If it is an adult it is just as important to get the location and if you have a obvious cause of death. E mail it or call do whatever is needed to get the information to them. Here is Mike Scharpf 's E mail address to send things in Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov & Region 6's phone is 360 249 4628. This could get ugly for the fish folks and staff can use some help.

Yes I know that the agencies responses will look and likely are a bit off dead center but staff lacks the institutional memory that those of us who have lived most of our lives here. Add to that WDF&W just went through a really brutal legislative session and Willapa Policy which really tied them up. Then we add to the mix the fact that this year the OP & Cascade streams did not have a snow pack which translates into a "one size fits all approach" coming out of Olympia. So before my e mail catches fire, yes I know that is counterproductive. Yes I know that the Chehalis is not Puget Sound and yes I know we are rain fed streams which are different. Still folks we can set and watch staff dash to & fro providing some awesome entertainment but that does little for the fish. Also this, Region 6 District 17 staff are trying and I mean really trying. Again yes I know that the past conduct of staff has been, well how about not ideal for the fish or inland communities. I urge all to get past that and help staff track this thing. Since Steve Thiesfeld came to Region 6 he has worked very hard to turn things around. Now if one thinks that the shortfalls in their approach to the stream conditions at this minute have not been pointed out BLUNTLY you would be wrong. ( and I mean a Dave bluntly not this PC or good manners bit ) In fact bets are I am blackballed ....... again! That said folks we can set and watch them fail or try to help out. I think maybe helping them when possible makes a little more sense.

Another issue folks is the Springers in the Chehalis. To put it simply we have a poaching problem that is getting out of hand. It appears to have reared its ugly head on the Newaukum big time. While this is not totally new it appears the scope & scale is. Couple that with the fact that it appears to have happened right in the middle of a Springer tracking research effort by Region 6 it appears staff about had a stroke and rightly so. Our Springer run is not a true Springer like the Columbia, OP, or Puget Sound but rather a early summer Chinook that uses upwelling's in the rivers to survive the summer and they are bunched up hard and very vulnerable.

So again folks if you see signs of poaching pictures, location, and let staff know or call it into Enforcement. Again to save my computer screen, yes I know this is not a new problem. Yes I know that Enforcement and Montesano staff have known this for years. Yes I know Enforcement has spent more time out bugging folks about flossing, barbless hooks, just everything one can imagine, and ignored this problem. Let it go for the fish guys. We have a new Director, a new management policy and it is a new day. (hopefully) So if you see poaching on the Springers call it in. Those of you the live up basin know where the Springers hold so keep a eye out. Spread the word among yourselves and for this year for the fish let the past be that.

The new Grays Harbor Policy has net free days and much that guarantees equal access for harvest. It was a huge effort by many citizens and the Commission that will help overcome the discrimination that the inland communities and fisher suffered for so many years with the old kill all in the lower river at Aberdeen mentality. Which by the way was always followed by inriver / inland shouldering the vast majority of salmon conservation.

It is our call folks. Ignore the Springer poaching and the price in the future will in all likelihood rather draconian for the fish and us. The thing is WDF&W could not stop the poaching due to budget cuts even if they wanted to as they are simply stretched too thin but you folks in the upper basin can help put a dent in it. It is that time.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/04/15 05:40 AM

Well it should be interesting in GH & Willapa. Especially GH where the QIN have been way to aggressive on Chinook.


The federal agency in charge of managing fisheries has ruled four stocks of Pacific Northwest salmon are being overfished.

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Commerce on Wednesday posted a notice in the Federal Register of the excessive fishing pressures on Chinook and Coho salmon in the Columbia River Basin and along the Washington coast.

The notice, which included overfishing findings for North Pacific swordfish, is meant to alert fishery managers that fishing pressures are driving salmon populations down.

Federal law requires the Pacific Fishery Management Council to take immediate action to end the overfishing.


http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/in...ml#incart_river

The notice covers the following four salmon populations:

Summer Chinook in the upper river area of the Columbia River Basin

Fall Chinook in the Willapa Bay area of the Washington coast

Fall Chinook in the Grays Harbor area of the Washington coast


Coho along the Hoh area of the Washington coast.

And another fed link :
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles...ished-condition






Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/04/15 07:11 AM

Duh....Duh

Then why was Chinook limit, in the ocean, increased to 2 Chinook?????? Just recently ????

Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing????? Or is it the game of politics being played????

It will be interesting in GH....will the tribe "step up to the plate", if the catch numbers start to get out of hand??????
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/04/15 08:02 AM

I'll be more interested in what the stance of those federal agencies will be on the upcoming new edition of the US/Canada salmon treaty. Will they continue to approve the status quo in the ultimate mixed stock fisheries in SE Alaska and northern BC or actually take a conservation stance?

Any bets?

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/04/15 08:14 AM

Money and power. AK and BC keep on keeping on. BC won't consider getting off of the fish until AK cuts back. Since nobody else takes AK's fish, where's the pressure point.

One possible option may be through ESA and the International CITES treaty/rules. That bans trade in endangered species. IF AK or BC can't show that the fish in question came from non-endangered sources (i.e. marked hatchery fish) then they couldn't be imported. So, one could not go to BC, catch fish, and bring them home without documentation proving they were listed. Long shot, I know, but if you can't stop the fishery maybe you can stop the trade.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/13/15 06:24 AM


Just a heads up so all remember. The QIN start netting at noon today. No idea with the weather if they will all fish. Usually most go on the first day but numbers of fishers shrink if the fish are not moving. So wait and see as to the fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/15 01:15 PM


Update time. Willapa has Chinook in numbers instream. The bay Chinook mix is about 20% or so W/H which is way off modeled and keeping the nets on shore. Very few Coho.

GH / Chehalis same inriver but smaller numbers. QIN got over 2500 Chinook but very few Coho in two 24 hr periods most scales set. The harvest was well above what was modeled. Hump Chinook are tracking close to normal.

So Chinook look OK so far but Coho, not so much. In fact we wait until the bay opens tomorrow in GH but I think we are getting close to only two options. The Coho run is starting in late or coming up well short.

Time will tell.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/15 01:30 PM

It was a few years ago that nobody got any Coho until around October 15th. After that it was light out. Sometimes they come early, on time or late. Hopefully its not one of those years where they barely come at all. Looked around today and saw a bunch of fish in the Satsop, at cook creek corner. Im sure they will be picked off by 10:00am.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/15 03:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy



GH / Chehalis same inriver but smaller numbers. QIN got over 2500 Chinook but very few Coho in two 24 hr periods most scales set. The harvest was well above what was modeled. Hump Chinook are tracking close to normal.





On a run that has failed to make goal 80% of the time and now officially on the fed register as "OVERFISHED"

J F C
GDITMMM!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/15 07:30 AM

Hey Doc, they made goal 20% of the time. That has to count for something. Isn't getting eye surgery right 20% of the time close enough for Government Work?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/15 07:59 AM

I would hope that the 28th Street, Johns River, Hoquiam launch would be checked for "fish hooked", if the numbers show more Chinook than Coho then maybe some kind of action is needed to protect the fish????

From someone who does most of my fishing, this time of the year, above South Monty......there are very few jacks, Chinook or Silver, being caught. There were some small hatchery silvers that showed about a week ago, now they are gone......I know its early but something just isn't right.

Time tells all!!!!!!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/15 01:03 PM

I agree that fishing's been tough (worked 4 hours for one coho on Monday), but it was about this time last year that things really got hopping around Monte, so I'm still confident numbers will improve. With the rain we're getting this week, I suspect we'll have a pretty good idea about the state of the coho run by the weekend.

I usually don't catch a ton of jacks, but it does seem like they're more or less absent so far this year. No idea what that means. Hopefully, they're all just waiting to come back as adults and we'll start seeing them soon.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/15 02:55 PM

how many Chinook did WDFW have as harvestable???
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/15 04:17 PM

12113
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/15 08:48 AM

Sure hope this rain pulls the silvers into the Harbor and river. I'm home this week hoping to get well enough to go fishing this weekend. I couldn't hook a single silver while on the Columbia, so I'm hoping to connect with some flashy dancers in the Harbor. If you see me out there, please understand that the flask is for medicinal purposes only. Oh, and celebration of landed silvers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/15 10:17 AM

My recent post had several folks concerned over the numbers Chinook harvested by the QIN. The QIN harvest came in above expectations for Chinook but Coho are a no show. Now in the big picture the tribal 2 day set says .............. really nothing other than the QIN need to be keenly aware that the Chinook staging hard in the lower reaches and they could blow through the projected harvest numbers, which would not be a good thing. The other side is maybe the run is larger or early or just about anything so one waits to see. It is interesting that just after PFMC agrees to a lower Chehalis Chinook escapement goal off QIN data then NMFS fires back with the over fishing on the registry. Keep in mind the overfishing is occurring in the MARINE fisheries from AK to OR.

Now Coho is different. A local gentlemen, whose handle is Softbite, has been bringing forth that the ocean PDO is tanking. Below is a down & dirty description of the PDO for those not familiar with the term. Then despite the rain we are well below average flows. Also the early rain scooted the fish holding in tidewater upstream. It is not uncommon in dry years for Coho just park and wait for a weather change to before doing anything. The other side of the coin is that the ocean Coho fishery has been under what was modeled and it came up short on Coho is the thought of many folks. Add to the fact last year we caught a lot of 4 to 5 lb Coho both male & female, which is just weird. Then this year Coho jacks appear to be scarce. Additionally when we do find Coho this year many are the 4 to 5 lb range ( males so far ) so it begs the question, "is the run going to be much smaller than forecast" ? Maybe yes / maybe no but I will stick my neck out and say Coho are going to be short. Now with the runsize forecast we have lots of room before the numbers drop below escapement so no need to panic.

The one thing I am certain of is the timeline for the Coho run is not going to be what we call "normal" and one needs to be adaptive for timing and methods. Going to be a interesting couple of months to be sure.

PDO:

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a robust, recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centered over the mid-latitude Pacific basin. The PDO is detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. Over the past century, the amplitude of this climate pattern has varied irregularly at interannual-to-interdecadal time scales. There is evidence of reversals in the prevailing polarity of the oscillation occurring around 1925, 1947, and 1977; the last two reversals corresponded with dramatic shifts in salmon production regimes in the North Pacific Ocean. This climate pattern also affects coastal sea and continental surface air temperatures from Alaska to California.

During a "warm", or "positive", phase, the west Pacific becomes cooler and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a "cool" or "negative" phase, the opposite pattern occurs. The Pacific (inter-)decadal oscillation was named by Steven R. Hare, who noticed it while studying salmon production pattern results in 1997.[1]

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation index is the leading empirical orthogonal function (EOF) of monthly sea surface temperature anomalies (SSTA) over the North Pacific (poleward of 20° N) after the global mean SST has been removed, the PDO index is the standardized principal component time series.[2] A PDO signal has been reconstructed to 1661 through tree-ring chronologies in the Baja California area.[3]

Posted by: no fish10

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/15 10:56 AM

We have been fishing Sekiu. I have a trailer up there all season. There are 3 in our group. There are a lot of silvers biting but the size is 4 to 5 pounds. I have seen few 10 pounders caught and nothing over that. Good coho are 8 lbs. A few years ago we were catching 12 pounders and bigger but not now. When I clean the coho I am not finding anything in their stomaches. So the size up seems to be consistent with GH. I hope in another week they might get bigger but that might be wishfill thinking.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/15 12:21 PM

Perhaps the fact that my one coho on Monday at S. Monte was an 11-lb. hen will serve to provide hope for some more respectably-sized recruits.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/19/15 07:35 AM

Hit the GH opener Wed. Thurs. focused on the So. channel. Marked tons of fish but few biters? Released a few kings and a few other takes but only one Coho 8#. Strange thing about the bite was I had friends up in the No channel, Willipa, and out in ocean. All with same report... few biters but tons of fish marked. Talk of the Charter fleet is that earthquake off Chile may have turned fish off in salt? Even bottom fish charters struggled? Anyway stranger things have happend and hope the coho show.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/19/15 05:51 PM

LOTS AND LOTS of coho around Elma. Same story, the odd one caught, but mostly lock jawed. They are around, just not grabbing at anything really. Bait, spinners, twitching jig, and everything in between. Nothing. Chinook on the other hand, will take anything. Kind of funny. To bad you can't keep any hatchery kings on the Chehalis, caught a couple nice chrome fish. Oh well.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/15 11:16 AM

QIN pulled and are not fishing week 39 (this week) It is on their website under regulations. ( Chehalis )




CHEHALIS RIVER & GH AREAS 2A, 2A-1, 2D COMMERCIAL FISHING REGULATION
2015 FALL SEASON CLOSURE FOR WEEK 39- C2

TO: Quinault Tribal Off-Reservation Fishermen Quinault Tribal Law Enforcement

FROM: Quinault Business Committee
DATE: September 18, 2015
SUBJECT: Chehalis River and Grays Harbor Areas 2A-1, 2A, 2D - Setting Closure during Week 39


This regulation cancels Regulation Cl, dated August 14, AND INSTITUTES A CLOSURE OF this fishery during week 39, all of next week.

A NEW REGULATION WILL BE ISSUED NEXT WEEK TO ADJUST THE SCHEDULE BEGINNING WEEK 40 WITH THE SAME REMAINING WEEKS TO FISH AN ALTERED SCHEDULE.

A NEW DEADLINE FOR THE WESTERN BOUNDAY OF THE FISHERY IN AREA 2D WILL BE INSTITUTED.


Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/15 11:54 AM

Rivrguy:

Are the QIN guys not fishing because thery're concerned about how many kings they caught last week, or is it because of fears that the coho run will come up short?

Probably a stupid question, but kudos to the Tribe either way.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/15 12:29 PM


As I understand it the number of Chinook caught last week ended up close to 3k so if they fished they could blow through the Chinook impacts modeled before they get to Coho. It was getting down to Russian Roulette time for them and they chose the correct action to address it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/15 11:14 AM


We have changes with the QIN ( GH ) schdule. Take a peek as it will affect many. Keep in mind the QIN pulled this week for conservation of Chinook.

http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/15 06:03 AM

Question is.......What happens if they start netting 9/27, at noon, and there are lots of Chinook in the catch?????

Wondering if the schedule would again be adjusted????? Just wondering....
Posted by: Get Bent

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/15 06:38 AM

75% of the catch in the south channel yesterday was chinook judging from what I saw yesterday. And catching was fair to gods for a few hours. The net WILL slaughter those fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/15 07:38 AM

Quote:
Question is.......What happens if they start netting 9/27, at noon, and there are lots of Chinook in the catch?????

Wondering if the schedule would again be adjusted????? Just wondering....


Keep in mind on the state side we are in the 3/5 penalty box for failure to make Chinook escapement in recent years. So after that I was told that the QIN got nearly double their modeled take on Chinook in week 38 two day set. This week (wk 39) when pulled they were modeled at 2784 and that is the prime Chinook week. This coming week the modeled impacts are 1317 and for the entire season the QIN Chinook harvest is 8917. (Chehalis H+W)

So whats up? Gut check time.............it looks like Chinook are at forecast runsize or larger. I think larger. Now Coho that is different. I have not caught a Coho ( in tidewater ) with scales set yet. Bright, straight out of the ocean moving upstream slowly ( no floating back ) and not biting normally. Coho appear to be short in the numbers game. In fact the QIN were modeled at 10k for this point in time with 15k at the end of this week. So we are about to hit the prime two week Coho window and that will tell everyone, something. Modeled at around 15k Coho for the next two weeks ( before getting back the lost days last week ) this should be interesting. I do not think they are there.

As to Willapa the NT nets are having trouble not blowing natural Chinook numbers apart AND NO COHO SHOWING. No public meetings but rather conference call time with advisers. A couple of Willapa Advisers hang around here so they can fill in the blanks if they choose to. So the agency appears to be sticking to conservation objectives. Then the 800 lb gorilla, NO COHO! Same as GH.


Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/15 07:55 AM

I saw that Westport was way short of coho too. There a trend out there?
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/15 08:46 AM

Much of the South Channel is excluded by the current Quinault Boundary.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/15 07:32 AM

So this map shows no tribal nets on inside of boundary? And is this the boundary for non tribal commercials nets as well? Are nets not in the river itself?
On another note, Melanie and I have scraped out a silver each for the 3 days we have launched out of Monte, two males of about 6 lbs. with some color and scales beginning to set, and a real chromer female of about 9 1/2 lbs.on Saturday. We released 3 kings on Sunday, 20, 25, and a real brute of about 27 to 30 lbs. that took Melanie on a real trip. Had to fire up the engine and chase it down, towed that canoe right around, even with drift socks in! I guess that 4 in and 3 out is making a difference in numbers of kings in river. Maybe we can make escapement this year!
We had a number of drivebys and a couple that busted off bottom hooks, has anyone else had red matsuo sycle octopus hooks break line at the point where the hook eye turns in? I think there may be some sharp edge that cut lines at knot. Didn't have that problem with the blackish sycles that they make, appears to have a smoother edge. Def. best day for us was Sunday, had the most hookups. Bob R
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/15 07:52 AM

So this map shows no tribal nets on inside of boundary? CORRECT And is this the boundary for non tribal commercials nets as well? NOPE Are nets not in the river itself? THE TRIBAL NETS GO TO JUST BELOW S MONTE
Posted by: klb

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/15 12:13 PM

I think the map shows no nets outside of the boundary as there are many nets fishing inside.
Posted by: OncyT

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/15 12:44 PM

The map appears to show the western fishing boundary, so I would assume that legal nets would be inside (east of) this boundary as klb suggests.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/30/15 10:45 AM

Little update. QIN are getting about 1 to 1 on Coho & Chinook today. Chinook are down from first set two weeks ago but still plentiful. The QIN drift net fishers were doing a short net in main channel earlier as everything was right up the middle. Set nets picked up and now the drifters are a full spread as the Coho run to the edge on the mud flats & set nets picking up. So Coho appear to be picking up.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/15 06:15 PM


Down and dirty. On the Chehalis where the house fell in the river watch out. There is a well head that came with it and you can hit it at low tide or more. Not sure just how high it has to be to miss. One boat hit it & damaged the boat and the operator was injured so beware of it guys.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/15 08:54 PM

Knowing what I do about the "area in question", that boat/operator should not be going at any speed to do damage to the boat......should have been running 30 - 40 feet to the east.

At low water, the pipe is 2-3 above the surface, during a minus tide even more.

The current owners told me they tried to pull it out, but it was a "no can do"......they did mention a diver and going down at low slack, and cutting it off...........but like many things $$$$$$$ dictate, what can be done.

I'll try and take a picture, Sunday.....but it a "hold over tide" so maybe it might be a "no show"....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/15 10:03 AM



On to fishing and Grays Harbor first. At the end of the last setting the QIN were modeled at 16261 for Coho & 5673 for Chinook. Keeping in mind that they pulled for week 40 so Chinook numbers may be back in line as they went way over in week 39. Now the but it looks like they were high on Chinook again in week 41. Coho? They got some but they are not showing as forecast. The QIN modeled for Coho at 12420 this coming week it will really show us what is up.

So to the question why are not the numbers harvested available? Evidently the QIN are not talking to WDF&W again. Rumor has it that several of the tribes are doing this but I do not know for certain. This dance has been going on for some time now so we fly blind. One thing for certain is the 158052 forecast appears to be wayyyyyy off and coming up short. The thing is outside of harvest reporting and monitoring there is few options to determine what is truly going on with the salmon runs in GH. QIN are not talking and WDF&W has done zip to keep track of GH harvest so we do the Russian Roulette bit again. The harvest seasons ( everyone's ) are set off preseason forecast so all will fish to that regardless of the fact it is apparent that the forecast was loony tunes. My guess as of today? About 30% of forecast which is 47415 which gives us around 16000 harvestable not the 126696 modeled.

What does this mean? In GH it appears we are on auto pilot from the agency side and it appears only the QIN know what is going on. When the wailing starts everyone remember that.

Now Willapa. I have resisted getting drawn into this cat fight but it appears that a lot has been going on with the net fisheries. Staff have been doing scale & DNA testing and the numbers are quite a eye opener for some. It has been resulting in restrictions ( reduced days ) on Chinook impacts and again few Coho showing. The research supposedly resulted in additional Chinook impacts allowing additional NT Net time.

So to the question of the changes in available for harvest numbers, nope I do not know. The agency has been getting harvest numbers up on their website and other information but the conversations have been kept inside process with the Willapa Advisers, such as they are and zippo on information from this source also. What about the public who participated in the new policy process and Rec fishers? Gibbs rule 51, staff only reaches out when they want or need something. We the public are just part of their job as in the crafting of the WMP not the implementation. I suggested that they use Steve's contact list from the GH & WMP process just to get the information circulated and that ah, was not well received. As a Rec GH Adviser I can honestly say in many ways in Willapa & GH it is business as usual.

Keep in mind last time a Rec Adviser yipped about accountability ( just happened to be the GH Bay fishery ) staff shut that fishery down. Documents obtained in a PDR request later showed staff had about zero information other than lots of boats. Just happened that lots of boats had few fish caught so everyone is rather tight lipped to avoid a Yogi moment, "Déjà vu all over again"

It is what it is.
Posted by: 05 Hunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/15 08:13 PM

Just wanted to add a few more to DEAD chinook numbers, the guys fishing bait below fuller are doing there fair share at killing the chinook lots of dead fish laying on the bottom from there little c+r [Bleeeeep!]. They possibly might be floating out the satsop but its sure sad. 6 or 8 boats doing nothing but bobber and eggs today.
Drifter what you seeing down around the pump house ? Everybody wants chinook to make it to the gravel to spawn not to just be river nutrients. Wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit to see a bait restriction from monte up. Oh but we are just fishing jacks i call [Bleeeeep!].
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/15 04:34 AM

Well to be honest you should be seeing dead fish for heavens sake. 227 in fresh water, 451 in the bay, and NT net 170 all from C&R. Then you have the natural mortality which in many years is substantial due to environmental conditions, then you have the fish that are injured in the QIN nets that usually die off upstream Porter down. That folks are using bait that has some mortality is normal. It would have been higher if the NT Nets had been fishing using recovery boxes which do not recover, when they use them that is. So morts in a river with catch & release is normal. Difference between that and other fisheries is you see them but in marine to much water.

With the C&R rates and net drop out both tribal and NT we will kill somewhere around 1500 Chinook that end up on the bottom. Now if ones thoughts are we get rid of C&R so not to offend ones sensibilities ........... good luck on that one.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/15 06:08 AM

Originally Posted By: 05 Hunter
Drifter what you seeing down around the pump house ?


Not a good year for me, some fishermen doing better.....many worse. I have not caught an adult Chinook, 1 smelly jack that went back in, some Chinook are being caught all were released.....most quickly. Did see a guide boat doing the bobber and eggs bit.....not my place to lecture on the river.

Twitching works, for adults and eggs for jacks in the fast water.....many VERY SMALL jacks, so I've bagged the jack fishing for this year.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/15 08:31 AM

I'm not one to get too wrapped up in how people are fishing and what they're honestly targeting, but I have a couple thoughts/comments on the guys fishing eggs. I spent a few days bobbing around near the pump houses last week. I saw pretty light crowding for the most part. The line of bank anglers at the hole next to the old farm house were mostly fishing eggs, and (from what I saw) were catching almost entirely jacks. I did see an adult coho or two caught. I'm sure, considering the sheer numbers of kings staging in that part of the river, that they are getting an adult chinook every so often as well, but I personally didn't see any of those caught, so I doubt they're doing much damage.

The guides, on the other hand (as well as a few locals who primarily fish eggs anyway), are probably killing some kings. The coho fishing has been very hit and miss (mostly misses), and being under constant (if unspoken) pressure to put clients on fish, some of the guides seem to be running eggs to give their clients the best possible odds of hooking something. From talking to a couple of them, I learned that they were getting a coho or two for each client. That's certainly a lot better than I did fishing spinners and jigs in the same water, which I suppose validates their strategy from a productivity standpoint. Still... I have to think they've had more than a handful of wild kings swallow those eggs, especially considering the spots they were focusing on.

If we're serious about reducing the chinook impact (which is what usually determines our opportunity), we probably should take a serious look at the impacts associated with allowing anglers targeting coho to fish eggs in the tidal Chehalis. There's no doubt that eggs are the most proven bait/lure out there, but when they are the overwhelming favorite presentation for a species we're trying NOT to catch, perhaps we should use something different.

As has been said, many times and many ways, the coho fishing is pretty tough for the most part.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/15 02:12 PM

A little more information. WDF&W posted the first week QIN harvest numbers. Chinook were modeled at 1628 and they got 3078. Coho modeled at 2321 and they got 556. Keeping in mind they pulled in week 39 it might come back in line with predicted impacts, might being the key word. Week 40 has yet to be posted so we wait but for those who have been keeping tabs on Coho it appears that the 25 to 30% estimate ( actual 24% harvested ) of Coho runsize forecast is still moving forward. Nothing to do but wait but frankly if the pattern holds R-6 will have one hell of a decision to make as between Rec & QIN harvest not much will be available for NT Nets. Interesting to watch this play out.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/15 12:08 PM

As the fall salmon seasons have continued many have questions on, well about everything. So what gives? The simple answer is business as usual but that would be correct and incorrect. In Willapa the agency has been in a all out effort to attempt to begin to truly quantify Commercial impacts rather than just run on auto pilot but in Grays Harbor not so. As things unfolded I have tried to get information out as best I can but the agency has struggled. Sure up on WDF&W's website harvest numbers are being posted along with other information but as to processes underway. but not much else. In Willapa much has been going on behind the scenes with just about zip put out to the public as to what is going on. It is conference call time thing with Advisers & not much else. I have suggested, asked, nearly demanded that this practice stop but with little success. I even urged to use the contact list from the GH & Willapa policy processes to just E mail simple updates out but this is such a departure from how Fish Program works that it does not appear to have gained much traction. Ah that is wrong, it went nowhere so far maybe ( hope hope ) later. So here is what I have gathered up from other observation & folks.

In GH from the start the QIN schedule appeared a bit aggressive, in particular with Chinook. Then from the beginning the Chinook numbers went well past what we should see. Week 38 the QIN hit nearly double what was expected and pulled for week 39. Coho started slow and do not appear to be catching up. In fact it appears to well short of the 158K forecast. That immediately begs the question why not pull back as they did in week 39? Because the seasons are set on preseason forecast of the 158K and all harvest to it. All folks Rec, Tribal, NT Nets. It is more or less auto pilot time in Grays Harbor. So at this minute it appears Chinook came early, in large numbers, and continued through the modeled weeks so far. Then this folks, we only have week 38 reports of QIN harvest and Rec observation as there is apparently some problem with getting QIN harvest numbers. So it appears Chinook doing OK but again it depends how many were taken in the QIN fisheries. Remember last year the Chinook looked normal then just dropped of the map resulting in a failure to make escapement AGAIN and there was no way WDF&W or the QIN could have caught it until too late which is why auto pilot management really really stinks up the place. It appears Coho are in the dumpster big time but again it is Rec observation & only week 38 ( which is early for Coho ) reports. Now Chum have been encountered since early September which is strange. Too early to make any call on Chum.

Now Willapa is different. With the state managing the show ( no tribal ) it is much different, in fact a total departure from the past. With one exception and that is it is being done with little information provided to the general public which is ABSOLUTELY NORMAL for Fish Program which has just used any public participation or dispersing of information as a " dog & pony show ". So what's up? Well the agency has made a all out effort to get the harvest & escapement numbers right. This includes DNA testing, intense observer monitoring of harvest, and stream surveys of some sort. The DNA testing resulted in some changes for the Chinook harvest but has helped staff truly know just what fish was being caught by who where. Right out the door the Commercial impacts on NOR's ( wild ) went due South in a New York minute. Test fisheries showed them continuing to bump up against the NOR cap endangering the Commercial Coho fishery in the first two weeks of November. Then comes Chum which are limited to 10% impacts due to past years failure to make escapement. I mean then comes the Chum EARLY resulting in the Commercials blowing through numbers again so now by advocating the Chinook harvest thus far the Commercials have put their Coho season at risk restrained by Chinook & Chum.

Add to the mix in the Naselle we had a die off of Chinook of substantial numbers. It was a natural thing and unfortunate but nature does that. The key to this? It is not in the model so now how do you manage around it for both Rec & Commercial? No idea but it will challenge R-6 to be sure.

Then the final shoe to drop. Just as in GH the Coho run is not materializing as forecast. So how do you have a Commercial Coho fishery constrained by Chinook at the front end of the run timing and Chum at the back end? Coupled with the Naselle Chinook die off ? No idea again but we will see after the next Willapa test fishery.

Some odds and ends that are out and about. As to R-6 management being gone on vacation in the middle of fall salmon season. Yup Fish Program's Manager Steve Thiesfeld was gone and it is a 100% load of something to unload on him for that. He won a hunting trip that was a chance of a lifetime and took it and Mr. Scott stepped in to deal with Willapa to insure continuity. Yes I know in the past this was not the case but that was then and this is now. Mr. Thiesfeld is back hobbling around ( he was injured on his trip ) doing his best to catch up so you folks might want to cut him some slack on this issue.

As to the question as to why the Willapa numbers are taking such a drastic departure from the past? Accountability plain and simple. Prior to the Willapa Policy the effort to insure correct selective fishery harvest information was little more than a token effort. Think of it this way. With the 2T Commercial exclusion many of the dead Chinook not counted in the past or even recognized went right into the bay and staged. Then we start the Commercial season and from the get go the hatchery / NOR ( wild ) mix was way wrong with the NOR limitations growing fast. Then it appears the Chinook run came back larger than expected adding more NOR to the mix. But you say more hatchery also so it should be a wash. Yup except it rained early the hatchery fish headed instream. This is the rub proportionally a far greater percentage of the hatchery Chinook come early with the NOR peaking later. You now have the perfect storm as Chinook harvest modeled will not track true. For Mr. Thiesfeld this is a no win thing if ever there was one so we wait. I could be wrong but doubt if we will know until the end so as always more to come here also.

Then last but not least this harvest accountability thing. For many years the Chehalis inriver fishers noticed a pattern of runsize that did not fit the model. Model says not nets XXX number of adults would come through in that time frame but way more showed than modeled. Did not seem to matter if it was QIN or NT Commercial but it was most dramatic with the NT's to be sure. Now this accountability thing applies to the Rec fisheries also as the preseason modeling does not reflect effort only similar harvest impacts from previous years.

So this year being retired I and others started tracking this thing and folks no way no how did we this coming. So let's do it fishery by fishery. The Rec bay fishery has been OK but few Coho. This resulted in a disproportionate mix of Coho / Chinook made worse by the apparently larger return of Chinook than anticipated and less Coho resulting the likelihood of more mortalities than modeled. Which means our anticipated C&R numbers are not going to be correct. The accountability thing is important as this fact as the agency has zero ability to get a true picture of how much as they were focused on Willapa.

Next up the drift net fisheries both QIN and NT Commercial with the NT's yet to hit the water. I think right here is the issue and it is Pinnipeds! I watched three tribal drift boats working above and below the 101 bridge and the Pinnipeds wailed on them. It was not that this happened but rather how bloody many fish they got that surprised me. The drifts started a little below Lakeside and pulled prior to the bridge. Each time the boats pulled and went up to start over the Sea Lions went right with them and drifted down with them. I would watch 5 to 10 fish come up over the bow but here is the rub. The Sea Lions got one or more for every two the boat did. You easily count as they come up flipping the fish around feeding and the Gulls are right there also. Here is the thing while all fisheries have a dropout rate or C&R a release mortality it does not cover this. After faithfully watching this for most of the season so far I can safely say without a doubt that the drift net impacts both QIN & NT unseen & unaccounted for are far greater than anyone has admitted to. Folks we have a real problem here. In a Public Document Request one document was comments from a WDF&W Observer on a Willapa drift netter in which he identified that for every fish that was brought into the boat a Seal or Sea Lion got one. This is a problem in both GH & Willapa.

QIN set nets. Again I was surprised by the difference between reality and perception. The set nets loose fish the same as nets to Pinnipeds but way less. Unattended the Seals get less than I thought as they do not seem to like dead fish that much. Lots of fish the fisher stays with the net and picks them rapidly to avoid being robbed by Seals. So where I always had assigned blame for the unseen mortality to the set nets I was not just wrong but not even close. The QIN fishers do need to quit leaving the nets unattended for such long periods of time though.

Now inriver tide water we have issues also. I have lost three Coho & three Chinook so far to seals with thirteen Coho punched. That is a 23% rate for Coho and it is not accounted for in the modeling. Sure we have a mortality rate but it is not near that. Additionally the three Chinook I released before they got fifty feet from my boat a Seal got one and was in hot pursuit of the others. The thing that impressed me is the way that the Recs have really tried to do Chinook releases properly. Little of the photo op thing ( mostly ) dragging the fish around in the boat to get that photo of catch of the day. Not bad guys. Upstream some issues but it revolved around a few fishers and no enforcement around as they are stretched pretty thin. That said one officer found the time to hassle the low income folks behind Wal-Mart which frankly is the LEAST abusive fishery. Could have made better use of his time I think.




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/15 12:12 PM

THE NT NETS GO IN FROM 7 to 11:59 Tomorrow in front of the QIN. So be warned folks it could be weird with REC Tribal & NT all in the boat launches at once. This by the way is something that WDF&W staff were told is inherently dangerous and ill advised. They chose to disregard the advice so as I said folks be careful it is about to get weird.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/15 12:44 PM

Wow... So much for 4-3, eh? It was nice while it lasted. I'm sure the salmon were benefiting, too...

Riddle me this: We're concerned about an apparent crash in coho numbers, and the correct course of action is to put MORE gillnets in the water????
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/15 03:09 PM

NT piece fits within the 4-3 framework.

Lack of coho is predominantly due to.... LACK OF COHO!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/15 04:00 PM

I didn't mean to imply that the single NT fishery, in and of itself, violated the spirit of the guideline, eyeFISH. I guess my concern was that, between the QIN fishery and the NT fishery, as of Wednesday at noon, gillnets will have been choking off the entire basin for 13 out of 17 days (or something very close to it). 4 out of 17 days doesn't seem like much of a fighting chance for a run of fish that appears to be coming in far below the forecast that justified scheduling the fisheries, nevermind how unfair it is to the in-river anglers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/15 03:01 PM


Short and sweet. The Willapa Ginetters legal action got the boot!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3ySHNHdkZrTTB2RlE/view?pli=1
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/15 06:22 PM

Yee HAW!

On another note, Ron Warren has been promoted to Asst Director, Fish Program.

That makes him the states top fish manager, second in command behind Unsworth at WDFW.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/15 07:45 AM

Let's hope Unsworth doesn't make Warren his right hand man... we'll be back to square one in short order if he does.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/15 08:38 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Let's hope Unsworth doesn't make Warren his right hand man... we'll be back to square one in short order if he does.


Past performance and attitude towards recs does not give me much confidence in him. My impression from early Greys' Harbor management meetings showed me he supported Phil Anderson at every turn, which means conservation and recreation issues are NOT a priority to him. Bob R
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/15 09:23 AM

I agree with your assessment of Mr. Warren's track record, bobr.

The good news is that the courts appear to be upholding the work that's been done to right the wrongs. That's the best friend we could hope for.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/15 12:31 PM

Quote:
My impression from early Greys' Harbor management meetings showed me he supported Phil Anderson at every turn,


Ah ........... or another way to say it is he followed orders.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/15 01:02 PM

Ron will follow orders. He will also listen. But still will follow orders. He also will do his best to support and care for staff, a quality that is often lacking in WDFW.

Some people work for the resource. Ron works for his people. At least from my experience.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/15 01:35 PM

High marks from me for his impeccable people skills. He is an approachable warm fuzzy which works well in terms of engaging the public for the agency.

Managing fish? Well that's a whole 'nother story.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/15 04:02 PM


From R - 6 update.


I want to let everyone know that there may be a need to adjust the schedule or regulation next week to the Grays Harbor State managed commercial fishery depending on the results of this Sunday’s and Monday’s fisheries. To update you all, there were two State managed commercial fishery openings this week, one five-hour the other four-hour, Sunday and Wednesday. The attached in a quick summary of the numbers. The total NOR Chinook impacts was predicted to be 60 fish for this week. Data shows an estimated 70 NOR Chinook impacts for this week, so we are close for Chinook. This is based on on-board monitoring, the proportion of NOR Chinook to Coho encounters. The Chum catch was predicted to be 7 fish for this week. The actual catch was about 1,200 Chum. The caveat here is the harvest rate used to predict this week’s Chum harvest only uses a couple data points. In recent past, State managed commercial fisheries didn’t occur during week 42, so there isn’t a lot of data for catch predictions. The Tribal data has more points to look at. Looking at historical Tribe catch during this particular week definitely shows that this is the week that historical catch of Chum starts to just up. I also want to let you know that Chum are showing up in good numbers in spawning ground index reaches. So, with that said, depending on what we see in the fishery Sunday and Monday, we may be directed to make a change to the fishery later in the week. This is just a “heads-up” there may be fisheries adjustments. Also, I’d like to note that tribal catch has been requested for this week.

Please help distribute this update to those concerned that aren’t on this distribution list.

Thanks and have a good afternoon.
Posted by: J. T. Piscator

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/15 04:32 PM

Rivrguy,

Thanks for forwarding these updates! I didn't see anything about coho in the update. Do you know why there wasn't anything?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/15 04:43 PM


The E mail had a spread sheet with it I can send if you wish. That said it was 671 for Coho & they were modeled for 1131 which is 60% expected catch. Now Chum were 7 I think and they got over 1200 which should be interesting to watch play out.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/15 06:23 AM

As far as the tribe requesting fishing this week, does that mean they are putting in nets PRIOR to Sunday, the 18th? That would truly suck!. Bob R
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/15 06:31 AM

Comment on Ron Warren......

Director Unsworth seems to have his priories for not only fish but also to rein in the commercial from "run away netting", also the WDFW Commission has given this State a new and better direction. Ron Warren is at most of the WDFW meetings......I'm thinking he has heard the message loud and clear.

Time tells all, the current direction for fishery issues in this State in now heading down the correct path.

Good luck, Ron Warren......WE will be watching!!!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/15 03:34 PM



QIN numbers minus last week are up on WDF&W's website. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

Then we have this from Steve and nope I know only what Steve provided.


Hi Everyone,

I want to alert you to an emerging issue in the Chehalis River basin. The Skokomish Indian Tribe has recently made a claim to “usual and accustomed grounds” on the Satsop and Chehalis rivers. That is, they are asking for fishing rights in the Chehalis Basin. They have scheduled a “meet and confer” with other parties to US vs. Washington, including other tribes, for November 4th. A meet and confer is usually a precursor to court proceedings and an opportunity for the parties to try and reach a settlement. At this time, we do not know the evidence for the claim. We aren’t sure they will present it to us on the 4th, as they may save it for court. We will know more after the 4th and should be able to give you a better update.

I’d like to say call for more information, but I really don’t have much to offer. This is going to be a wait and see for the moment.

Thanks.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/15 04:54 PM

Wait...I'm so confused. What rights are they claiming? They have ancestral rights? No? Oh so they have historical range that far west? No? They are greedy bastards? Oh ok now I understand, moving on.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 04:37 AM

I think we have to go back in years but in the 80's ( after Boldt ) the Skooks would come & put a net in the Satsop, upstream toward Bingham . Then enforcement would remove it. No idea on the validity of their claim then or now. That said it is not a new disagreement but someone might remember what the bases of their claim is.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 06:38 AM

In the Boldt Decision each Tribes's U&A was defined and mapped. I am sure WDFW has a copy. Since then, Tribes have used the Courts to expand/contract U&A's. If the Skoks have some historical, archaeological data that has come to light then they would have a good case. The 1980s probably don't count, under Boldt, as where they fished historically.

Should be remembered that individual tribes had long-distance relationships with other tribes. The Yakimas and Nisquallys were close enough that the Yaks have (or had) U&A in Puget Sound. I recall that there were South Sound Tribes (can't remember which) that had strong ties with the Coast.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 06:51 AM

So where would the impacts come from? Pretty sure we're maxed out on gillnet fishery impacts in the Chehalis, so someone would have to give up some days. Something tells me it won't be the QIN. Wonder what the Chehalis Tribe would say about getting low-holed by another, non-native tribe?

Not hard to understand why they want the Satsop included; that would give them the Fuller area, which would be a gold mine early in the season, when all the Satsop fish that get by the QIN and NT nets are kegged up below the mouth. Gillnetting in that area would spell doom for upriver fishing and the salmon.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 07:49 AM

Lands ceded by the Skoks under the PNP Treaty include those bounded by the Satsop on the west.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 08:09 AM

So would they attempt to put nets in the satsop if they win the case? That would be fun to watch. I'd love to see how the locals deal with the nets. It's my local river. Taking it away and plugging it with nets would be the last time I would pay to fish in this state. I'm not saying I would stop fishing, just not paying. Something I think everyone should consider. I can't understand why something like this isn't causing outrage.
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 09:58 AM

Here's a link to the WDFW website on tribal treaty boundaries

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/treaty_history.html
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 11:33 AM

Holy Crap! Milt roe is right! Look at that map in the zoomed PDF

Looks like the western border of the Skok treaty claim IS the entire lower Satsop!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 12:12 PM

If that is what was ceded then they likely win. The really pissed off ones will be QIN, because that would a tribe with rights wit whom they have to share.

Chehalis and and the NI should not, in a perfect world, be affected as they "share" the NI half. This should just be an intratribal pissing match.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 12:28 PM

EXACTLY... treaty share 50%, non-treaty share 50%

State and Chehalis (non-treaty tribe) feed off the non-treaty half of Chehalis Basin salmon.

QIN's will have to cede some of the Satsop portion of their 50% Chehalis Basin salmon to the Skok's
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 12:32 PM

The best thing that could happen would be if 17 other treaty tribes all got fishing rights on the Chehalis system...then they'd have to split the tribal 50% 19 ways, and none of them would make any money at it wink

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 01:15 PM

If they win this (and it looks like they will), the big issue won't be how the two tribes divide up the pie. The problem is that whatever days the Skoks get, they will almost certainly be netting below the mouth of the Satsop. Up until now, the tidal reach between Friends Landing and the mouth of the Satsop has been something of a refuge for the early arriving fish, above the gillnets, while they wait for cooler water (or whatever the hell it is they wait for) to move into the tribs. Put gillnets in there, and almost every Chinook bound for the Satsop or further upstream will get caught and handled, whether they're retained or not.

Question for you guys claiming that the 50/50 split protects the State side from losing opportunity: Whose definition of 50% are you basing that on? It's a legitimate question, because we know the QIN makes its own forecasts (which they use to set their seasons), and they're always higher than the State's. 50% of their forecast often ends up being 60-70% of the actual return. What's to stop them, faced with the prospect of losing opportunity to another tribe, from upping their forecasts a bit more? Or from filing for another reduction in the escapement goals?

I'm not ready to say the sky's falling, but this has the potential to be a big frigging deal.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 01:41 PM

Actually it is a bit more complicated than that. The Satsop sub basin is about 30% of the Chehalis Basin Coho. If the target is Satsop then to get one Coho to a tribal commercial in the Satsop the QIN would have to allow three to go above them. The watershed is like a tree with the QIN harvesting at the bottom of the trunk. If you put commercial harvest in a trib then the QIN methodology falls apart as will the states way of managing. Interesting little problem.

Then the Chehalis get a % of the harvestable above the rez and they come from the states share which means they have to get them up. Again interesting problem.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 05:55 PM

Actually, the 50:50 is to Indians, not specific tribes. In theory, Makah could take 100% of (say) the Indian Chinook in their troll fishery and no inside would be able to fish for Chinook. Except that WDFW would cut back the sporties to allow them to fish.

I have seen one tribe cork another that is further upstream. So, there really is nothing to keep the QIN from taking the full Indian share in GH and leave the Skoks with zip.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/15 05:58 PM

"So, there really is nothing to keep the QIN from taking the full Indian share in GH and leave the Skoks with zip."

Yep.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/15 05:55 AM

Been busy but I looked at this a bit. It seems that they are asking for the Chehalis between the Wynoochee & Satsop and the Satsop Sub-basin . And more less be prime owner of the tribal harvest for fish traveling through those waters. I have been told that would mean the QIN would need their permission to fish as that is the entire watershed minus Nooch & Wishkah.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/15 01:48 PM

Well the other shoe dropped and salmon fishing is done for the year. I am sure in the coming days many different views will be around but the reality is the Coho run did not materialize as the preseason forecast projected, in fact it tanked. So WDF&W shut things down and it is put forward the QIN will do the same. A win for conservation? Maybe yes maybe no it just depends on ones view or perspective. From my perspective it was absolutely necessary for the state to shut things down or I have little doubt the QIN would have not done so.

All that said I will urge all to stay off the personal attacks on WDF&W or QIN staff as frankly what we have experienced was the old adage " the fish will screw ya " which they did and we had a major harvest management failure by both WDF&W & the QIN POLICY staff not the technical folks which I will get to shortly. Also guys the QIN fishers fish when the people they pay to manage the harvest say to just like we Recs do. Do not blame the fishers for something they do not control.

So what happened? What about the GH Policy? Wasn't it supposed to prevent this type of thing. Again yes / no as any policy cannot cover every circumstance. So in the beginning as NOF rolled Steve Thiesfeld put forth a really good effort to insure all had the opportunities allowed by the GHMP based off the preseason forecast. The place that the bump in the road showed was around the NT Nets and the QIN unwilling to make time for them. This issue faded a bit but never really went away.

So let us do this. The Springers came in on time but peaked late which is different. The run peaked at the end of July and numbers were showing in tide water up to mid August. Summerrun Steelhead came late period but once they came the numbers ramped up very rapidly with descent numbers. In mid August with the drought things all over media many folks were worried about the Chehalis being at risk with reports of dead Chinook. So I and another GH Adviser surveyed the river from South Monte to Fuller Hill and the state went upstream from Fuller Hill. In our effort Joe and I found Coho & Chinook, Jacks, several Coho adults, trout just lots of fish and no dead fish. State same on their survey. One should also remember we are still in a drought that for our basin it is continuing to get worse as we near spawning time without rain.

After the Springers faded we had a thee week period of time just plain not much moved. Sure some Chinook were present but just not many. Then the Chinook came and the numbers ramped up quick followed by Olympic side streams getting a shot of rain and off they went. Immediately the minute the flows dropped the movement slowed and numbers of Chinook built up but folks the Coho just did not. So I and several others who are retired and fish constantly started comparing notes of where & how many fish we were seeing daily.

So in week 38 when the QIN went in it was immediately clear something was really wrong. Chinook in substantial numbers but FEW Coho. I took it upon myself to go to the fish house to verify it and what we were seeing was proofed by the QIN landings. Then this, with over 3000 Chinook in the bag the QIN pulled to get back in line with the model. Right here is where the wheels started coming off the cart. The Chinook back filled in tidewater but not many Coho. A QIN fisher brought it to my attention that not only were the Coho numbers bad but the fish were behaving strangely. How so? Well they were coming right through the bay both Coho & Chinook and not staging. Coho were being caught clear to South Monte with full ocean color. Blue back & silver white sides and until yesterday I had not caught a Coho or Chinook with scales set and that is just plain weird. I might add here that it must have been a miserable time for those pursuing Coho in the bay as they were just plain moving right through and a lot of water for so few fish but Chinook numbers appeared up. I did not fish on days the nets were in but rather both on foot and by boat stayed right with the QIN fishers.

Though the remaining QIN schedule this pattern stayed true. Yes Coho numbers ramped up early but it appears they were just peaking early not in larger numbers. In week 42 the state put in the NT nets for short fisheries in front of & following the QIN fishers. ( yes this complied with the GHMP ) Remember the wheels falling off the cart? Well the numbers were way short on Coho. Right here is where WDF&W made a very bad situation into a horrific one. They followed up with another three days then cancelled the last day for conservation. In those three days they destroyed any hope of the inland communities inriver fisheries right along with Chehalis tribal. There is no way that fishery should have taken place. Albert Einstein once said “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Well evidently WDF&W at the policy level have not figured it out. Add to the mix this. In the GHMP in the guiding principles is this. 7. In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, fishing opportunities will be fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of WDFW- managed fishers. Item 7 in the guiding principles and 4/3 are the part of the GHMP that is intended to insure GEOGRAPHIC distribution of harvest and not harvest everything out at the mouth of the river. So for those of you from the inland communities the GHMP did not fail you WDF&W policy level staff did, big time.

The management of salmon harvest prior to the new GHMP was discriminatory based on where you live plain and simple. It was a not talked just plain ignored by those who had the authority to stop it. I had hoped with GHMP that it was in the past. I was wrong!

Harsh words you say? Nope because what WDF&W did was exactly what they have done for 30 years, they mowed them down at Aberdeen. Despite a good solid management policy they still found a way to screw it up. I remember the Commission meeting where a lady flatly said it bluntly that a commercial fisher is a commercial fisher that the upper basin communities cares nothing about the color of a commercial fishers skin or ethnicity. A commercial fisher is a commercial fisher. WDF&W to this day struggles to shed the Indian vs white thing. It is just ingrained in their DNA and those NT Commercials are THEIR commercials. They cannot turn it loose and that is sad.

So here we set and what have we learned? Well WDF&W has reverted to the old verbiage of calling the Rec season Freshwater. Now the Rec at South Monte got into the fish a couple of times as they pulled up and paused. Guys to say that the geographic distribution was achieved 10 minutes from Aberdeen is ridiculous. The Chehalis is second largest watershed in the state with hundreds of miles of inriver fisheries and WDF&W appears to be trying to claim that they met geographic distribution of harvest 10 miles from Aberdeen. You can put lip stick and a dress on that pig but it is still a pig! That discrimination is what brought about my and many others from the inland communities to full revolt demanding change and working together we made our case to the Commission resulting in the GHMP. I think some folks in the concrete palace in Olympia did not just miss the boat they did not bother buying a ticket.

As to Region 6 performance? Well Mr. Thiesfeld & did well in the beginning. They really tried to do right. Then came the crunch on Coho and NT harvest and they just went South sound asleep at the wheel. Auto pilot is what it is called. Myself and many others tried to make the case for modification of the season. I took everything I could get and supplied it to the Advocacy who toiled away trying to get numbers and assumptions to staff with graphs everything to no avail. Heavens three days before the closure WDF&W opened the Newaukum for fishing. Why because in a normal year it was time for the fish to get there. When it hit the fan though Mr. Thiesfeld went all out with his staff to undo their screw up, got information and using QIN history of harvest and down sized the preseason forecast for Coho. That folks has not been done in many years.

The QIN? Well after week 38 and the much larger than expected harvest of Chinook they pulled and moved the Johns River boundary back to protect the Chinook. This is good, now the bad. Every week QIN harvest showed Coho in the dumpster and they kept right on fishing. ( remember folks the fishers fish when the staff they pay says fish ) Additionally they did not provide WDF&W catch information ( or so we are told ) to WDF&W.

So now they pull and we give them kudos for conservation? I think not as the hole created by the lack of harvestable Coho was created by massively overharvesting by tribal fisheries on a diminished Coho run. Not to be out done WDF&W finished it off with the NT nets.

So what next? No idea but for my part Monday I will put in play a Public Document Request to try and get as much information as possible to match up with the harvest timeline and make it public as always. All the Rec fishers have a right to know how this happened and most certainly the inland communities.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/15 03:38 PM

Talking to friends, this is the worst coho year, ever.
Posted by: Streamer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/15 09:40 PM

Thanks For bringing this all to the spotlight, Rivrguy.


Matt
Posted by: GoldDigger

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/15 07:20 AM

Having had a much warmer than average Summer, the water temps in the rivers ran higher, longer, and I believe it put the fish off schedule.

Seen it before, but never with such alarm. Hoping the Skagit Coho will show up soon..if they don't the future doesn't look so good.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/15 10:21 AM

Originally Posted By: GoldDigger
Having had a much warmer than average Summer, the water temps in the rivers ran higher, longer, and I believe it put the fish off schedule.

Seen it before, but never with such alarm. Hoping the Skagit Coho will show up soon..if they don't the future doesn't look so good.


Well, I think we can safely state that El Nino is bad, bad, bad for mainland coho runs, and we've seen enough to know this year is no exception. By now, we should fully expect dramatic, overnight collapses in coho numbers every time an El Nino pattern emerges. I have to believe our co-managers know this by now, which begs the question of why they would even think about upholding a hugely optimistic forecast after the weather had already clearly demonstrated a long, dry trend.

Rivrguy's right on. I could credit the QIN with taking a week off to conserve Chinook if I actually believed for an instant that's why they did it, but the way they responded (keeping on fishing) after another week of poor Coho fishing when they went back in (one of their patented five day onslaughts, no less) suggests all they were concerned about was losing days because of taking too many Chinook early.

The argument that the GHMP was upheld throughout this debacle doesn't do much to satisfy my displeasure with losing a fishery that didn't need to be taken away. Whether it was within GHMP guidelines or not, bookending the weekly QIN slaughter with NT openers, after it was already abundantly clear the Coho weren't coming, was nothing less than irresponsible, unsound management.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the closure doesn't seem necessary; that would be pretty dishonest on my own part. What I am saying is that it wouldn't have been necessary had the co-managers made in-season adjustments consistent with what the gillnet catch was showing us.

As regards Thiesfeld, we've been talking a lot about how Ron Warren, like him or not, has only followed direction from his superiors. As a fellow employee, beholden to the same superiors, why should we expect Thiesfeld (or Unsworth, for that matter) to run things any differently?

Finally, I agree that there is discrimination (and even racism) inherent in the current fisheries management paradigm. As much as we upriver sporties lament getting shut down because the higher priority user groups had to get theirs first (NOT talking about recs in the bay), being a second-class citizen in this game is a much better situation than the one the salmon find themselves in when our policies fail them, yet again.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/15 04:46 AM

Well as the dust settles on the closure I thought I should put out what the last view of the river looked like. Prior & during the last NT Commercial days the harvest numbers said lots of Chum but one did not see that up past Cosy. Then Wednesday it ramped up and by Thursday & Friday it was a huge movement. Coming back up river one day I hit 4 / 5 Sea Lions and to many seals to count in a school that went from Blue Slough to nearly South Monte. The folks fishing upstream had Coho, Chinook & Chum all at once. This is not unusual as the old broodstocking saying was the Chinook hens will come with the Chum no matter what and appears to have held true. By Sunday it was way back down but Chum were still moving be it in smaller numbers.

So don't think all is good as it is not but we wait and see from this point what the Coho do. You can hit this link for the projected flows and rainfall http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ and in the next 10 days Olympic side is only 3.89 in. 1.89 on the upper Chehalis side and other than a little spike we hover between near record low flows and well below average flows for this point in time. Not much to move any Coho much if there are any to move so we wait. I doubt on the Chehalis side that many will move past Porter though just not enough water. So despite the media blitz that drought is over that is not the case in the Chehalis. Each day the flows stay low the situation gets worse and if the flows do not get up the fish will spawn short of where they should. This can result in redds being blown out by high water or not just depends on what mother nature does.

Without harvest numbers the agency is pretty much blind as to what is going on outside the hatchery returns so watch the hatchery returns at Bingham & the Hump for a idea. That said this is the first time in years a Chum run has come in without being blown apart by commercial harvest so go to the rivers and watch the fish. It is fascinating to watch these guys stage up and the Chum go into spawning mode. I think the Nooch & Satsop are the easiest to get access to watch.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/15 10:46 AM

OK, I'm seeing the bright side as the chum run getting a decent chance to make it to their spawning grounds without gillnet interception. Glass is now half full. Do miss the coho though.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/15 11:37 AM

But it is so easy to fix, Salmo. we know that we can produce boatloads of coho and chum in hatcheries. If we raise enough fish we really don't need to manage.

I remember that the Puyallup hatchery almost always got its coho egg-take and then some in the face of all the south sound marine fishing and 24/7 in-river glinting. We can overwhelm the nets with hatchery fish. Just gotta get those pesky Feds and that POS ESA out of the way. Heck, we could probably overwhelm the seals with enough production. And, since hatcheries require less land and water than wild fish to produce the same catch we can develop the hell out of the State, thereby generating a bigger economy. We all win. Except, maybe, the natural ecosystem but that's a small price to pay for what we want. Fishing for whatever we want, whenever we want it, wherever we want to fish?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/15 12:17 PM

Well here is a article from the local paper. So read and digest it but WDF&W's effort to utilize agency double speak is way out here. Here we are guys and read and think. Now this, the QIN numbers were not posted. If they got them verbally and had the information then explain the non treaty nets in. The QIN numbers were three weeks late going up on the WDF&W website AND staff gave no indication that they had them. In simple terms they kept the information INTENTIONALY from the public to continue business as usual with the NT Nets. So much for conservation driven harvest AND a " open & transparent " process.

I got to admit Steve did as good job as I have seen since former Deputy Director Peck in what is known as "agency double speak".




Salmon fishing closed Harborwide

By Kyle Mittan The Daily World

Salmon fishing in Grays Harbor and along all of its tributaries has been closed three months early after catch data suggested that the return of coho salmon would be significantly less than predicted, according to a press release from the state Department of Fish &Wildlife.

The closure, announced on Friday, began Monday. The season was slated to run through Jan. 31, 2016.

The department, along with technical staff with the Quinault Indian Nation, uses catch data and other information to jointly predict the forecast for each year’s upcoming season, said Steve Thiesfeld, regional fish program manager with Fish &Wildlife. The system isn’t perfect, he added.

“It’s not just one party pulling a number out of the air. There’s actually lots of working together with the best info,” Thiesfeld said. “It’s not an exact science.”

Still, the predicted numbers were far more optimistic than what current catch data has shown, forcing the department to call off salmon fishing in the Harbor and along the Humptulips, Hoquiam, Chehalis, Wishkah, Wynooche, Satsop, Black, Skookumchuck, Johns, Elk and Newaukum rivers and Van Winkle Creek, a statement from the department says.

Thiesfeld said he couldn’t give an exact diagnosis for the shortage, but a good guess, he said, was that survival rates in the ocean have ebbed.

“The tools that we had in front of us weren’t able to pick up what appears to be a systematic decline in ocean survival rates. … At least for right now, that’s what it appears to be,” he said. “We have known that we were entering a period of lower ocean productivity, but we’re a little surprised it’s caught us this hard this quickly.”

Dave Hamilton, a local recreational fishing advocate, feels the Quinaults and Fish &Wildlife did not communicate effectively to determine an accurate forecast. Now fishermen across the board, Hamilton said, are paying for it.

He believes the tribe may have over-harvested what was already a thin salmon run for the season.

“The reason we’re closed is not because there wasn’t any salmon left to harvest,” Hamilton said. “The reason we’re closed is because WDF&W and the Quinaults harvested them up and would not recognize that the run was smaller and that all indications were it was going to be smaller.”

Ed Johnstone, a policy spokesman for Quinault fisheries, did not return a message asking whether the tribe would close its fisheries to correspond with the Fish &Wildlife closure

Hamilton contends that Quinault fishermen have provided their catch data later than usual this year. Thiesfeld said that treaty or non-commercial fisheries are required by law to fill out “fish tickets,” and that the data typically makes it into the state’s database within six days of it being reported. Quinault fishing data, he added, is even more timely.

“We were pretty aware of where the Quinault Tribe was on their catch,” Thiesfeld said. “I’m not aware of any lack of communication.”

A more important issue, Thiesfeld said, was interpreting the data mid-season. The in-season update that ultimately led to the closure, Thiesfeld said, “hasn’t been done for quite some time in the Harbor.”

“The dilemma in fisheries management is, if the catches are low, does it mean the run is not coming back as you predicted or does it mean the run is late?” Thiesfeld said. “Conversely, if you have really good catches, does that mean run is early or the run is big?”

Poor salmon stocks, Thiesfeld said, have affected much of the state, including Puget Sound and the Columbia River.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/15 04:21 PM


And this and this should not surprise anyone, well anyone who understands the system.

Hi Everyone,

I want to bring you up to speed on the coho situation in Grays Harbor. We were called this morning by Quinault Indian Tribe with concerns about hooking mortality of coho in our steelhead and gamefish seasons that are still open in the Chehalis and Humptulips basins, and the conservation need for wild coho. After a long and difficult day of coordinating with the Director, acting AD Norman, and soon to be AD Warren, and 2 conference calls with QIN, we decided to close the steelhead and gamefish seasons in the harbor and tributaries to ensure continued support for conservation actions. We have relayed to QIN by voicemail this afternoon that: 1) we will be closing the gamefish fisheries, 2) that we will be hard pressed to keep hatchery coho closed in rivers with hatchery production once egg take is met, and 3) we want to continue to have a conversation about when is an appropriate time to open winter steelhead fisheries while minimizing coho impacts.

You should expect the closure to take place at 12:01 am on Friday.

I’m sorry to be the one bringing more bad news. As always, please give me a call if you have any questions or just need to yell at someone.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/15 04:46 PM

I knew this was going to happen..
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/15 05:06 PM

Looks like Thiesfeld is adjusting well to his new job. He'll be up for promotion in no time at this rate.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/15 05:15 PM

Ack. Just saw the last update. I suppose this means the QIN won't start their "steelhead fishery" until egg take is met, right?
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/15 09:43 PM

Does this probably mean no December humptulips steelhead then? I love that early fishery.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/15 09:44 PM

I now have to drive at least 100 miles round trip for "a fair shot" at salmon, and now it looks like steelhead (at least early steelhead).
Posted by: Drunkenbubba

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/15 11:40 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
Does this probably mean no December humptulips steelhead then? I love that early fishery.


I am wondering the same.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/15 11:50 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
I now have to drive at least 100 miles round trip for "a fair shot" at salmon, and now it looks like steelhead (at least early steelhead).


At least....
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/15 11:42 AM

I remember catching a steelhead just after Thanksgiving on the Satsop years ago. This was at the tail out of the S hole before. I thought it was a ' Nooch stray
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/15 12:12 PM

I have caught some in December fishing for coho. The satsop has a winter run.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/15 12:34 PM

I should look on the bright side. At least this year, I won't waste my time trying to catch steelhead on the Satsop. That's one nut I can't seem to crack, for whatever reason.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/15 12:56 PM

Use eggs FF02 smile
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/15 03:04 PM

smile........no comment
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/15 12:26 PM


NEXT UP IN THE DANCE:

For Immediate Release

Quinault Nation Closes Fisheries to Protect Wild Coho

TAHOLAH, WA (10/29/15)-- The Quinault Indian Nation has announced that it is closing all its fisheries in Grays Harbor and Queets River due to concerns about low returns of wild coho salmon and declaring a disaster due to economic hardship to its fishermen and their families, according to Quinault President Fawn Sharp.

“Closing the fisheries was a tough decision. The closure will have serious consequences and substantial financial losses for our community, but it's the right thing to do as stewards for future generations,” said President Sharp. “We will be seeking economic relief for our fishermen and their families, as well as providing what support we can through the Tribe,” she said.

“As we do every year, we participated fully in all pre-season planning with our state and federal co-managers, through the North of Falcon and Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission processes,” said Quinault Fisheries Policy Spokesperson Ed Johnstone. “After analyzing all available data, we concluded that the actual run sizes of wild coho returning to the Queets River and Grays Harbor are so far below expectations that closure was warranted. The closure will hurt our fishermen and reduce opportunity to harvest hatchery coho and other species but the situation was so dire that Quinault Nation felt that even incidental impacts to wild coho need to be avoided at this point in the season."

The Quinault Nation is working with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine how to approach management of fisheries directed at other salmon and steelhead. WDFW has indicated that it has closed non-treaty fisheries in Grays Harbor and the Chehalis River and its tributaries. WDFW and the National Park Service have not announced decisions regarding sport fishing on the Queets River and its tributaries.

As for a cause for a diminished return of the wild coho, Johnstone pointed to the "Godzilla" El Nino and blob of warm water off the coast. These conditions are expected to linger for the next few months. With forecasts of drought and continuation of adverse ocean conditions expected to severely impact food chains, we are extremely concerned about the ability of the fish that are in the ocean now and those produced from this year's escapement to survive. The fish returning this year are not only low in numbers, but in poor physical shape. There's a lot at stake. We want to minimize the potential to dig ourselves in a hole that will be hard to get out of. The condition of wild coho stocks from the Queets and Grays Harbor will affect future Quinault and ocean fisheries for years to come."

“People need to understand that these fish need a healthy ocean and we are facing severe challenges in the Pacific, ranging from acidification and sea level rise to storm events. We worry about the uncertainty of climate change impacts and developments like dams and oil terminals that could have disastrous consequences for the environment. We care about the Earth and the fish, wildlife, bugs, water, air and soil. These are not resources that can be wantonly exploited, but rather our relations that must be treated with honor and respect. Their future as well as ours have been entrusted to our care. It's not an easy job, but it’s one we must undertake, not only for Quinaults but everyone,” said President Sharp.

For now, we have to take responsible action here in our waters. It’s time to shut down,” she said.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/15 10:17 AM


As the dust settles on the closure of the fall salmon season both WDF&W and the QIN have put out their press releases and rational for what happened. For WDF&W's part it was a bit self serving as it was worded to say something and avoid any responsibility which is pretty much the same for the QIN. Now I am sure you are all shocked and appalled that this was the approach. That WDF&W failed to comply with the GH Management Policy is a given. That the QIN blew right through the numbers available for harvest is undeniable ( after the reduced runsize estimate ) but remember the state side pig piled right on so folks they are BOTH guilty as sin.

Now about the preseason forecast that was little more than a pipe dream one has to wonder just how did they mess up that bad. Good question but below and with this link http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/index.cfm you can see that NOAA was saying ocean conditions were not going to support the forecast.

NOAA ON PDO:
Many of the ecosystem indicators for 2014 point towards this being a relatively poor year for salmon survival. The summer PDO values were strongly positive (warm), coinciding with a ‘warm blob’ of water centered in the Gulf of Alaska. El Niño conditions were ‘neutral’, sea surface temperatures were warmer than usual, and the upwelling season started late and ended early. The biological indicators featured a high abundance of large, lipid-rich zooplankton, but a low abundance of winter fish larvae that develop into salmon prey in the spring, and moderate catches of juvenile spring Chinook salmon during the June survey off Washington and Oregon. Overall, juvenile salmon entering the ocean in 2014 encountered below average ocean conditions off Oregon and Washington likely leading to below average returns of adult coho salmon in 2015 and Chinook salmon in 2016. Our annual summary of ecosystem indicators during 2014 is here, and our "stoplight" rankings and predictions are shown below in Table SF-01, Table SF-02, and Figure SF-01.

So we had the WDF&W / Tribal preseason forecast and NOAA with totally opposite projections and the winner is .......... NOAA. So we and the fish loose. To be honest the ocean PDO is but one indicator be it a rather important one and THE CAUTION LIGHT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON. Instead it was full speed ahead on harvest from the ocean in until it was so obvious even the co- managers could not deny it. From the git go one local Rec ( JC ) was bringing the PDO issue forward but it was pretty much ignored by all in the NOF process including myself. I think JC thought we were all nuts but remember NOF is about " all paper fish must die " so hair straight back at a dead run we all went into the kill mode. But ( you knew that was coming didn't you ) some of us tried to unravel this thing but until the season started you do not get a feel for it. Still from the ocean in from the start the run appeared short and it was only a matter of how much short it would be. To make matters worse you cannot get the policy level WDF&W & QIN folks to manage the harvest in a cooperative manner. Sure the technical staffs proof out numbers and they do a reasonable job at it. That does little when the policy level ( those who make the final decisions ) just cannot get past this ( insert word of choice ) thing they have been doing for the last ten years. I have objected to this continuously and in April even took the issue to the Commission which I posted some time back.

Then this. NOAA thoughts outlined above are for Chinook to tank in 2016. Add to this NOAA's tracking of the Pacific has identified the El Nino will return and with a vengeance. In fact fears are it will surpass the 1997 event ( the worse in recent history ) and maybe even set a record for El Nino resulting in very low Salmon productivity. In a word folks odds are the good times of the past few years are about to go the way of the Dodo bird!

Add to that nearly ALL our fisheries in Grays Harbor are shall we say a bit dishonest as to the actual impacts of the harvest. Take the commercial drift nets both Non Treaty & QIN. They are modeled with a 5% drop out rate which includes Pinniped losses. For years this might have been accurate but not so in recent years. With the recent arrival of large numbers of Sea Lions it has just went ballistic! Setting on the wall at Wal-Mart you can watch the bow picker put out its net followed by the Sea Lions racing upstream and getting fish in front of or out of the net. It is rather easy to see when with all the commotion when they get one as the Seagulls race in to get their share. Then when they reel in the net you can count the number of fish coming over the bow. I witnessed this year as numbers as large as one to one and as low as one for the Sea Lions to seven in the boat. So 5%? Oh I doubt it in fact it ended up around 20 to 25%. So if the QIN got 10000 plus Coho another 2000 plus died be it by the Sea Lions not into the boat and they are not counted in the impacts. The Rec fisheries are similar but I think while problematic our mortality rates drop out and release are OK but ( again don't you just hate the but thing ) it does not take in effort. When the bay fishery was mostly locals and some traveling fishers OK but now it is much much greater number of fishers coming from all over and the harvest model does not reflect EFFORT. Inriver Rec the same / not much difference so drop the finger pointing.

So as the next years process of season setting starts in we cannot afford anymore silliness in the preseason forecast that we had from the co-managers this year. No longer can we set harvest with a wink and nod knowing full well it does not reflect the true impact of any fishery. The good ole days just left folks and reality is about to set in. It is what it is but it should be something to watch play out between the co-managers and all the harvesters. Finally remember this, the fish have no vote.



Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/15 12:05 PM

The forecasts say there are fish, so we fish. The more we can front-load (ocean of before updates) the better off we the fishermen are.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/31/15 12:18 PM

With the rain everyone has hopes that the drought thing is all done, gone, bye bye but the effects will linger. Even with the rain flows will drop down below average again by around the 10th of November according to the Northwest River Forecast Center. So just when you think your safe this will materialize. A retired staffer sent this a bit back and it is about to become relevant.

You noted, correctly, that low flows may not let Coho penetrate as far up the tribs. This means that, for a given spawn, fewer smolts will be produced. In the extreme drought at Snow, more Coho spawned in half the stream. We got half the smolts. Second thing that happened, and this will be critical because they use Index sections to survey, is that there will be more fish in the indexes because they can't get higher. We saw this, too, since we surveyed 100% of the anadromous zone. So, the estimated Coho escapement for 2015 will be reported as a number that is "higher" than reality and this will lead to a larger forecast in 2018.

As to chum, the method I have seen to estimate escapement is a mean number of fish days; how long a live fish is in the index. The number used in PS was around 10. Again, in the drought year, Snow and Salmon creeks had different survivals with Salmon being less than a week. The result was that the official escapement for Snow was higher than the official escapement for Salmon, even though Salmon had about twice as many spawners. We cut tails off of all carcasses so we only counted them once. In another drought in the mid-80s, a stream in Hood Canal never had a single live fish. One week, zero. Next week, post rain, 100 dead. By the "official" method there was no escapement. Plus, chum will also be affected by how far upstream they get.
Escapement methodologies are built on averages and average conditions.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/15 11:02 AM


Just when you think things will settle down in the world of salmon and fish something comes along to upset the ole apple cart so here we go. The issue is the QIN Winter Steelhead season but the issue is not Steelhead but rather the Late Coho run. How so this is a reasonable question but the answer is well .... complicated?

To understand the issue a brief look at history and the fish is required. So this link to WDF&W's harvest posting is needed. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/files/2014_landings_archive.pdf This will allow one to match up what harvest is and run timing at the estuary harvest areas. Keep this thought this is ESTUARY run timing not 50 miles upriver.

So what is a Late Coho? Depends on where you are as it has been used in multiple places in hatchery programs in Grays Harbor & Willapa but for the Chehalis it is the December / January returns. The reality is our Coho run has three distinct parts. The Normal timed Coho first show in August in small numbers and ramp up in numbers steadily and tail out by week 44. This portion of the run is substantially larger proportionally than in its natural state due to large numbers of hatchery plants both fry & smolt that numbered in the millions back some years. Now natural selection has pretty much done away with the hatchery traits with time so the front part of the normal Natural Origin Recruits ( NOR ) is truly natural but is much larger proportionally than it was before human manipulation and front loading the run timing.

Then we have the back end of the normal run timing. When I was young this was called the T-day run. It comes in primarily in weeks 45 to 48. In the past this was proportionally a larger part of the Coho run but harvest & just us has reduced it . Then we have the true Lates that come through the estuary in weeks 48 through 51 with stragglers into January. In all three parts of the run you have overlap as a certain % of Normal timed Coho will come back late and a % of Lates comes back early.

So what does this have to do with Steelhead? Down and dirty a run at history is needed. After Boldt the Dept. Game did not accept the QIN fishers targeting "Native Steelhead" so they started planting out large numbers of early timed Steelhead from Chambers Cr ( and others ) for harvest both tribal and Rec. This resulted in a agreed to Steelhead season starting December 1 which we still have. Now for many in East GH at the time this was not acceptable. Why? Well they kicked the crap out of the Late Coho and wiped out the December Chinook. I personally objected one time and the Dept Game staffer bluntly told me that was the Dept. of Fisheries problem. Fast forward to the present and we still have December 1 start for winter Steelhead but since the joining of the two agencies and new genetic guidelines the early hatchery origin plants are not allowed so few Steelhead in December. ( look at the numbers December in the harvest report that I linked previously)

You then add to this little effort is made by either of the Co-Managers to track the health of the Late Coho. Sure on Bingham Cr. they have a very good count as the Science Division has a trap but little else of a serious nature that I am aware of. We do have hatchery releases identified as Lates at Bingham and for the Skookumchuck Dam mitigation which are really a hybrid cross between the back end of the normal run and Natural Lates.

Why is this all important? It is accountability in harvest pure and simple. We ( and the fish ) cannot afford to not clearly define the true impacts of ANY fishery Treaty or Non Treaty. That the QIN did not throw the first punch in this thing is not only true but I doubt if they got the second, third, or forth blows in. That said two wrongs do not make a right. The Late Coho are a very special fish to the East GH folks and other avid fishers and now a days are called the Native Hooknose on the Satsop. It is a weak component of the Coho run that does not perform in returns as well as the normal timed Coho due to environmental factors and a improperly managed Steelhead harvest.

In nearly every fishery in the Chehalis Basin ( Spring Chinook possibly the exception ) the dishonesty in quantifying the true harvest impacts by run components in not just troublesome but downright glaring. It exist everywhere but the QIN Steelhead harvest is simply the most obvious and damaging to the fish at the moment.

So to the point I have been making for some time. The Co-managers are dysfunctional to such a degree that they cannot get anything done, other than shut us Recs down when they screw up. If they cannot address a issue so clearly defined December Steelhead season what hope is there for the complex issues with years of much lower returns looming on the horizon? If it continues I feel it would be safe to say we and the fish are toast. Often it is said have to know where you have been to know where you are to know where you're going. It is just plain time to leave the past behind us folks because this thing between the Co-managers, whatever it is, cannot continue.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/15 11:18 AM

AGREED...

This sham of a gillnet fishery supposedly targeting hatchery Chehalis steelhead in December (5 days a week, historically beginning latter half of November) has been the death knell for late wild coho in the system.

An intellectually honest accounting of steel vs coho encounters in this fishery would readily reveal just which species is the true target.
Posted by: larryb

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/15 11:26 AM

years ago we caught wild steelhead in the Chehalis in December. was usually my best month plunking for them. now they are gone. the late coho on the Satsop [February] are gone. just saying
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/15 11:57 AM


Just rescued a dog floating down the river and shower is need. Larry the Native run had a early component but it got mowed down rather harshly with the Dec returning early plants. Still some around not nearly as many as before the old Game plants. They more or less got two for the price of one.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/15 12:05 PM

I posted a picture here of a hatchery steelhead, about 7 or 8 pounds, that I caught last New Year's Day on the Nooch. Nothing much special about the fish, but I hoped more people would notice the obvious net marks that this average-sized steelhead had in its dorsal region (the thickest part of the fish). That an average hatchery steelhead can slip through the mesh being used in the QIN "Winter steelhead fishery" leaves a bit of doubt in my mind that hatchery steelhead were the target species.

That particular gillnet fishery, running 5 full days a week from mid-November through the Spring closure, is the one QIN fishery that I loudly complain about. 5 days a week, leaving just 2 days a week for unmolested passage, is representative of neither 50% of the opportunity nor anything that can be called sustainable. I will never understand or condone it. Fortunately for the QIN, my approval is never sought.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/15 12:06 PM

Nice work on the dog rescue, Rivrguy! You truly are a man of the people.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/15 06:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


In nearly every fishery in the Chehalis Basin ( Spring Chinook possibly the exception ) the dishonesty in quantifying the true harvest impacts by run components in not just troublesome but downright glaring. It exist everywhere but the QIN Steelhead harvest is simply the most obvious and damaging to the fish at the moment.



This.
Posted by: Moravec

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/15 08:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

And this and this should not surprise anyone, well anyone who understands the system.

Hi Everyone,

I want to bring you up to speed on the coho situation in Grays Harbor. We were called this morning by Quinault Indian Tribe with concerns about hooking mortality of coho in our steelhead and gamefish seasons that are still open in the Chehalis and Humptulips basins, and the conservation need for wild coho. After a long and difficult day of coordinating with the Director, acting AD Norman, and soon to be AD Warren, and 2 conference calls with QIN, we decided to close the steelhead and gamefish seasons in the harbor and tributaries to ensure continued support for conservation actions. We have relayed to QIN by voicemail this afternoon that: 1) we will be closing the gamefish fisheries, 2) that we will be hard pressed to keep hatchery coho closed in rivers with hatchery production once egg take is met, and 3) we want to continue to have a conversation about when is an appropriate time to open winter steelhead fisheries while minimizing coho impacts.

You should expect the closure to take place at 12:01 am on Friday.

I’m sorry to be the one bringing more bad news. As always, please give me a call if you have any questions or just need to yell at someone.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201


In the spirit of conservation, I assume the QIN will not open their directed Steelhead fishery since Coho bycatch exceeds their Steelhead catch?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/15 06:21 AM


Oh Oh this could get tricky. Try this as a starting point. Both the REC and QIN Steelhead fisheries prior to week 52 which ends around the 20th of December are in reality directed Coho harvest targeting Late Native Coho with some hatchery mixed in. It is the last remaining true native component of the Coho run and weakest. Also the Steelhead in this period is also the weakest part of the run be it the front not the back side of the run.

Using the QIN 2014 harvest to get the mix of fish gives you 1822 for Late Coho and 71 Steelhead. It puts the mix at 25.67 Late Coho to 1 Steelhead. Neither the QIN or Rec fisheries in the last week of November through the 3rd week of December are Steelhead fisheries. We just call them that for convenience.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/15 09:21 AM


Heads up time. This is a link to the next Commission meeting. http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/11/agenda_nov1315.html On Friday the 13th at 3:00 PM Grays Harbor is on the agenda.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/15 07:06 AM


AND THEN THIS!

GILLNETTERS FILE YET ANOTHER SUIT, THIS TIME IN THURSTON COUNTY


On September 25th, Pacific County Judge Michael J. Sullivan granted the state's motion to dismiss the first legal challenge to the new Willapa management policy filed by the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association. In response, the WBGA moved to Thurston County and filed another petition yesterday challenging the 2015 commercial season rule or "WAC" that was adopted by the Department with the policy guidenance provided by the Commission. The latest petition filed reads closely to the one filed earlier in Pacific County. Bottom line is the WBGA is arguing the Department is required to provide a commercial gillnet season that provides a profit level its members find acceptable. The Advocacy is preparing to once again file a motion to intervene to represent the interests of its members and others that have supported the Commission's efforts to manage fishing harvest in Willapa Bay in a responsible fashion. The petition filed by the WBGA is available for viewing or downloading https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yblAwRnNqeWFUWUk/view.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/15 07:23 AM

Rather than flaming the Gillnetters perhaps the sporties should take a similar tack. Sue to get the fisheries, and catch, that we want.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/15 07:49 AM

I think Carcassman's on to something. My family hasn't eaten salmon in three weeks, and we're all malnourished and sick because of it. Gimme, gimme, gimme!!!

Instead of attorneys, methinks the WBGA members had better start spending money on career counseling. (I realize they aren't the ones backing these lawsuits, but still....)
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/15 10:15 AM

I have to work. I hope TVW covers it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/15 11:47 AM

We have a change in the Commissions Agenda on Coho Friday in RED

FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING
November 13-14, 2015
Natural Resources Building
1111 Washington St SE
Olympia WA 98501
First Floor, Room 172
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015
8:00 AM 1. Call to Order
1. Commissioners’ Discussion
2. Meeting Minute Approval
8:15 AM 2. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda.
8:45 AM 3. Director’s Report
The Director will brief the Commission on various items.
9:05 AM 4. Combined Fish Guide License - Briefing, Public Hearing and Decision
The Department will brief the Commission and hold a public hearing on a proposed rule to allow for a combined food fish guide and game fish guide license at a reduced rate as required by the passage of Senate Bill 5824.
- Summary - PDF Format (252 Kb)
Staff Report: Frank Hawley, Budget and Policy Manager, Licensing Division
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

9:25 AM 5. Land Transactions – Briefing, Public Hearing and Decision
The Commission will consider approval of various land transactions recommended by the Department for the protection of critical fish and wildlife habitat, enhancement of public recreation opportunities.
Staff Report: Julie Sandberg, Real Estate Section Manager
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

9:55 AM 6. Forest Restoration Projects – Decision
Department staff will brief the commission on two forest restoration projects.
- Summary - PDF Format (93 Kb)
- Presentation - PDF Format (5 Mb)
Staff Report: Richard Tveten, Forest Management Team Lead
10:15 AM Break
10:30 AM 7. Wildlife Interactions – Decision
Department staff will request approval of the proposed changes to the wildlife interaction rules.
- Summary - PDF Format (2 Mb)
Staff Report: Stephanie Simek, Wildlife Conflicts Section Manager
11:30 AM 8. Citizen Science – Briefing
Department staff will brief the commission on Wildlife Program's FY16-17 Citizen Science Conservation Initiative.
- Summary - PDF Format (78 Kb)
- Presentation - PDF Format (3 Mb)
Staff Report: Bill Tweit, Special Assistant to the Director and Wendy Connally, Citizen Science Coordinator, Wildlife Program
12:00 PM Lunch
1:00 PM 9. Commercial Smelt Fishery Update – Briefing
Department staff will brief the Commission on the commercial smelt fisheries status since regulation changes were implemented in June of 2014.
- Summary - PDF Format (25 Kb)
Staff Report: Dayv Lowry, Ph.D., Research Scientist
1:30 PM 10. Aquatic Invasive Species – Briefing
Department staff will brief the Commission on the response to the legislative directive to WDFW and the Washington Invasive Species Council to form a stakeholder consultation process to develop recommendations for future funding for the State aquatic invasive species program. Recommendations must be provided to the Governor and Legislature by June 1, 2016.
- Summary - PDF Format (17 Kb)
- Report to Legislature
Staff Report: Bill Tweit, Special Assistant to the Director and Allen Pleus, Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator, Fish Program
2:00 PM Break
2:15 PM 11. In Season Management – Briefing and Public Input
Staff will report on the current status of Coho run sizes and actions taken to ensure conservation objectives and broodstock goals are achieved. Staff will also review and discuss possibilities to re-open fisheries.
Staff Report: John Long, Intergovernmental Salmon Management and Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)


3:15 PM 12. Executive Session
Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency. No action will be taken in executive session, and the public is not permitted to listen to the executive session.
4:15 PM Recess
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2015
8:00 AM 13. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda.
8:30 AM 14. 2016-17 Sportfishing Regulation Proposals – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will brief the Commission on proposals and summarize public comments received for the upcoming Sportfishing rules and regulations for the 2016-17 season.
- Summary - PDF Format (2 Mb)
Staff Report: Craig Burley, Fish Management Division Manager, Chris Donley, Region 1 Fish Program Manager, Annette Hoffman, Region 4 Fish Program Manager and Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager.
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

10:15 AM Break
10:30 AM 15. WDFW Presence and Capability in Emergency Management and Homeland Security – Briefing
Department staff will brief the Commission on the Enforcement Program's response to natural disasters and efforts in homeland and port security. The agency occupies an important Emergency Management Division role and receives funding from federal agencies in order to enhance our presence and capability. The focus will be on increasing awareness of the shared public safety mission and operational overlap.
- Summary - PDF Format (138 Kb)
- Presentation - PDF Format (3 Mb)
Staff Report: Deputy Chief Mike Cenci and Sergeant Erik Olson
11:00 AM 16. Miscellaneous and Meeting Debrief
The Commission will discuss items that arise immediately before or during the meeting and after the preliminary agenda is published.
• 2016 Commission meeting schedule discussion (if needed)
11:30 AM Adjourn
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/15 08:27 AM


Every now and then a gem comes through my computer. Despite the claims of "how wonderful" from some many who live in this area and know it are rather appalled at the lack of honesty in the recent openings for inriver fishers after the massive commercial over harvest of the down sized Coho returns. I think this e mail about captured it. Oh not many hatchery Coho in the so called Satsop opening mostly Chinook a few wild Coho. By the way where and the hell did the retain two Chinook on the Hump come from?


Mr. Thiesfeld,

ANGER IS THE BEST WORD I CAN USE AT THIS TIME!

I have discovered where the West Wishkah bridge is located. Just below the Wishkaw school (turn left at Okie Thompson's store).

So with that research complete, what is the purpose???

Farmers fields with no public access and posted no trespassing signs everywhere.

Is this a PR move to say "look we have opened up rivers to allow fishing. There is virtually no access points for the sportsman.

The Humptulips river from Reynvaans bar upstream is Rayonier lease land or private keep out areas until a couple of access points for combat fishing below the hatchery.

And to think we pay you people to make decisions like this???????????? If I get this correct a person with private land or a lease will be able to fish.

You folks are entrusted by the citizens of Washington to manage the resources and just because there is a piece of paper on the wall does not make any of you an expert and the is quite evident watching poor decision making taking place one after another.

So again I ask any of you what is the thinking behind opening small sections of a few GH rivers that most anglers can not access?

I look forward to you reply and not just a political correct one.

I'll close by offering something that all you should be required to print out and place on your desk to see every day:

"Good customer service is not just about the time things are going well, but when they are going bad and how fast I can get things back in the well column".
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/15 08:52 AM

Can't wait to see the answer. Probably something wrapped in "opportunity".
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/15 09:32 AM


And some more but some I cannot post as ah ............... a bit colorful?

Don't know what kind of crap they are pulling, but, I was at the Wishkah hatchery today and talked to the people and they said they are getting very few silvers but quite a few dogs. They are working hard to get the last few Chinook. Yet as you can see they are opening the upper Wishkah. Is this a ploy to allow the QIN in the rivers? Trust no one!!! E---
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1722


Mr. Thiesfeld......looks like discrimination to the old, disabled mom and pop fisher that uses a small boat and kicker motor.

Funneling everyone in short stretches of river......who's idea was that?

On the Hump look at the access areas.......from the low end private lease land ..the only options to combat fish or buy a drift boat??????????????????



I was born here 63 years, 8 months ago...........where the hell is the West Wishkah Bridge?



Dave what on earth are those people think they are doing? [Bleeeeep!] they are going to get more Chinook than Coho in the area they opened on the Satsop than hatchery Silvers. Just who in Montesano came up with this garbage?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/15 10:15 AM

What Mr. Thiesfeld will say in his response is too predictable to be much fun. I'd be more interested in reading a response from Mr. Johnstone or Ms. Sharp to the same questions. Both responses would likely be heavily laden with bull$hit, but I'd rather express my frustrations to those who truly manage the fisheries in this basin. The more one looks at the facts we've been given, the less he should think WDFW is the primary force behind the screwing we're getting this year (IMO).
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/15 08:01 PM

While we all have the benefit of hindsight in our favor, I for one cannot demonize WDFW's management of the NON-treaty fisheries for Chehalis coho with any measure of intellectual honesty.

First off, everyone should understand that the only way to make a biologically defensible run-size update in this basin is to put commercial gear in the water, tally the catches, and work backward thru the harvest rate-based model (hindcast) to arrive at an in-season run-size update. Since our Commission policy effectively took the state nets off the water (4/3 constraint) during the most critical and opportune time to test the waters for coho, that left only the QIN fishery and its catches to "hindcast" a new run-size.

Some may argue the timing of the run-size update and the urgency with which fisheries were restricted/closed.... but the fact of the matter is that once a biologically defensible run-size update was made by the state after QIN completed their week 42 tally, WDFW-managed fisheries were swiftly and decisively constrained in the name of conservation.

The only other opportunity to make a run-size update was after the QIN catches for week 41 were tallied. This too would have produced a run-size update significantly lower than the preseason forecast, but slightly bigger than the one based on the week 42 numbers. This MIGHT have compelled the state to completely cancel our commercial fishery in week 43. It might have also made the state scale back the rec fishery a week earlier.

But in the great grand scheme of things, how much conservation benefit would have occurred by doing so? QIN would have denied any conservation concern existed after week 41, and would have fished week 42 regardless of state action or in-action.

Let's keep the catch numbers in perspective folks. The QIN's took nearly 11K coho for the season. State nets took a whopping 1500. Hook and line took considerably more, but we'll have to wait for the CRC's in another year or two to know for sure.

If the state nets had closed week 43 completely, it would have saved a whopping 600-700 wild coho for the gravel. If recs had been closed a week earlier, it might have saved a couple hundred coho tops.

In the meantime QIN would have fished full speed ahead (and they most certainly did!). Bottom line, their week 42 fishery was worth 2700 wild coho to either totes or gravel. They opted for TOTES.

And once again, the gravel would lose because of this chronically dysfunctional relationship we euphemistically call CO-management.

A week later, we had no choice. Even though the state was still well within its harvest share of the updated run-size, we HAD to choose gravel. It was the only moral/ethical choice.... and mandated by policy. CONSERVATION FIRST!

However.....

REGARDLESS of whether or not the state flinched, e-goal for Chehalis wild coho was already in jeopardy. The only question is how much additional impact would the state have to suck up AFTER the other co-manager had already fished the stock BELOW escapement?

Unfortunately, there is NO specific guidance in the Commission policy for that tragic scenario.
Posted by: Sol Duc

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/15 08:54 PM

Looks like #### crick this week. thumbs
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 04:59 AM

I think someone posted they would like to see the reply to one of the ditty's I threw out so here it is.

Hi K--,

We currently aren’t expecting to meet escapement goal for wild coho in either the Humptulips Basin nor the Chehalis Basin. We tried to craft fisheries that would minimize impacts to wild stock while allowing access to hatchery coho. We also tried to craft fisheries that would be defensible in court as the Quinault Nation policy representative has indicated they would challenge these fisheries under US vs. Washington.

As to the bridge in question, it is below the state wildlife area. I’ve attached a map that will hopefully be of some help.



Also the actual date of the Region 6 reached out to the QIN Policy Level folks was October 22. Keep in mind the agency & QIN technical staff were communicating prior. In fact the QIN spreadsheet was needed to do a reboot on the preseason forecast as WDF&W's could not get the job done.


Hi --,

We have been looking at catch data to see if there is some information that might help us assess actual run-size of Chehalis Basin coho. There appears to be a fairly strong relationship between QIN catch per landing through week 42 and combined hatchery and wild run size. I believe it would be beneficial for state and tribal technical staff to review the relationship and offer some thoughts about what it might be telling us. I’ve attached a file showing that data and relationship.

Second, if technical staff find that there is merit in the relationship, or in any other data they may have, I think it might be worthwhile for us to engage in some discussion as early as possible. I would appreciate your consideration of the data and a potential discussion. If you are amenable to a call, is there a time that would work best for you?

Thank you.

Steve Thiesfeld
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 05:18 AM


Frankly guys I think everyone is paying attention to what just happened and not what is about to happen. The late Coho & Steelhead are right a head and this dance should be interesting. My look at is captured in my testimony to the Commission I submitted.

November 13, 2015

Good morning Commissioners:


-------------------- today I wish to address two issues. The first issue is the total failure by WDF&W Fish Program staff to recognize and react properly to the collapse of the 2015 Coho returns. From the failure to recognize the poor ocean conditions ( NOAA PDO Forecast ) to the refusal to address the harvest indicators from June forward the 2015 harvest went on auto pilot to nearly the end of the run. In Grays Harbor it was particularly glaring but I do not regard it as a failure by any particular staffer but a complete system failure driven by culture of harvest first and at all cost that exist in WDF&W today. I urge the Commission to entertain the option of a third party independent review of the 2015 season setting process and management of the 2015 harvest. Simply put I doubt that staff have the ability to complete a open and frank look at the issue in a unbiased manner. The culture of harvest first is simply to ingrained in the agency to allow for such a process internally. I asked a former WDF&W staffer what on earth anyone could say to Director Unsworth to bring the issue forward and his reply was simple enough. Tell the Director when it comes to harvest and conservation " his dog don't hunt". I think that captures it Commissioners.

My second issue is one that shortly will confront users and staff in Grays Harbor. On December 1 the late Coho season is scheduled to start. This is a component of the GH Coho run that has the last vestiges of our Native Coho run. One must assume that it will perform similarly to the Normal timed run with the preseason prediction being totally wrong and reduced.

The fishery on Late Coho is primarily local and retired fishers. Due to the lower water temperatures and other environmental factors the Late Coho inriver sport fishery has the lowest C&R mortality that exist in any fishery. Even if numbers dictate extra protection for the Natural Origin Recruits ( NOR ) Late Coho several areas exist where little to no NOR Lates are present. This is primarily in the upper Chehalis Basin targeting the Skookumchuck Dam Mitigation Coho which utilizes a Late Coho stock. Other opportunities may or may not exist in the mainstem below Porter and on the Satsop but to accomplish this it would take a carefully thought out approach. This differs substantially from the recent reopening for Normal Timed Coho in the Chehalis Basin. To put it bluntly Region 6 manager Mr. Thiesfeld, the public, and the fish were poorly served by the ill advised and poorly constructed Coho season modifications by District 17 staff. From little access to the wrong fish being present it was and is little more than a attempt to deflect attention away from mismanagement of the fall salmon season by the co-managers.

To complicate matters the Quinault Indian Nation ( QIN ) Winter Steelhead season starts December 1 and Commissioners few Steelhead are present and it is a thinly disguised targeted Late Coho fishery. The December 1 start of the QIN Winter Steelhead season is product of the time before the joining of the old dept of Game & Dept of Fisheries into the current agency. The former Dept. of Game utilized out of basin early timed ( December returning ) plants to provide harvest for the QIN harvest and sport to a much smaller degree. The use of out of basin stock is a discredited practice that has since been stopped but the December 1 QIN opening for Winter Steelhead remains in place which in reality is harvesting 15 to 25 to Late Coho for each Steelhead caught until after December 25th. This can clearly be seen in the QIN 2014 landings. QIN 2014 In a year such as this there can be little doubt that the Late Coho run cannot sustain this level of harvest by the QIN fishers.

Additionally if one looks at the 2015 terminal Salmon season the vast majority of Coho and Chinook impacts were taken by the QIN commercial harvest followed by the Non Treaty Commercial harvest. That the QIN fisheries managers could and should have recognized the clear trend of a underperforming Coho return by week 40 ( September 27th ) and in the following weeks where the trend of a underperforming forecast was no longer a question is a given. If this information was not provided by the QIN to WDF&W Region 6 that is a failure of the QIN managers. If Region 6 staff did not follow the QIN harvest or request the landings numbers then that is a failure of the Region 6 staff. Documents I have indicate that it was not until October 22 after several days of Non Treaty Commercial harvest that Mr. Thiesfeld approached the QIN to address the issue and frankly the damage was way past done right to near not making escapement.

So Commissioners we are to the last fishery for Salmon in Grays Harbor in 2015. It is at risk due to a probable low return complicated by a QIN Winter Steelhead fishery that is in reality a targeted December Late Coho Fishery. To complicate the issue further is the inability for the co-managers to work together to monitor and manage harvest honestly and openly which is unacceptable. Commissioners if the Co-managers cannot even turn loose of a relic of the past such as the QIN December Steelhead season that is not a Steelhead season then I seriously doubt one should have much hope that the array of complicated issues we face will be resolved.

In closing Commissioners let me say that this thing where Region 6 and the QIN's inability to work in a organized coherent manner should not be used as a tool to continue to abuse the inland recreational fisher and just as importantly the fish. We have options to carefully craft the Late Coho season for the inland Chehalis Basin citizens but the question is does WDF&W Region 6 ( and the QIN ) have the ability to work with knowledgeable citizens to get it done? History says nope and Commissioners this is a issue that has to be resolved prior to December 1st.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 06:41 AM

Back in the day, pre-season planning meant developing in-season updates that used commercial catch (catch per landing generally) and utilized Indian, non-Indian, or both-depending on which worked best. Further, models were developed for each week of the fishery, so long as accuracy of the model improved.

As Doc noted, it does require actually fishing and killing fish to implement.

But, the critics point is that it was done pre-season. Development started in December/January and was completed (with State/Tribal agreement) way before any net fishing started.

To start looking unto updates after the fish hit the river is not the way competent management should be conducted.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 11:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Back in the day, pre-season planning meant developing in-season updates that used commercial catch (catch per landing generally) and utilized Indian, non-Indian, or both-depending on which worked best. Further, models were developed for each week of the fishery, so long as accuracy of the model improved.

As Doc noted, it does require actually fishing and killing fish to implement.

I took the 2010-2014 five-year average of the June, July and August Coho harvest and divided it by the 2015 average for the same months and came up with this year’s harvest of Coho was down app. 96% over the five year average.

Why wouldn't that translate into the terminal areas?

One would have to be blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other to recognize that the Coho had an extremely poor showing this year in the ocean areas at an early time frame.


Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 11:55 AM

LL, your point is? WDFW really seems to have no interest in in-season management. For whatever reason, and WDFW won't answer the question, is that they and the co-managers have adopted an auto-pilot management paradigm. There may be good reasons but they actually need to put them in front of the license-buying public. If, in fact, they care a whit about what the license-buying public thinks.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 12:40 PM

Auto-pilot is fine as long as the season is unfolding as expected. But it didn't, so it wasn't. Hence the motivation to pursue an in-season update. I believe the in-season update in 2015 is the state's first attempt at doing so in the past 2 decades.

Only one co-manager was bold enough to actually put a number on the table in week 43 after tallying all the available catches thru week 42. The state fisheries were promptly adjusted. The other co-manager saw no conservation concern at that time. A week later they changed their minds.

Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 01:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
LL, your point is? WDFW really seems to have no interest in in-season management. For whatever reason, and WDFW won't answer the question, is that they and the co-managers have adopted an auto-pilot management paradigm. There may be good reasons but they actually need to put them in front of the license-buying public. If, in fact, they care a whit about what the license-buying public thinks.


I believe when Doc brought up in season management at one of the NOF meetings, RW asked him "and who's going to pay for it Francis, are you?" There's your answer. I'm actually encouraged that they stepped in when they did. It wasn't enough, but it was better than what usually happens which is nothing.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 02:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
LL, your point is? WDFW really seems to have no interest in in-season management. For whatever reason, and WDFW won't answer the question, is that they and the co-managers have adopted an auto-pilot management paradigm. There may be good reasons but they actually need to put them in front of the license-buying public. If, in fact, they care a whit about what the license-buying public thinks.

The short answer would be to help protect the reliability of ocean fisheries.

If ocean harvesters get their fisheries then an up roar by others that don’t get a fair harvest might upset the whole apple cart. State and federal management can put up with complaining sport anglers, but co managers working with sport anglers to go after the ocean commercials would be too much to bear. eek2

The ocean fisheries are cancer to conservation.

They not only take first whack at the smaller class of fish in the earlier months, feeding, and then heading to their terminal areas, but also fish over mixed stock from the CR, coast, Strait, PS, and beyond those areas. ESA listed stocks could be better managed in terminal areas.

If there has to be ongoing ocean fisheries to feed the masses, then the least that should be done is use the data that is available to all State and Federal agencies.Which would be counterproductive in looking out for number 1, and No.1 would be the ocean fisheries...
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 07:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
LL, your point is? WDFW really seems to have no interest in in-season management. For whatever reason, and WDFW won't answer the question, is that they and the co-managers have adopted an auto-pilot management paradigm. There may be good reasons but they actually need to put them in front of the license-buying public. If, in fact, they care a whit about what the license-buying public thinks.

The short answer would be to help protect the reliability of ocean fisheries.

If ocean harvesters get their fisheries then an up roar by others that don’t get a fair harvest might upset the whole apple cart. State and federal management can put up with complaining sport anglers, but co managers working with sport anglers to go after the ocean commercials would be too much to bear. eek2

The ocean fisheries are cancer to conservation.

They not only take first whack at the smaller class of fish in the earlier months, feeding, and then heading to their terminal areas, but also fish over mixed stock from the CR, coast, Strait, PS, and beyond those areas. ESA listed stocks could be better managed in terminal areas.

If there has to be ongoing ocean fisheries to feed the masses, then the least that should be done is use the data that is available to all State and Federal agencies.Which would be counterproductive in looking out for number 1, and No.1 would be the ocean fisheries...

Amen, Brother. I've made some harsh claims about our local co-managers, and while I still think they should do the fish better in general, conservation must begin in the ocean, and that's not on them.

Any amount of conservation in the open ocean benefits wild salmon throughout their range. Talk about a cheap investment in the future (and a slick P.R. move).
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 08:45 PM

You do remember where the last Director got his working start? Westport Charters. Also, ask where (when they do go salmon fishing) where WDFW FP staff go to fish.

Finally, I am pretty sure the Co-managers support and encourage the ocean fishery. Hoh v Baldridge said the Tribes could not be closed for conservation unless the non-Indians were closed. By fishing outside the tribes are allowed to "balance" the catch. When this decision came down, the WDF staff said "we'll close the ocean". Tribes and Feds said not to do that, just balance catches so here we are.

If the ocean were closed, inside fishing would be better for the fish but would (in a management paradigm that abhors waste (one fish above MSY) probably require a lot more net fishing.
Posted by: Keta

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/15 08:51 PM

I doubt all the charter boats and fishing lodges in S.E. Ak,the west coast of Vancouver Island and Washington State would consider conservation in the open ocean a cheap investment in the future (and a slick P.R. move).
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 07:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Keta
I doubt all the charter boats and fishing lodges in S.E. Ak,the west coast of Vancouver Island and Washington State would consider conservation in the open ocean a cheap investment in the future (and a slick P.R. move).


I was mostly referring to commercial fisheries, but you're right to include lodges and charters in the discussion, since they do catch a lot of fish.

You know of any fishing lodges in Washington State? Me niether. By the time the fisheries up north are done, there's rarely enough left to support the kind of fishing experience the elite demand near the mainland. It's like the entire salmon industry is a giant welfare program. I, for one, am tired of paying into that system and getting screwed by it.

The fish-buying public has proven they are willing to pay more for fresh salmon when supply is less, so the fishing industry can just jack up the price to absorb any losses incurred from lower quotas. That's how things should work when managing scarce or limited resources. As for the lodges, as long as their fisheries are still the most productive of their kind, the patrons will keep pouring in. I think it's safe to say that people willing to spend thousands of dollars for a few days' fishing and lodging aren't penciling out the value of a limit of every species to determine whether or not the trip is cost effective.

Maybe I overestimate how much people care about saving salmon, but I still think a major seafood processor making a public announcement that the future of salmon matters to them, so they're voluntarily reducing their impact would be a great PR move... not that I think anyone will make that move.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 07:31 AM

Wild salmon have no future unless we deal with human population. Since we won't deal with it, the only option left is to get it while you can.

There may not be lodges in WA, OR, and CA but what about 75-100 years ago? Boathouses and such. The problem just moves north. Until there is no north.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 08:46 AM

Washington State at one time was called the salmon capital of the world where people from all over the world came to spend time and money trying to catch 50+pound Chinook in the Skagit R, certain parts of Puget Sound, and even bigger possibilities in the Elwha. There were the famous north coast streams and Westport. I just read last week from a NOAA study that of the 23 coastal states in the US, WA is ranked No.22 in futility in bringing in non-resident re creational fishing dollars. Oregon was the bottom dweller at No. 23.

That Hoh v Baldridge court case proves what devastating capabilities that the WA ocean fisheries can have by being able to catch salmon to escapement numbers in those areas of the three tribes described 35 years ago. Just think of the technological/electronic capabilities now.

It is no wonder that as the ocean fisheries expanded the 35+ canneries at the Columbia River and 45+ canneries of Puget Sound dwindled into oblivion.

It will be interesting to see what NOAA does to protect the PS ESA listed Chinook stocks knowing the pillage that occurs in the mixed ocean fisheries.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 09:11 AM

I was reading public comments submitted to NOAA sometime back and there was a complaint about the Puget Sound ESA listed Chinook limiting their ocean fishing harvest. rolleyes
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 09:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Wild salmon have no future unless we deal with human population. Since we won't deal with it, the only option left is to get it while you can.

There may not be lodges in WA, OR, and CA but what about 75-100 years ago? Boathouses and such. The problem just moves north. Until there is no north.


At some point, absent drastic changes in population growth, this will almost certainly be true, but I don't see any reason to believe we're at that point now. I get that there are hard limits to how many salmon our troubled rivers can produce (and that those limits decrease as more habitat is compromised by human development), but those limits are obviously significantly higher than the escapements currently being allowed. If that weren't the case, where would the majority of all salmon stocks being caught in open ocean fisheries be coming from? Hatcheries would be a convenient answer, but not an honest one.

I understand there are papers out there that strongly suggest our assigned carrying capacities are consistent with what each system is honestly capable of sustaining, but I believe all the data used to support that argument are significantly skewed by the huge percentage of all stocks that are caught in open ocean fisheries. I don't see any reasonable argument that indiscriminately killing half the adult fish, year after year, before we get any chance to see what is actually returning to each river, provides a strong basis for any assumptions about the true potential of the remaining habitat.

I'm not saying I think changes to the status quo are at all likely. What I am saying is that limiting open ocean, non-selective harvest (to ANY degree) is the fastest, most effective means of increasing returns to virtually every system within the range of Pacific salmon. Even faster than killing babies and our elderly to control our population!

Whether those additional returns translate to sustained increases in future run sizes is another matter, but shouldn't we at least take an honest assessment of that? If there is any hope for salmon, it will depend on us killing fewer of them than what we currently do. That's the reality nobody in salmon management talks about.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 11:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

NEXT UP IN THE DANCE:

For Immediate Release

Quinault Nation Closes Fisheries to Protect Wild Coho

TAHOLAH, WA (10/29/15)-- The Quinault Indian Nation has announced that it is closing all its fisheries in Grays Harbor and Queets River due to concerns about low returns of wild coho salmon and declaring a disaster due to economic hardship to its fishermen and their families, according to Quinault President Fawn Sharp.

“Closing the fisheries was a tough decision. The closure will have serious consequences and substantial financial losses for our community, but it's the right thing to do as stewards for future generations,” said President Sharp. “We will be seeking economic relief for our fishermen and their families, as well as providing what support we can through the Tribe,” she said.

“As we do every year, we participated fully in all pre-season planning with our state and federal co-managers, through the North of Falcon and Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission processes,” said Quinault Fisheries Policy Spokesperson Ed Johnstone. “After analyzing all available data, we concluded that the actual run sizes of wild coho returning to the Queets River and Grays Harbor are so far below expectations that closure was warranted. The closure will hurt our fishermen and reduce opportunity to harvest hatchery coho and other species but the situation was so dire that Quinault Nation felt that even incidental impacts to wild coho need to be avoided at this point in the season."

The Quinault Nation is working with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine how to approach management of fisheries directed at other salmon and steelhead. WDFW has indicated that it has closed non-treaty fisheries in Grays Harbor and the Chehalis River and its tributaries. WDFW and the National Park Service have not announced decisions regarding sport fishing on the Queets River and its tributaries.

As for a cause for a diminished return of the wild coho, Johnstone pointed to the "Godzilla" El Nino and blob of warm water off the coast. These conditions are expected to linger for the next few months. With forecasts of drought and continuation of adverse ocean conditions expected to severely impact food chains, we are extremely concerned about the ability of the fish that are in the ocean now and those produced from this year's escapement to survive. The fish returning this year are not only low in numbers, but in poor physical shape. There's a lot at stake. We want to minimize the potential to dig ourselves in a hole that will be hard to get out of. The condition of wild coho stocks from the Queets and Grays Harbor will affect future Quinault and ocean fisheries for years to come."

“People need to understand that these fish need a healthy ocean and we are facing severe challenges in the Pacific, ranging from acidification and sea level rise to storm events. We worry about the uncertainty of climate change impacts and developments like dams and oil terminals that could have disastrous consequences for the environment. We care about the Earth and the fish, wildlife, bugs, water, air and soil. These are not resources that can be wantonly exploited, but rather our relations that must be treated with honor and respect. Their future as well as ours have been entrusted to our care. It's not an easy job, but it’s one we must undertake, not only for Quinaults but everyone,” said President Sharp.

For now, we have to take responsible action here in our waters. It’s time to shut down,” she said.


I have heard from two people today telling me that there are nets in the Chehalis today...poaching, fishing, test fishing?

Anyone know?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Haven't seen pics or seen them with my own eyes...just received two messages about it.
Posted by: Keta

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 11:42 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Originally Posted By: Keta
I doubt all the charter boats and fishing lodges in S.E. Ak,the west coast of Vancouver Island and Washington State would consider conservation in the open ocean a cheap investment in the future (and a slick P.R. move).


I was mostly referring to commercial fisheries, but you're right to include lodges and charters in the discussion, since they do catch a lot of fish.

You know of any fishing lodges in Washington State? Me niether. By the time the fisheries up north are done, there's rarely enough left to support the kind of fishing experience the elite demand near the mainland. It's like the entire salmon industry is a giant welfare program. I, for one, am tired of paying into that system and getting screwed by it.
The fish-buying public has proven they are willing to pay more for fresh salmon when supply is less, so the fishing industry can just jack up the price to absorb any losses incurred from lower quotas. That's how things should work when managing scarce or limited resources. As for the lodges, as long as their fisheries are still the most productive of their kind, the patrons will keep pouring in. I think it's safe to say that people willing to spend thousands of dollars for a few days' fishing and lodging aren't penciling out the value of a limit of every species to determine whether or not the trip is cost effective.

Maybe I overestimate how much people care about saving salmon, but I still think a major seafood processor making a public announcement that the future of salmon matters to them, so they're voluntarily reducing their impact would be a great PR move... not that I think anyone will make that move.


I don't know of any fishing lodges in Wa either but know of quite a few in S.E Ak & B.C. so I included them in the mix. Before I posted this I did a some research on ocean catch numbers. I was looking for recreational, commercial and bycatch broken down by AK,BC and WA. IMO these numbers should be readily available for all to see so we have a clear picture of where the damage is being done regardless of which group it is. I think there is a lot of the pot calling the kettle black in the world of salmon user groups that creates confusion and prevents progress in conservation. Regardless, and as an ex salmon troller, I have seen the ocean fisheries,recreational and commercial,first hand and have been a long time advocate of ending mixed stock fisheries and narrowing down the harvest to terminal fisheries.
As for letting the free market, as in "major seafood processor making a public announcement that the future of salmon matters to them, so they're voluntarily reducing their impact" , you are right, wouldn't happen. The big seafood possessors will go as far as fighting regulations that have no real effect on their operations just because they don't want a precedent set that may effect their operations in other fisheries the future. All this said and it's only one complex part, as we are dealing with multiple governing entities, of a very complex societal problem, saving salmon from human greed.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 11:46 AM

Hopefully just an ill-advised test fishery....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 11:57 AM


Quote:

I have heard from two people today telling me that there are nets in the Chehalis today...poaching, fishing, test fishing?

Headed to town so I will take a look.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 12:02 PM

There it is, Keta. Greed. We're lock step on the root cause.

I know I'm always surprised when I see how many salmon rec fishers catch in the ocean, and I fear, based on personal experiences fishing in the big blue, that the overall impact on non-target species is likely double the reported catch, as a lot of under-sized and unmarked fish get released, many bleeding and losing scales, while anglers keep fishing to get that last fish to round out the limit. I really think a reduction in both the sport and commercial ocean quotas would be the single most effective way we could conserve more wild salmon. I'd also favor sport regulations that mandate keeping the first two adult salmon encountered, regardless of species or origin, to reduce the impact of what I believe is an unacceptable dropout rate on C&R coho in the salt.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 12:52 PM

I didn't see any nets in Chehalis when I went over bridge... but they were in the hump last few days...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 01:01 PM


Nothing from the Muk to the Port. No idea about the Hump.
Posted by: Mystical Legends

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 01:17 PM

There are nets in the Chehalis river around the Independence area. Nets are scheduled to go BACK IN the Hump on Sunday...Conservation at it's finest.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 01:41 PM


The nets upriver are Chehalis Tribal but are not Treaty Tribe ( QIN ) they come from the non treaty side ( us ) and by court decision have the right to fish at a % of harvestable at the Oakville Reservation. Once the REC & NT Nets went in they do not have a conservation lock out as they are part of the Non Treaty side of things. It is the way things work.
Posted by: Mystical Legends

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/15 02:33 PM

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/

Try this, not sure if they are really netting or not. I can't believe any netting is actually taking place at this time on the Chehalis or Humptulips.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/15 09:32 AM

This is a link to the NW River Forecast http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ Living on the river one learns how to time out the crest and other factors as it affects just what goes on in my yard, literally. Now this forecast is puzzling. If you look at the rain we have had, the ground is soaked, and we made minimum flood stage which is the valley fields & ect. So just how do we get this drop back below average flows? Temperature range at higher elevations which would give us snow without run off is not that much below normal. http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi


Any ideas?

Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/15 10:56 AM

Flow forecasts are very useful in determining when we should or shouldn't go fishing based on probable trends, but I find that they tend to be much less than reliable at predicting the rate and extent of rise/drop. It would be interesting to see what data the USGS uses to model their forecasts. I suspect there may be data they don't track that affect these things, so they have something less than the full range of considerations at their disposal. I think ground saturation level at the time of a rain event may be one such attribute. Something else that may affect their forecasts (assuming they do have most of those factors figured in, which is probably the case) would be the duration over which the forecast and observed precipitation fall in a given event. If it all falls quickly, it stands to reason it should drain quickly, producing a steep, relatively complete drop, whereas large amounts falling over longer periods of time should create the slow, steady drops we're accustomed to seeing once the rain arrives in earnest (which I think it's safe to say has happened at this point).

Something else that might affect how quickly flows drop and might complicate forecasting would be changes to the terrain at various points throughout the basin (due to recent logging or a large area within the flood plain being cleared and developed, for instance).

In the end, lest we forget, these are based on weather forecasts, and we all know how reliable those are....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/15 08:53 AM


Watching NOAA put up information out in the links above the drop puzzled me so I went and dug up a couple of old friends who know way more than I do about such things. Bottom line is despite all the rain the Chehalis Basin is still recovering from the drought. While for us the ground is soaked it is at the surface area. Deeper into the ground the ground is still drinking water as the drought dried things out much more & deeper than normal. Also the shallow aquafers are still filling which is normal as some ( well many ) such as the one that feeds Dry Bed Creek do not flow at a continuous volume until the aquafer is full.

So the rapid stream flow drop as rain stops is normal. The huge drops forecasted should and will disappear once the ground water & ground itself get fully charged. Evidently the drought effected things much more than many thought. Think of it this way. The low summer flows really impact fish particularly Coho. If the ground got as low as it appears then most of the small creeks and over summering areas took a hit for Coho production. Time will tell but I doubt words like small, minimal, minor will be used to describe it.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/15 11:49 AM

Makes sense, although it is pretty mind-boggling to think about how low the aquifers must have been in order to hold all or even most of the recent rainfall. It was pretty silly of me to think the USGS wouldn't be tracking all the known factors in hydrology....
Posted by: Rocket Red

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/15 01:10 PM

It has been a very interesting week hydro-logically, I expected way more sheet water from these storms than there actually ended up being. It feels like it will be an accelerated dry-out as well.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/15 06:36 AM

This is where the wisdom of having forested slopes, free-to-move floodplains, beavers, and swamps is shown.

Modern flood management is to move the water through as fast as possible. So in doesn't recharge the groundwater.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/15 07:12 AM


And next up we have this for those down South in Willapa.

From: Public Affairs (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:48 PM
To: DFW DL WDFW Staff
Subject: WDFW hosts public meeting on Naselle hatchery operations

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
November 19, 2015
Contact: Steve Thiesfeld, (360) 249-1201

WDFW hosts public meeting on Naselle hatchery operations

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is hosting a public meeting Nov. 23 to discuss this year’s salmon returns and hatchery operations in the Willapa Bay area.

The meeting will be held from 6 to 8 p.m., Nov. 23, in the library of the Naselle High School, 793 State Route 4, Naselle.

State fishery managers will provide an overview of this year’s salmon returns in the region. They will also discuss how operations at the state’s Naselle fish hatchery could be affected by a new Willapa Bay salmon management policy adopted this summer by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. The policy is designed to restore depleted runs of wild chinook salmon in Willapa Bay and its tributaries, including the Naselle River where the hatchery is located.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/15 11:05 AM

This letter has been discussed but I do not recall seeing it posted so I thought I would do it. It is from the Governor to the Commission Chair and I assume the rest of the Commissioners. Formatting is off but it happens when converting a PDF to word.


October 28, 2015



Brad Smith, Ph.D., Chair
Washington State Fish &Wild life Commission 600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501 Dear Chair Smith:

I am writing to convey a few of my thoughts related to fisheries management. First, I want to acknowledge the important role the Fish and Wildlife Commission plays in setting policies to assure the protection of the state's fish and wildlife resources. I also want to express my appreciation for your service as Governor appointees and public representatives.

One of the more challenging aspects of being a member of the Commission is dealing with fishery science, sound hatchery management and resource allocation issues. Managing salmon and steelhead is made more complex with the Endangered Species Act listing many stocks as threatened or endangered. This challenge is made even more complex with the impacts of climate change the
decline of Puget Sound, ocean acidification and third party litigation that threatens our state's hatchery production.

With over 800,000 recreational fish licenses issued annually and more than I O million annual angler days, recreational fishing makes a significant contribution to our economy, attracting tourists and providing an opportunity for our children to experience time on the water that sustains our way of life in Washington State. Recreation license fees increasingly represent the largest single portion of revenue for the Department to manage sustainable fisheries and other activities. The Department of Fish and Wildlife's share of the state general fund has declined dramatically over the past seven years, decreasing from $106 million i n the 2007-09 biennium to $74 million in the current biennium. Over this same period, the share of WDFW's costs supported by recreational fishing license revenue has grown substantially.

In light of the growing social and economic contribution of the recreational fishery across Washington State, the Commission should fully implement the budget policy you recently adopted and seek ways to expand public access to the recreational fishery, promote selective fisheries, implement scientifically credible hatchery practices that ensure hatchery production and consider economic factors when setting seasons for both the recreational and commercial fish industry. I remain convinced that we can prioritize and expand fishing opportunities for the 800,000 Washingtonians who purchase fishing licenses annually while taking into consideration the viability of our state's important commercial fish industry.




@ ,e P.O. Box 40002 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0002 • (360) 902-4111 • www.governor.wa.gov

Brad Smith October 28, 2015
Page 2

As always, it is important that we make wise fishery management decisions based upon sound science with the goal of building a sustainable fishery for tribes, the recreational community and our commercial fishery. I am pleased and encouraged that the final capital budget included over $39 million to rebuild, renovate and construct state hatchery facilities to benefit recreational, commercial and tribal fishers. In addition, over $118 million was provided for habitat projects that will directly benefit salmon habitat. I would hope the Commission and the Department can work effectively with the legislature, tribes and stakeholders to continue enhancing our state's fisheries. I stand ready to work with you on protecting one of our state's most important resources, and I look forward to hearing of your progress in our annual meeting.


Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/15 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Inslee
I would hope the Commission and the Department can work effectively with the legislature, tribes and stakeholders to continue enhancing our state's fisheries.




Uh-oh....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/22/15 08:54 AM



Doing some catch up here but I wanted to wish all a Happy Thanksgiving! Family, food, and the season makes it a special time of the year. Enjoy!

Recently I was asked a couple of questions, so first up why is the Chehalis Tribe fishing with the closure? Well the answer is the Chehalis are a non treaty tribe that has court mandated fishing rights. Their harvest comes from the non treaty share ( us ) not the tribal which is QIN. Once the Rec and Non Treaty Gillnetters ( us again ) went in the Chehalis Tribe will fish. Simply put if the agency screws up as they did this year they do not have to accept boo boo no fish left as the Rec fisher did.

The next question is a bit more difficult. The point this gentleman had was that he could see little difference in previous years compared to this year from a inland fishers point of view. So off I went with the spiel on the new GH Policy on how things were supposed to be different. To be honest he did not budge on his thoughts and kept coming back to the same place which was " call it what you will the end result was the same " He has a point and a rather good one to be honest. In the past WDF&W placed the vast majority of conservation on the inland Rec seasons and bag limits to enable the Non Treaty gillnetters greater harvest. With the new GH Policy this was not supposed to be how things worked. I pointed out the various things in the GH Policy that benefitted the inland fisher but kept getting nailed by this simple fact. Regardless of the intent of the policy the end result was that WDF&W placed the conservation needs on inland Rec which is exactly what they have done for nearly 30 years.

I pointed out again that the agency had taken action to address the failed preseason harvest by closing for conservation which had a lot of support and was given a atta boy with applause for it. His response was one I have to remember. " That is like giving bank robbers an award for making their get away without shooting anyone". The man has a point. If the end result is how you view something and not the process utilized to get there then WDF&W's failure in the Chehalis was the same as in the past, they just did it differently. Heck of a gotcha moment.

One thing I have noticed over the years is the lack of understanding of how WDF&W functions as a government entity which is much different than the private sector. You see agencies are about process while the private sector is end results. The agency can work their way through a issue be it harvest or whatever and feel they were successful even if they fail to meet the objectives if the process went as planned. The process being that important is really due to the interaction and criticism from us the public. Now the private sector does not have us on them twenty four hours a day seven days a week. Also you fail to meet objectives and profits disappear your toast in the private sector as it is about the end results, period. ( right after complying with laws ) The objective being to make a profit means failure is NOT a option. For WDF&W failure to make an objective is acceptable as they utilize our taxes & fees so there is always another day.

It is what it is.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/22/15 09:23 AM

Any word on the street about potential steelhead opening dates and on what rivers?

I would think the co-managers are talking about this now??
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/22/15 10:23 AM

Not that I am aware of but it should come about soon. In Dec we have the late Coho for Rec & the QIN Steelhead fisheries. Now the Rec is a straight up fishery but the QIN Steelhead fishery is not a Steelhead fishery but rather a Late Coho fishery also. So if Dec is the question then your guess is as good as mine. If you are looking at Jan on I have no idea as the winter Steelhead seasons as the process in setting them, equitable sharing of impacts are seldom discussed by the co-managers in public.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/23/15 01:19 PM


It is safe to say the Advocacy guys in East County did not buy into the PR love fest put forth by WDF&W & the QIN. So they took the issue public. From the Daily World.


PAID ADVERTISEMENT
Public Notice- Fishing Alert

The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy is a nonprofit organization dedicated to managing natural resources for the betterment of today’s citizens and the generations that follow. The Advocacy is committed to encouraging practices that avoid ESA intervention as experienced with the “spotted owl” that can cripple local economies and impose hardships on all the citizens.

The salmon harvest seasons in Grays Harbor and its tributaries are “co- managed” by the WA Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW) and the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN). Both recently curtailed recreational and/or net fishing due to the run size of Coho falling well below the number of fish needed in the spawning grounds to maintain a viable Coho run in the future.

Yet, DFW has a steelhead season set in December for recreational fishers and the QIN for its net fishers that will threaten the late run of natural spawning Coho which contain fish that are believed to
be our strongest connection remaining to the “wild” Coho from times gone past.

The Advocacy has written a joint letter to both the QIN and DFW asking they restrain from inflicting harvest mortality on the late run Coho during their normally scheduled steelhead seasons
in December when up to 90% or more of the fish caught will be late run Coho rather than steelhead. The QIN nets have already landed 31,276 salmon in GH this year which is well in excess of the 50/50 sharing established by the Boldt Decision. Delaying putting its nets back in until after Christmas will not resultin a loss of treaty salmon fishing rights. DFW can also move pole fishing to avoid inflicting mortality as well.

The joint-letter to the DFW and the QIN points out how both promote conservation in their press releases. That’s the “talk” and the Advocacy now asks if either “...can do the walk”. The letter with details is available for viewing at the Advocacy’s website (thfwa.
org) including a picture that shows the distinctly different “late hooknose” next to a hatchery fish commonly seen today.

Paid for by Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy, PO Box 179, McCleary, WA 98557.
Posted by: Mystical Legends

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/23/15 03:34 PM

Nets are back in the middle Halis.
Posted by: Mystical Legends

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/23/15 09:24 PM

Lower river is scheduled to see nets go in the water starting Noon Sunday Till Dec. 2. Conservation...LMAO!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/15 11:10 AM

Region 6 provided the preseason Steelhead forecast that I requested. So take a look but with this caution the QIN & WDF&W HAVE NOT both agreed to these numbers so they could move around some.

Chehalis 2015 Steelhead
Hatchery 11900 Escapement Goal 410 Harvestable 11490
Wild 12900 8600 4300
Total 24800 9010 15790

Humptulips
Hatchery 2100 140 1960
Wild 2800 1600 1200
Total 4900 1740 3160
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/15 11:28 AM

4300 "harvestable" wild steelhead on the Chehalis side? Guess that's my answer to why they net 5 days a week all season. I'm no proponent of killing wild steelhead, but shouldn't the state side be entitled to 2,150? As I said, I won't be whacking any, but wouldn't a lower harvest quota for the QIN translate to fewer days of gillnetting, resulting in more productive fishing upstream?
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/15 11:34 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
4300 "harvestable" wild steelhead on the Chehalis side? Guess that's my answer to why they net 5 days a week all season. I'm no proponent of killing wild steelhead, but shouldn't the state side be entitled to 2,150? As I said, I won't be whacking any, but wouldn't a lower harvest quota for the QIN translate to fewer days of gillnetting, resulting in more productive fishing upstream?


We kill our 2150 as CnR mortality, since we will catch 42,300 wild steelhead in the Chehalis basin.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Just kidding.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/15 12:33 PM


I should have posted this up with the numbers but the thing to remember is the Summerrun Steelhead are in the mix so it really is H+W+S then divide by two ... sorta. As the QIN do not C&R they are controlled by the NOR ( wild ) while we sort through and take hatchery which means our numbers climb in the hatchery side but are very low on the NOR. The QIN & Chehalis tribe harvest Steelhead the break out HOR / NOR for counting harvest is something the state did that the tribes never agreed to.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/15 12:44 PM

That's right. I forgot that "fish" means wampum that swims in the native tongue, while "wild fish" has no meaning. Curiously, our government seems to have adopted the same translations.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/15 05:35 PM

Are the new zipper front waders better for wading through BS?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/15 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Region 6 provided the preseason Steelhead forecast that I requested. So take a look but with this caution the QIN & WDF&W HAVE NOT both agreed to these numbers so they could move around some.

Chehalis 2015 Steelhead
Hatchery 11900 Escapement Goal 140 Harvestable 11490
Wild 12900 140 4300
Total 24800 9010 15790

Humptulips
Hatchery 2100 140 1960
Wild 2800 1600 1200
Total 4900 1740 3160


Those numbers for Chehalis do not add up for e-goal.

I believe you meant hatchery = 410 for broodstock and 8600 for the gravel... that would reconcile with the rest of the numbers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/15 06:57 AM

It is 410 on escapement goal rather than 140. The Hump is 140 so I must have dropped a typo in it. No matter what if you do a C&P you loose formatting so things jump around. Sorry but you guys find that error and go right past that the preseason forecast that is way out there similar to the Salmon forecast?
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/15 08:19 AM

Quote:
I believe you meant hatchery = 410 for broodstock and 8600 for the gravel... that would reconcile with the rest of the numbers.



This.

I was about to blow a gasket when it read 140 wild escapement for the entire Chehalis Basin.

Will be curious to see how steelhead survival pans out this winter/next summer compared to the thin coho returns. Sucks having several places closed still……..makes you appreciate just how good it's been the last several years.
Posted by: BossMan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/15 09:12 AM

So are they going to reopen the Chehalis rivers to fishing? Seems a bit out of whack if the nets are back in and we can't even C&R fish.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/15 09:25 AM

We don't want to C&R coho, need to have retention if the nets are going in.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/15 11:28 AM

Then go fish and tell the game warden that you saw the nets in and figured you could exercise your treaty right. Those B runs usually show up around now.
Posted by: ronnie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/15 11:35 AM

I agree that C&R is not a good idea. You end up harming the very fish you are trying to protect, especially if using bait.

Also something that doesn't seem logical. I understand that starting in late December and beyond, there are many more wild steelhead hooked than hatchery.
The normal method is some sort of bait, usually eggs. Then why are barbed hooks still legal? If using barbed hooks, many wild fish are harmed. Why not allow barbed hooks and the first steelhead caught is your limit for the day? The way it is now it is nothing more than C&R until you might get a hatchery steelhead, killing wild ones along the way.

As for coho

1. Keep it closed until January 1, taking the high road. or

2. Open the river around the 20th and use the regs as written. or

3. Open it sooner and the first coho is your limit for the day. No C&R. January 1, use regs as written. Wild steelhead may mess up the no C&R, but maybe not that much in December.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/15 11:56 AM

( Why not allow barbed hooks and the first steelhead caught is your limit for the day)




why should the sports fishers get cut back to one fish a day???? while the Quins take hundreds!!!

I DONT THINK SO





Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/15 09:14 AM

Sucks being a jetboat owner, pretty much "high and dry".

Definite bais in how the opening were set on the Wishkah, Satsop, Humptulips......and NO FISHING in the Chehalis.

1. If you want to protect Humptulips, wild Coho......and you should, 20+ years of NOT making escapement.......No fishing above Reynvans, would have allowed a big saftey zone.

2. Satsop.........NO FISHING above West Fork, would sure do the protection bit.

3. Wynoochee River, completely closed??????? WDFW and othes, can't sit down at the table and get a plan to start spendiing the Tacoma City Light $2.4+ million to put the migation Coho and Steelhead in the river. 22+ years the money has been there......not 1 fish raised from those funds.

Most of the Coho, that now reach the trap, are trucked above the lake, what a waste of a resource.

4. Chehalis definite bias toward power boats......enough said!!!!

5. Wishkah......what is open now should have been the closed area....if protection of weak stocks was the main goal.

Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/15 10:03 AM

How is the Satsop only open below the west fork fair to bank fishermen? Not much access and crowds guys into what little access there is available. I just don't see the logic in shutting down certain stretches of a river. Maybe rivers like the Chehalis that flow into the ocean, but tributaries should be all (at least everything below the hatchery), or nothing. Right now they have the Satsop closed below the west fork, packing everyone into the decker to west fork drift, apparently the state thinks that gives the wild fish a better chance. I think it just lets all the fish get piled up in the small holes and runs from Schafer down to the west fork.

Close the tidal fisheries, when the scales might not be set. Science is inconclusive at best on rod and line mortality on in river fish. One group will tell you a higher number, the other Low. No one really knows. Personally I think it's on the lower side. Anyone who's ever spent much time around a hatchery have seen the chinook with two hooks down their throats and trebles in their back. They made it to the hatchery just fine. Nets are, has been and will always be the problem.

I agree about the wynoochee, no reason why they won't spend that money, unless of course they did, but the state would never do that. I'm not as seasoned as most of you guys on the politics of the fisheries, but it seams pretty cut and dry; they (the state) either have no spine to stand up to the tribal and commercial interests, or they are being paid off. But again, that doesn't happen in politics or any level of government, move along, nothing to see here.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/15 03:05 PM

WDFW actually had more money available but dithered and 9/11 took it.

Maybe whomever gave them the money should ask for it back (in Court) since WDFW obviously does want it.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/15 12:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman


Maybe whomever gave them the money should ask for it back (in Court) since WDFW obviously does want it.


The way Region 6, District 17 staff acts.....that might be just the answer....then I can quit going to NOF and WDFW Commission meeting to see if I can help get more fish in the Wynoochee. Would save me lots of gas money...............
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/15 07:18 AM

It's funny. If, say Weyco, was required by WDFW to do mitigation they would be all over them to do it. I mean, what would the State do if Tacoma had said they'd build the Cowlitz hatcheries and then spent 20-30 years simply planning what to do?

It is a two way street out there.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/15 09:51 AM

I thought the Q were going in for only two days of "test" fishing?

There has been no update I've seen of the season. Just checked, still the same.
http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf

Shouldn't sport fishers be allowed to fish for steelhead? Since the 6.5 inch mesh is clearly targeting the larger salmon and sturgeon?

Edi: I believe Region Five uses four inch mesh to determine the presence of steelhead and salmon in the Spring time, lower Columbia River? Cold water conditions should be similar.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/15 10:30 AM

If there is going to be a "test" fishery. It should include the salmon and sturgeon. Not just the steelhead as the nets select for the size of the fish, not the species. 2cents
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/15 10:31 AM

Folks your crossing between two different time frames & fish. The first three weeks of Dec have very few Steelhead and is a Rec Late Coho fishery. The QIN Steelhead starts Dec 1st and few Steelhead are present in the MAINSTEM river and is really a targeted Late Coho fishery called a Steelhead fishery. The Dec 1st thing for the QIN came from old Dept. Game season setting ( & courts ) and is just ignored as to relevance to the present. So we are down now for the NORMAL timed Coho which ends the last week of Nov.

The first question is why are the REC continuing to be down if two tribes are fishing the first three weeks of Dec? The second issue of the REC Steelhead season piggybacks in Dec but is a stand alone issue from Christmas forward. The two seasons overlap but differently depending on if your tribal or REC on what the target fish is.

R-6 has a conference call with the Advisers Monday so we will know more. They tried to get one going this past week but were late getting to it so it was reboot time. So we are down running on the 33.3 % of forecast with few NORMAL timed Coho available after both tribal & Non Tribal commercial fisheries. Now the thing is that preliminary data on spawners in Willapa came back at 41% of forecast so is the Chehalis showing the same? I do not know but you can bet your butt I am going to ask. It makes a big difference because if it is adjusted upwards then the question is why and the hell is the river down now? The normal timed stock is to the gravel and it is Late Coho time and the tribes appear to not see a conservation issue.

Just so all know I advocated a one fish bag around a restructured inriver Rec season prior to closure but when the QIN pulled agreed to support the closure. Again that was NORMAL timed Coho. If the QIN and Chehalis tribes are going fishing ( which essentially says there is not a conservation issue ) then the inland communities need to get what is left of their seasons back and right damn now!
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/15 02:57 PM

I realise the early hatchery steelhead are no more. Half of nothing is nothing.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/15 03:12 PM

Thank for nothing, Phil
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/15 09:13 PM

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr ----- hell of a way to go into the "Merry Christmas" let's be jolly time of the year....

Ya pay your money for a "opportunity to fish".......maybe a rebate is in order????? Would be easy to do, just enter a credit amount in the computer system....then when you go to pay for 2016, would be a lesser amount.......

Wouldn't WDFW just crap their shorts?????? Would sure make "somebody" more accountable, for decisions made and then not be able to follow thru.

I view this closure like leasing a car....pay for the lease but then leasing company takes back the car, and then lets Chehalis trible and QIN use the car.........and then maybe I might be able to use for we'll say "1 fish", and then QIN and Chehalis tribe get to use it when they want, for "many fish"....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/15 09:55 PM

The only time I bought and elk tag was when there was a season open where we were doing our bow-deer. Turns out there were like 3 elk in the unit and the intent was to wipe them out. When I complained I was told that there were other areas open and I could go there. I am sure that WDFW views sporties as being able to go anywhere to hunt or fish. So what if Grays harbor is closed. Moses Lake is open.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/29/15 11:01 AM


A guy from Elma called the former Director ( couple of years ago ) bitching about the near seven days a week corking off the river. The man told him if his boat was not big enough to fish the bay or ocean he should go fishing on a charter or go with a guide. Conversation went down hill from there as I recall.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/29/15 03:41 PM

I asked a manager (actually the INLAND fish manager) about how the restoration of coho in the Yakima would mess up the trout fishery by replacing rainbows with coho. His response? They can fish Buoy 10.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/29/15 04:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

R-6 has a conference call with the Advisers Monday so we will know more. They tried to get one going this past week but were late getting to it so it was reboot time.



So, can the general public be there????? Or is this a closed meeting???? I understand its a conference call.......I've been to other meetings where general public can be there.

I'm 5 minutes away from the Region office......I want to sit in!!!!!!!
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/29/15 05:04 PM

Id like to know when the meeting is
Posted by: OLD FB

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/29/15 08:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
I asked a manager (actually the INLAND fish manager) about how the restoration of coho in the Yakima would mess up the trout fishery by replacing rainbows with coho. His response? They can fish Buoy 10.


We're paying these guys salaries? Let me know when the pitchfork and torch parade gets ready to march on Olympia! DISGUSTING! mad
Posted by: Mystical Legends

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 11:45 AM

Here we are....Dec 1, nets are in..the nets have been in and no word from WDFW on what they are going to do. I'm sure the state is waiting for the tribe to tell them how many fish they have killed and how many they think are in the system before they make their decision on what they plan on doing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 01:13 PM

Hi Guys,

Here is the decision.

1. Keep our current closures and fisheries in place at this time.
2. Continue to monitor the species composition in the QIN fishery on the Chehalis River side.
3. Recommend to the Director to open the Wynoochee River and the remainder of the Humptulips River for steelhead directed fishing on December 16th. Retention of hatchery coho will be allowed.
4. Continue to track the QIN fishery catch composition. If a shift in species composition in the QIN fishery is observed on the Chehalis River, re-open steelhead fishing in areas with returning hatchery steelhead.
5. Continue to track spawning and project total spawners each week. If the projected number of spawners exceeds the spawning goal, re-open both gamefish and coho salmon fisheries.

Please call if you need more info.

Steve
Posted by: Mystical Legends

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 01:17 PM

[Bleeeeep!] management at it's finest.
Posted by: Mystical Legends

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 01:24 PM

The nets will stay in both the lower river and the middle river. Where in the hell does conservation come into play. Whatta a damn joke.
Posted by: fishbadger

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 01:25 PM

Ouch. . .poor B run silvers,

fb
Posted by: Rocket Red

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 01:58 PM

I like how WDFW uses the term 'decision', like any of them have enough ass in the game to do anything but toe the line.

QIN made the decision for them (and us).

"We are going fishing with nets with the intent finding out if there are any fish (making money), we will tell you what we catch (more or less) and you can use that information to inform an entire state's worth of fisher folks that they need to stay off the water in the name conservation. Also, we are going in dry".

Thanks Rvrguy for letting us know.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 02:49 PM

Usual and accustomed abuse of the resource, taken to yet another level.

Something tells me there won't be a heart-warming press release from the QIN about this one. Glad the hatchery coho got the protection they needed this year, at the expense of the wild fish.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 06:27 PM

QIN, netting Chehalis coho to extinction. Funny how this is deemed an economic disaster for them, casino money and all!
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 06:36 PM

As usual the state is taking the "move along folks, nothing to see here" approach. Good to see consistency I guess.
Posted by: Mystical Legends

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 06:42 PM

It's not just the Coho, it's the Chinook...it's the Wild Steelhead...It needs to stop
Posted by: luckydogss

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 07:20 PM

Just saw king 5 had story about how recs can't fish but the tribes are allowed to net. They gave the Qin's a chance to comment and of course they said the impacts on wild coho would be minimal during this steelhead fishery. Sure would have been a great opportunity to state the real catch ratio. Too bad the guides that invited the television crew thought the money they were losing was more news worthy than health of the late coho.
Posted by: Mystical Legends

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 08:13 PM

Not the case at all, the news didn't add the part about the 25 to 1 catch this time of year to the story. Don't turn it around on the guides. The tribes are over harvesting and have been all along..The recs are sitting idol while the stewards of the resource are killing Wild Coho for profit. The tribes say the impact will be minimal to the Coho while they catch Steelhead..YEAH RIGHT
Posted by: deerlick

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/15 09:04 PM

This state and the tribe are a [Bleeeeep!] joke. Every sportfisherman in this state needs to start petioning for non tribal casinos to be able to get slots and whatnot and put these f-ing tribal casinos out of business or give up your netting. I guarantee that would make a change real quick. It would be like Taking welfare and free cell phones away from all the deadbeats around.
Posted by: Met'lheadMatt

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 08:28 AM

During the news cast, I called and gave them the catch percentages and the WDFW location for treaty landings for last year that showed 546 coho to 9 stealhead for this week, or there abouts. I asked them to do thier research and not just post Quinualt smoke screen. The breaking news, news room said they would research it.

But I agree with Deetlick, take thier sole esclusion to slots away, a 600 mil in WA venture a year, and let eveyone have them, tax the piss out of them and see if they start to cry. Bars, hotels, restraunts, bowling ally's ect. They will talk, Bit when they have the cow and all the milk, why should they deal, time to bring in more cows.
Been saying this for many years
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 10:02 AM

Originally Posted By: deerlick
This state and the tribe are a [Bleeeeep!] joke. Every sportfisherman in this state needs to start petioning for non tribal casinos to be able to get slots and whatnot and put these f-ing tribal casinos out of business or give up your netting. I guarantee that would make a change real quick. It would be like Taking welfare and free cell phones away from all the deadbeats around.


Must be another younger person????

1970, during the general election....WE, THE PEOPLE OF WASHINGTON VOTED ON WHETHER TO MAKE GAMBLING LEGAL IN WASHINGTON STATE...

All the "do-gooders", took out 100's of ads, against legal gambling......guess how the election came out....

Tribes grabbed the ball and ran with it.....and they are winning the game...grrrrrrrrrrrr

Right or wrong, your view on Casio gambling, it was a chance to have a funding source to help lessen the tax burden for the people in Washington State.

You can't re-do a stupid move by the do-gooders of this State.......Tribes will never give up the Casino's.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 10:21 AM

If interested you might want to view the following:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021006&slug=gamblingchronology06m


Doesn't take long, and will give a quick view of the "History of Gambling in Washington State"
Posted by: gooybob

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 10:49 AM

The indians continue to get away with "legal poaching". I am so sick of hearing about their customs and spiritual ways. The only spirits I see with them is beer and other alcoholic beverages. The sad thing is that they may be the biggest contributor to the demise of our fish yet they are allowed to continue. Their obvious lack of intelligence when it comes to the future is sad and heartbreaking. With all of the money and help the tribes have been given out of our tax dollars they still continue to pollute, poach and generally scam us at every turn. The idea of a 50-50 split of the resource is a joke. it NEVER happens that way.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 10:51 AM



I sent out the closure information yesterday so I thought I would follow up. I have the Chehalis & Humptulips Steelhead models for the coming season. The Summary tab is best for a quick look but the RR tab is run reconstruction which allows one a look at actual impacts in previous years. If you want them PM me and I will send them to you.

So what next is the question I keep getting? Well a lot really and I have simply told folks that for the REC fisher statewide it is time to go to war. Your target? WDF&W's budget! The REC fisher has been paying the bills and frankly getting screwed. Oh the usual organizations will pig pile into the fight ( which is good ) but they will not carry the day. It is you folks the average fisher that can. How is the question and the answer is if folks go right at YOUR local legislator and take the time to write in a informed manner, it makes a difference. Gone this next session needs to be the rubber stamp bit that the Democrats have done with WDF&W budget for years. The Republicans in the Senate are going to have a huge say so that is where the best opportunity resides. Guys that agency cannot survive without REC dollars as they are broke and going to come wanting your money again! This time we must extract reform for the REC fishers with penalties if the agency does what it has in the past, which is grab the money and just continue on as always with lip service all over that says everything and means ZERO.

Now for us INLAND Communities Chehalis folks it is the same on steroids. In the past all have pretty much depended on the Coastal Caucus but for us it is presently dominated by three legislators from the South Coast that are D's. Which by the way are rather severely aliened with commercial interest and directing the vast majority of harvest to the estuary based fisheries. Gone are Rep Kessler, Senators Owen & Snyder and frankly the North Coast Legislators are not that effective on fishery issues let alone think about the inland communities of the Chehalis Basin which are represented by Republicans. So for the inland folks your legislators to talk to are Senator John Braun, Rep. Richard DeBolt, and Rep Ed Orcutt. I have been asked to help and I will. I and others will take the time to work a timeline of just how this falls salmon season was mismanaged to the point of total failure that we now have. I have a Public Document Request in and frankly it is in a three week period of time in October that the agency has refused to define what on earth they were doing that created this problem to the degree we have. When I have the information you all will get it too.

It will be a difficult effort for you folks in the inland community but the mess the agency made of the Chehalis salmon fisheries actually can be used to benefit a reform effort. What WDF&W did this year for once left them no place to hide. To be sure they will try use the usual verbiage that says & does nothing but try to evade responsibility for this fiasco. This time around it will not work as others and myself are going make a real effort to get information out to you folks in a timely manner to insure you're not buried in BS by the agency.

BUT do not do a Dave. By that I mean fight like hell for your rights to end the discrimination that WDF&W heaps on the inland community and fish in the Chehalis Basin. That said do not do what I did yesterday. I blew my top at Steve Thiesfeld and provided him a rather rude conversation. Now that I disagree with what the hell happened this fall is a given but Steve did not deserve that. He has done nothing but work his butt off since taking that miserable job of Region 6 Harvest Manager. He has the right to expect better from all of us but especially someone like myself who has been around the block more than once with them. So Mr. Thiesfeld you have my sincerest apology for my outburst as it was uncalled for. ( again ) For all of us this old rule from Bristol. " blows above the belt, do not give a inch but keep it civilized." Do not do a Dave as it not necessary to get your point across. That conversation folks was not my finest hour, learn from it.

So it begins for us in the inland Chehalis communities. RECS, the guides, the property owners who shoulder the cost of habitat preservation, the Chehalis Tribal fishers and the fish . EVERYONE in the inland communities are taking it on the chin in this salmon harvest allocation. For the inriver REC to be treated fairly the non treaty Chehalis Tribal fisher has to get their share also. We are all tied together and we must begin to work together if we are going end the practice of directing the vast majority of harvest to the estuary fisheries. We have done it before and it is time to do it again.

It is truly " game on " time folks.
Posted by: Met'lheadMatt

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 10:54 AM

I am very familiar with the gaming laws in the State, as of now the Tribes has the only Auth slots, And last year slots alone where over 600 mil for thier coffers.
My point is offer them sole exclusion, or If they don't want to deal, offer to everyone, do you think they want to divy 600 mil with the likes of you and me. Notta a chance
Posted by: Met'lheadMatt

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 10:59 AM

Good solid post Riverguy
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 11:54 AM


Adding this to the discussion for those who have not seen it. THX BB for reminding me.


Commission Budget Policy 2015-17 Reduction in General Funds and Increase in License Fees

The Department’s share of General Funds - State (GF-S) has declined dramatically over the past five years, decreasing from $110 million in 2008 to $61 million in 2014. Once again this year, the Department was directed to prepare and submit a budget with additional GF-S reductions of 15%, or roughly $11 million. The cuts presented in that submission are distributed over the activities that are largely supported with GF-S: enforcement, habitat protection, native fish recovery, and fish management activities associated with commercial fisheries.

Over this same period, the share of Department costs supported with sport fishing license revenues has grown. License fees were increased three years ago and now represent the largest single portion of funding. The Department now faces increased costs of maintaining existing services. In addition, we see the potential of additional cuts in future biennia to allow the state to meet its K-12 educational obligations under the McCleary decision. The Department also faces the prospects of additional reductions in federal funding that support hatchery production and critical fishery sampling and monitoring activities. If it is to maintain and expand opportunity for recreational fishing, the Department must pursue additional fee increases.

Approach for Sport Fishing License Fee Increases

The Commission recognizes the benefits of sport fishing across the state in generating funding for agency activities well beyond fishery management cost. Deposited in the Wildlife Account, user fees support such things as native fish recovery, fish production, and a variety of costs associated with management of the fisheries.
It is the policy of the Department to ensure that recreational license fees are used for the benefit of the sport fishery. To be successful, the Department is committed to working closely with the sport fishing community to define the new fee structure and to identify specifically the use of the new revenue created from the new fees.
The Commission recognizes that increased fees can be counterproductive. Increased fees can lead to declines in sales. To counteract that response, the Department must develop specific proposals that result in increased sport fishing opportunity.
The Commission believes that it would be beneficial to look for ways to make practical commitments to expand sport fishing opportunities at the same time that it pursues a course during this Legislative Session that avoids the need for additional license increases in the next two biennia.

Cost Benefit Analysis and Budget Decisions: Salmon Fishery Activities The Director will provide a report to the Commission that includes all the available information relative to the costs of providing and managing sport and commercial fisheries including enforcement, monitoring, and hatchery production costs. The Director will include in his report a breakdown of the revenue sources that support the activities (GFS, federal, local, DJ). Within existing resources, the Director will also report to the Commission the Department’s best estimates of the economic benefits and license revenues that are derived by the state from each major salmon fishery, e.g. Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River.

It is the policy of the Department that consideration be given to the comparable economic and agency revenue benefits of respective fisheries as various cuts, fee increases, and policy changes are proposed and discussed by budget decision-makers.

Promote Selective Fisheries

The Commission adopted policies that support hatchery and harvest reform and realigned management in a number of specific fisheries to promote more selective harvest practices. The Director will ensure that the Department’s biennial budget submission includes elements that maintain and advance selective fisheries and hatchery reform measures.

Equitable Sharing of the Costs of Management

In light of continued reduction of GF-S, the Commission directs the Department to seek means to recoup the costs of hatchery production and management of commercial fisheries from the participants in the commercial fisheries or reduce agency activities in support of these fisheries.

The cost of managing and maintaining commercial fisheries has long been funded with general fund revenue. Commercial licenses provide very limited revenues to offset management costs -- roughly 4% of the costs of these fisheries. Unlike sport fishing license revenue, funds from the sale of commercial salmon licenses largely go directly to the state treasury. The sizable reduction in general fund revenue that the Department has experienced over the last two biennia has left it without the financial means to continue providing the existing commercial fisheries the hatchery fish that sustain them. The Director will include in his legislative requests submission a proposal that is designed to raise new revenues from commercial license holders that will help offset the costs of providing commercial salmon fishing opportunities.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 12:46 PM

When we first heard we were being shut down, it was fresh on the heels of an extremely irresponsible decision on the part of WDFW to allow the NT gillnetters a couple days ahead of the closure they knew was coming. That was pretty $hitty, and I had no problem letting them know it.

Looking back on what has transpired since, it seems clear to me that the QIN has been the entity calling all the shots. When I look back at the overall catch data, there's no question in my mind whose managed fisheries were responsible for the early closures, and it wasn't WDFW's. The reason we're still not fishing is that the QIN didn't want us killing the wild coho they are continuing to target with gillnets under the guise of a "steelhead fishery."

When it comes to which co-manager is capable of disseminating more bull$hit, until recently, I figured nobody could touch WDFW. Lately, the QIN has proved me wrong.

Any reason we shouldn't send a reasonably polite letter to Fawn Sharp and Ed Johnstone (cc your local legislators and Governor Inslee), asking them what they intend to do in the future to ensure that exercising their treaty rights won't infringe on our rights as citizens of Washington State who pay for the privilege to fish?
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 01:25 PM

The last paragraph of the budget report says a lot about who is fronting the costs for the commercial fishers....
Posted by: Met'lheadMatt

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 03:38 PM

With Fawn Sharp and the Qin's it's all smoke and mirrors, two years ago they close down lake Quinualt to fishing, Saying it was theirs. If you look today at the Tribel news letter on their web site, she just returned from DC petitioning congress for ownership of Lake Quinualt. So how two years ago did they close it to the non tribel fishers, when they did not own it.
Now she sends a letter to K5 news and claims little to know impact on wild Coho since they started netting thier Steelhead season Wk 48. She claims the economic loss to the members to not net would be severe,
Last year this week they netted in excess of 500 Coho and 9 Steelhead it was worse last week and the week before and stay about the same until about 18 Dec...... How do 9 Steelhead cause severe economic crises. Smoke and mirrors
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/15 04:15 PM

Does the federal government have a subsidy program for the fisherman when they don't make their quotas? Always wondered about that.
Posted by: rojoband

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/03/15 02:10 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
Does the federal government have a subsidy program for the fisherman when they don't make their quotas? Always wondered about that.


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/disaster/faqs.html#acc2
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/15 04:11 PM

The Commission will have open mic opportunities at its Port Townsend meeting 11 and 12 December. Unfortunately, both of those opportunities are at 8:15 A.M.: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/12/agenda_dec1115.html.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/15 10:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Larry B
The Commission will have open mic opportunities at its Port Townsend meeting 11 and 12 December. Unfortunately, both of those opportunities are at 8:15 A.M.: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/12/agenda_dec1115.html.



Many sport fishers drive out to Forks to fish for a day. How about you take a day to ensure local opportunity in the future? Hope to see fellow anglers there.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/07/15 12:21 PM


Well trying to catch up some for you guys so ask if you would like the attachments mentioned. First is the Region 6 presentation on the status of 2015 Fall Salmon season to the Commission. Not much to say here as frankly except the 30 reasons staff failed and it was not the agencies fault.

Second we have the presentation from a recent public meeting on the Naselle Hatchery. I was under the weather and could not make the trip with one days notice from the agency. It appears the meeting was more about the Commercials & Legislators than the hatchery but again I did not make it. Why did not the agency let folks know in advance? Why no minutes or something that the citizens could use to understand the issue? No idea here but you might ask staff. Anyhow what I got from one person present was same o same o but loudly.

Last is a letter from Region 6 staff to the Commission requesting guidance. Interesting presentation but I do not know if the Commissioners responded or not. It does let one see the issue from staff's eyes regardless of the fact that you may or may not agree or disagree with the points put forth in the document.

So now what? In the next few months we have budget followed by NOF. I think these issue will be as adversarial and divisive as we have seen in years. Some will promote " let us all work together " and others will go right to " you dirty rat " and make it personal. Neither will work guys.

Think of it this way. In the world of salmon harvest with WDF&W Steve Thiesfeld is as good as we will get, period. That said what could he have done differently this past season? Not much is my thought. ( how is your blood pressure at the minute? ) You see R 6 is part of a system of management that is driven by history with us fishers and tribes in the courts. The way the ocean conditions played out to NOAA forecast ( PDO ), ocean harvest Rec & Commercial, and Rec Bay terminal played out one would have to be deaf, blind, and nearly dumb as a stump to miss it. I do not believe that WDF&W staff in the different divisions failed to recognize the failure as they are just much better at their individual jobs than that but rather the system utilized by their internal processes will not allow them to react forcefully to address it. Why? Us, you & I just plain all of us, have been kicking the crap out of WDF&W to the point one lady compared them to women with " battered wife syndrome. " So they react to contain whatever issue has them nailed to the floor at the minute. The key word is contain which in normal circumstances does not have resolution of the issue residing in it. They just go from hot button issue to hot button issue REACTING to circumstance.

So why cannot WDF&W react in a positive manner to things such as Rec harvest and commercial over harvest. They do not know how! The system of management designed maximize harvest over just about everything is ingrained in the " culture of harvest " that was the original purpose of WDF and still dominates their processes. Add to the mix a ever growing and darn near militant Rec fisher who WDF&W will be required to have support a ever growing portion of their budget, tribal entities supported by gambling & gas tax dollars itching for pay back for real or perceived past injustices, ( post Boldt & yes WDF&W really screwed with the tribes & yes the tribes have gotten in more than one blow in return in fact in the Chehalis I do believe the QIN could call it even up ) that are pushing the boundaries well past equitable sharing of harvest, and Non Treaty Commercial fisheries that utterly destructive to the Rec fisher combined with the tribal catch, and you have a perfect storm.

So from my spot on the stump it is really and I mean really important that we all get our arms around things. One is WDF&W does not know how fix this bloody thing called Salmon Management. Second is none of us ( including myself ) have a clue to how to do this thing either. Just beating the crap out of them ( which will happen and rightly so ) will not solve the issues either. Add to the mix this simple fact. More Rec dollars to continue the same management policies will not work in fact will be counterproductive as the Recs just will not buy in at all and will vote with their feet headed out the door.

So what and how to fix it? As to how I think I am wandering in the wilderness with the rest of you. Do to my years around WDF&W I may, well do is a better word, see the issues.......... more distinctly? So how to do this? No idea as to how.

Now what is needed I think I agree with another who has put this forward. REFORM is the word. Reform for the agencies revenue stream and harvest policies. Clearly defined objectives for meeting escapement that WDF&W be required to meet with consequences for failure. Rec harvest be the priority. That Commercial license fees pay for the entire cost of managing Commercial fisheries. That additionally Commercial fees cover the cost of hatchery fish production that primarily benefit Commercial fisheries.

Those are my thoughts on what the word REFORM means. Now how you accomplish these reform objectives is another discussion except for this. We cannot show WDF&W how to do this but rather only WDF&W can show us how to get the job done. Again we have this " HOW " thing.

Dave




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/10/15 12:07 PM

Thanks LH for the heads up. So you guys can go listen ( I think ) to what was actually said.


I was listening to Steve Thiesfeld on the "Northwest Wild Country" Radio program last Saturday morning and I thought he said the tribe didn't catch much that first week. He was hard to hear because they were talking to him on his cell phone and his voice was kind of muffled. I thought he said they caught 35 coho but I could be wrong. He also said that WDFW was probably going to open the Nooch and the rest of the Hump on Dec. 16 for the sportfishermen. He said the indication was that not many coho were coming into the Chehalis. With the flooding and no netting we can only hope that some fish will make it to the gravel.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/11/15 06:16 PM


Things are about to get going.


WDFW FISHING RULE CHANGE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov

December 11, 2015

Opens fishing in Grays Harbor and tributaries Dec. 14;
changes salmon daily limit

Action:

Rescinds fishing closures for gamefish and salmon in Grays Harbor (Catch Area 2-2) and all tributaries. Fishing is open only in the locations, and during the dates, listed in the 2015-16 Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet.
Changes salmon daily limit to 1 hatchery coho in the areas open to salmon fishing.
Effective Date: 12:01 a.m. Dec. 14, 2015.

Species affected: Salmon and gamefish.

Location: Grays Harbor Catch Area 2-2 and all tributaries.

Reason for action: Hatchery steelhead are returning to Grays Harbor tributaries. Wild coho salmon remain well below the escapement goals necessitating release of all wild salmon. However, historical catch data indicate that only a small percent of the recreational coho catch occurs after November and therefore the impact to wild coho will be very small with these fisheries.

Other information: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will continue to monitor the of the coho return. All areas and seasons listed in the 2015-16 the Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet are in affect except for changes listed above.

Information contact: Mike Scharpf, (360) 249-1205
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/20/15 07:51 AM


As it is that time of year I thought I would post up this e mail thread that is part of a conversation on Steelhead survival or reproductive rates. The link in the original post ( at the bottom of the page ) is to a paper that is interesting reading.



The concept of mykiss spawning and then smolting is something that I believe I saw at Snow Creek but it took a couple of decades for it to work to the forepart of my brain. While it still hasn't been confirmed for mykiss...................


&#65279;
Atlantic salmon males can spawn as parr (sneaky) and then smolt and spawn as 1 SW (grilse) or as 2 SW fish. Males are often sequential repeat spawners. Females seldom spawn as 1 SW, with 2 SW and rarely 3 SW maiden female spawners - then spawning is alternate year. Life history strategies are very complex in the North East Atlantic (River Teno Erkinaro)

Population resilience depends on a mix of smolt ages and maiden and repeat spawner ages. Populations reduced to limited life history strategies are the ones most in peril. Those listed as endangered in USA and Canada are down to one dominant life history strategy.

Joan



Subject: Re: Commission adopts new sportfishing regulations (steelhead, etc.)

Iteroparous salmonids are significantly more complex than even suggested here.

Males in some species (Atlantic Salmon come to mind) never smolt. There are apparently survival tradeoffs while the females go to sea to grow big eggs (simplified). Then, there are the mykiss that appear to spawn and then smolt. Finally, some Argentine populations of anadromous mykiss spawn up to eight times.

This all gets back to why would a species spawn/breed more than once. I believe that they multiple spawn because a single spawning/breeding does not produce sufficient future spawners; it is not a sustainable life history pattern. This gets most obvious when you look at something like albatross. There is a female Laysan Albatross (named Wisdom) who is banded and is known to be well over 60 years old. And, she laid an egg again this year. For argument sake, assume she started to breed at 10 and laid an egg every year since. So, she has laid at least 50 eggs. For the albatross population to be stable, she needs to have produced 2 adults, or a success of 4%. This is, actually, less because she is still laying. Put another way, that means an egg-adult LOSS of 96% annually can result in stability.

For mykiss, we nave seen populations with 50-90% repeats and they can spawn up to 8 times. Just what sort of marine smolt-adult survival would this be? At Snow Creek we had 800-1200 smolts while I was there. 50 spawners could produce this. 50/800 is 6.3% and 50/1200 is 4.2% id R/S is 1:1 which it almost never is. So, the "low" marine survivals seen in recent years are low only in the sense that they aren't large enough to support the fisheries we "want".



Here’s a relevant article re: Hal’s concerns about the importance of repeat spawning for steelhead-population viability, being particularly important for males (given additional growth between breeding seasons):

Seamons, T.R., and T.P. Quinn. 2010. Sex-specific patterns of lifetime reproductive success in single and repeat breeding steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64: 505-513 (https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B_sa2AnC9DW4VlhLcXFNUTRXVDg).
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/26/15 09:21 AM

I thought this might help those ( & myself ) who wondered what exactly the NOAA over fished designation means for Grays Harbor. I dug this up in a Public Document Request so from a agency staffer is the thought on what it meant legally.



What this means is the NOAA and the Council (PFMC) (They) have determined that overfishing is occurring but the stocks are not in an overfished status at this time. They determined that a stock is currently being overfished using Maximum Fishery Mortality Threshold (MFMT). For Grays Harbor fall Chinook, the MFMT is 63%. That is, if overall fishing mortality (all fisheries) exceeds 63% the stock is considered to be experiencing overfishing, see EXCEL file. It is not concerned "Overfished", which is Maximum Stock Size Threshold (MSST). MSST is currently defined as half Stock maximum sustainable yield (Smsy), or 13,326 x 0.5 = 6,663.

Below is what actions are taken is a stock is determined to be experiencing overfishing, this is from the Amendment 16 of the PFMC's Fisheries Management Plan:

2.2.13.1 Overfishing
The STT will report postseason exploitation rates in the annual SAFE document, and when overfishing occurs, the Council shall:
1. notify the NMFS NWR administrator of the STT’s findings; 2. direct the STT to assess the mortality rates in fisheries impacting the stock of concern and report their findings; 3. immediately take action to ensure Council area fisheries are not contributing to overfishing, and; 4. notify pertinent management agencies of the stock’s status and the contribution of various fisheries to the total exploitation rate.


And another explanation.

Grays Harbor Fall Chinook

Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was reevaluated and changed in 2014. The new natural spawning escapement goal is 13,500 naturally spawning Chinook for Grays Harbor with 9,880 for Chehalis River and 3,620 for Humptulips River.

The Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was 14,600, 12,364 Chehalis River and 2,236 Humptulips River. This goal was adopted in 1979 and was based on available spawning habitat and a spawning density of 36 fish per mile. A level of 24 fish per mile was used for the mainstem Chehalis River and all tributaries upstream of Cedar Creek, reflecting lower productive potential. This goal is defined as a natural spawning escapement goal.

The Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) is to review the biological basis for Chinook salmon management objectives under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PSC, 2009), Chapter 3, Section 2. (b) (iv), The CTC shall “…evaluate and review existing escapement objectives that fishery management agencies have set for Chinook stocks subject to this Chapter for consistency with MSY or other agreed biologically-based escapement goals and, where needed, recommend goals for naturally spawning Chinook stocks that are consistent with the intent of this Chapter…”. The abundance-based management regime for Chinook salmon established by the 2008 Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) is intended to sustain production at levels associated with maximum sustained yield (MSY, measured in terms of adult equivalents) over the long term. Therefore, the escapement goal for Grays Harbor fall Chinook was reevaluated based on spawner recruitment analysis.

The reevaluation of the Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal occurred in 2014. Three spawner-recruit functions were considered (Shepherd, Beverton-Holt, Ricker), and the Ricker model was identified as being the most appropriate form for both the Chehalis and Humptulips datasets. Brood years 1986 to 2005 were used in the analyses. In all analyses, parent generation escapement (i.e., spawners) includes both natural- and hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally. Spawner recruitment, biological based natural spawning escapement goals were developed for Chehalis and Humptulips rivers. Based on the Ricker analysis model, a Chehalis River fall Chinook natural spawning escapement goal of 9,880 was proposed and 3,620 for the Humptulips River. A harbor-wide natural spawning escapement goal of 13,500 was proposed.

On March 18, 2015 posted in the Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 52, NMFS proposes updates to management reference point values for Grays Harbor fall Chinook as recommended By the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for use in developing annual management measures beginning in 2015. These management reference point values are conservation objectives to provide necessary guidance for fisheries management within the guidance of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
There are four management reference points established in Federal Register V. 80:
1. 13,326 natural area spawners for Grays Harbor (9,753 Chehalis, 3,573 Humptulips) goals.
2. Smsy 13,326 natural area spawners.
3. Maximum Fishery Mortality Threshold (MFMT, generally equal to FMSY), total exploitation rate of 63%. Management all fishery exploitation to 63% or less.
4. Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST, Smsy * 0.5), 6,663 natural area spawners (13,326 * 0.5 = 6,663. If natural area spawners drop below 6,663, stock considered “over fished”.

Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/27/15 01:05 AM

How many consecutive times must escapement failures of < 50% e-goal occur, before the stock is considered "overfished" ? ? ?

Is once enough?

Three strikes and you're out?

At least 3 of the previous 5 escapements?

WHAT?

...

Overfishing is occurring but the stocked is NOT considered overfished? J F C... YGTBFKM, right? These fukkin word games are such a sham.

GH chinook stocks are routinely being fished at total exploitation rates exceeding 70%. Bank on it.

Here's what the Hump piece looks like....

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post877033
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/27/15 08:41 AM

You know, the thing that really frustrates me is how they continually paint escapement goal reductions as science-driven. What a crock of $hit. Anyone with a shred of common sense can see that lower escapement goals are established to create fishing opportunity that, according to the rules, shouldn't be allowed, and now we're surprised to learn that the stock is experiencing overfishing? Either these people are hopelessly stupid , or else they're convinced we are.

As long as maximum profit for the commercials is NMFS's operating goal, the slide toward extinction can only continue. The beautiful thing about MSY management (from their perspective) is that as long as we continue to kill every last fish we imagine we can, nobody will ever know if the "science" behind their decisions has been flawed.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/27/15 08:52 AM

Actually, there are situations (and it surprised me) when an EG reduction is at least defensible. The winter steelhead EG was originally based on filling up the rearing habitat in the watershed. All accessible areas.

In many PS watersheds, the number of fish spawning in tributaries is falling; trip spawners are disappearing. So, a goal based on seeding the whole watershed is too high if the only spawners you put in are mainstem spawners. Putting more fish in the mainstem doesn't really seed the tribs.

Having said that-and remembering that for decades I supported fixed goals-Karluk Lake sockeye should be an eye-opener. The escapement data goes back about 2200 years. The run has always been "self-sustaining" and probably wasn't fished by humans much until about 1880-1900. The escapement varied from a low of about 400K in 70CE to 2-4M in the 1000-1880 time span. If you make the data set short enough you can just about prove any goal as there are a myriad of ecological and environmental factors that influence survival. Couple that with a pathological need to catch as many fish as possible and we get lower goals.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/28/15 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH


GH chinook stocks are routinely being fished at total exploitation rates exceeding 70%. Bank on it.


Here's what Willapa Bay looks like for hatchery kings over the past 10 fully reconstructed brood years...



Catch + escapement = total adult production.

7388 + 4983 = 12371

Exploitation rate = catch/production = 7388/12371 = 60%
Escapement rate = escapement/production = 4983/12371 = 40%

Within the pool of harvested fish, 59% of the take occurs PRE-terminal (not per-terminal)... as in BEFORE the first king is taken at Washaway..... only 41% of the take occurs in the bay itself, the lion's share of it taken by the gillnets by a factor of roughly 8:1 (7.97)

And the in-basin rec share? (Yeah, it's that skinny little orange slice of the pie) Less than 5% of total exploitation (4.56%)
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/15 08:39 AM

I don't suppose Alaska and Canada see anything wrong in that equation . . .
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/15 02:39 PM

The US/Canada treaty had (still might) a provision that the benefits of habitat improvement accrue to the folks doing the improvement. So, if WA actually removes culverts the benefits accrue to WA.

AK made the argument (Jeff Koenings, I believe) that since they are protecting the ocean up there they get the benefit of those fish. This was in response to Canada suggesting that if they (BC) improved habitat the catch would accrue in BC.

AK shares with nobody. So BC hits the lower 48.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/11/16 07:03 AM

Back in the day the winter black mouth fishery hammered Puget Sound Spring Chinook. But there were so few springers relative to the black mouth that it "it made no sense" to sacrifice so much much catch and opportunity to save so few fish.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/11/16 01:48 PM

I'm ready to throw in the towel on hatchery Chinook production, except for spring Chinook, since as far as we know, BC and AK aren't catching all of 'em, yet anyway. If AK and BC want WA Chinook, let them pay for the WA hatcheries.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/11/16 02:13 PM

Absolutely. But, remember that the Treaty still gives Canada Chinook and Coho so they will be catching more or our wild fish. Or, we will have to give up Fraser sockeye.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/11/16 02:41 PM

One problem on the stopping of hatchery Chinook production is that it would vastly reduce the H+W mix in the salt which used to be called the "pool". This would result in a even higher % of Natural Origin ( NOR ) WA Chinook caught in AK & BC unless their harvest is greatly reduced.

Oh Oh my bad the AK & BC intercept is the issue. Remember only 3% of Chinook caught in SE AK originate from AK so the lower the hatchery fish numbers are the greater the NOR impacts in the intercept fisheries.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/16 01:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Back in the day the winter black mouth fishery hammered Puget Sound Spring Chinook. But there were so few springers relative to the black mouth that it "it made no sense" to sacrifice so much much catch and opportunity to save so few fish.

I do remember DOF in the mid 80's closed the Blackmouth fishery in area 11. If I remember right, it closed in Feb to protect the White River Spring Chinook returning to the Minter Crk. Hatchery. They wanted to preserve the genes in a hatchery environment. No hatchery on the White then. Now the Muckleshoot hatchery produces them in decent numbers. Wish we could get a chance at em in the river, but the salt guys catch our share up North.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/16 05:21 PM

Rivrguy,

Yes, absent those many hatchery Chinook in SE AK waters, the fleet would take an even higher % of NORs. But it's those hatchery Chinook that buoy up the fishery, and absent the massive numbers of hatchery fish, they soon wouldn't be making gas money to be out there catching the few NORs. This would definitely be about playing hardball.

Sg
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/16 09:55 PM

Its time to play hardball........batter up!!!!!!!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/16 10:12 PM

Hey folks, this thread is about GH/WB.... can we keep the northern intercept discussion on the other thread?

Would hate for any good AK/BC comments to be lost in the shuffle
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/14/16 05:44 AM

The FTC thread can be about what anyone wants to put up Doc. If folks feel it is relevant or interesting fine post it in this thread. If you or I or don't fell it is relevant or interesting that is fine also as it is all about the sharing of information and thoughts. That said things will cross back and forth but I think the ocean intercept is of such great importance that all should follow the " Big Lie " thread for sure.

Quote:
Yes, absent those many hatchery Chinook in SE AK waters, the fleet would take an even higher % of NORs. But it's those hatchery Chinook that buoy up the fishery, and absent the massive numbers of hatchery fish, they soon wouldn't be making gas money to be out there catching the few NORs. This would definitely be about playing hardball.


I think you got it SG but along with that comes no the other shoe. No hatchery fish we do not fish also. Interesting little box we and the fish are in.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/15/16 10:38 AM


In working on another issue Mike from R6 provided me this quick look at last fall's returns for Chinook. Keep in mind this is preliminary.

The preliminary natural spawning escapement (all fish putting eggs in the gravel) for fall Chinook in the Chehalis looks to be a bit over 16,000, and about 6,000 in the Hump this fall. I haven’t received the age data back from this group, but it will be interesting to see if the age structure is different from the past.

Look at it this way. The Fall Chinook came in fairly close to on time but a bit early and ramped up really fast. The QIN took a look after their first week of fishing and pulled for conservation. That is what saved our butts as that week is the difference between Chinook making and not making escapement. On the states side the 3 net free days ( known as 4/3 ) and the requirement to make escapement 3 out of 5 years or no targeted harvest ( known as 3/5 ) also played a major role. Imagine a full blown Rec fishery with retention coupled with QIN harvest and it would have been a disaster. So atta boys to both managers here for this issue.

While Coho numbers are not in yet the differences between how the Coho and Chinook were managed is amazing. Right out of the gate nobody believed the monster run in the preseason forecast. Then from the get go the ocean Coho harvesters performed way below expectations right to the terminal fisheries. The bay Recs early on brought the lots of Chinook but no Coho thing forward followed by the inriver Recs. The QIN harvest ( when they released the numbers but they knew ) showed harvest well below expectations. Then the state went in with the NT Nets and wella the same results. So shut down by the state and we GH Advisers were told the QIN did not agree.

Why such a difference in how the two stocks were managed? My personal opinion is they simply did not believe that Coho forecast could be that far off. Far off? Oh h--- folks it was not even close to reality. OK that said why disregard all the indicators and full speed ahead? It was a complete system failure by ALL the managers marine & fresh water to be sure, particularly with the ocean harvest showing a rather large problem that was simply ignored. This was compounded by both WDF&W & QIN staff's refusal to recognize the depth of the failure. So no atta boy here but rather a bit fat F minus and frankly that is a generous grade!

I will finish with this. Changes are coming and they are going to be difficult. First the ocean ( known as the ranch ) is collapsing for salmon production. We have a monster El Nino underway ( see El Nino attachment ) and the ocean PDO is collapsing. ( again see attachment PDO ) This has happened before and will again. Look at the attachment 2015 forecast & RR tab which is run reconstruction to see complete runs with harvest. This will likely going result in massive harvest restrictions both marine and fresh water. Now add to the problem is ocean intercept fisheries that has Alaska and British Columbia fisheries Chinook impacts over 80% then the situation becomes draconian.

This is where the gut check for terminal Rec fisheries particularly inriver comes in to play. The number of Rec fishers from outside Grays Harbor will continue to grow and that fact is undeniable. That the Rec fisher as a harvester is the most quarrelsome harvester is also undeniable. Banki vs jet boat vs drift boat vs purest ( oh my god they are flossing ) vs rules? what rules group vs locals vs traveling Wilburies vs guides ........ well I think that paints the picture. The fact is rather sooner than later the changes will happen. Simply put there is no way no how we are all going to be able to fish the same way the same places we have for years with all the competing interest outlined previously.

So what to do? Not sure but I can tell you it will be contentious. Heavens going South with friends this came up chatting followed by one really big argument. Which I do believe is a indicator on how deep this issue will be. We are in a time where the number of fishers is going to increase rapidly with our proximity to Puget Sound ( which is headed for the dumpster ) and decreasing runs in the short term at the least.

So folks think about it. How are we going to do this? WDF&W left to its own devises will get you what happened this year with the limited reopening after the Rec closure. Simply put the openings were not well structured or thought out is my view. Others use words that I have been known to use but probably should not be put in writing. So think about it, how do we working with the Agency get this done? Simply put ain't no way no how that WDF&W staff have the time, staff , knowledge of the Chehalis Basin Recs or the money to do it.

Think about it because the issue is just around the corner.

PS: If you want the attachments mentioned just e mail me.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/15/16 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy



The preliminary natural spawning escapement (all fish putting eggs in the gravel) for fall Chinook in the Chehalis looks to be a bit over 16,000, and about 6,000 in the Hump this fall. I haven’t received the age data back from this group, but it will be interesting to see if the age structure is different from the past.




That's all fine and dandy, but technically speaking, the unit of account for e-goal is NOS ( natural origin spawners)... NOT total spawners on the gravel.

From a conservation standpoint, NOS is the intellectually honest metric to determine whether the management objective was achieved.

Curious... did Mike provide you with any idea of the P-hos versus P-nos for each sub-basin?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/16/16 06:56 AM

Well nope on the breakout on natural & hatchery in the gravel but rather just what I posted. I just happened to be asking about another model and Mike provided what I posted up C&P. Frankly with so many waiting to see the numbers I was really appreciative of him sharing the preliminary numbers with us all. With the numbers of hatchery Chinook and the fact natural brood is used the hatchery in the gravel numbers will be well within parameters.

I worry about Hump Coho. Staff did not afford the same protections that they attempted to do in the Chehalis. After nearly 25 years of not making escapement the failure to reduce NOR impacts could have some dire consequences. I hope Mike and his guys get the numbers on Coho out soon. Regardless it was nice to get the preliminary Chehalis Chinook numbers and I for one appreciate Mike providing the public the numbers he did on Chinook. Does not always work like that.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/22/16 11:47 AM


This is interesting as it is and attempt to alter the Willapa Advisers and the process. I doubt it will go far but I think one can see the path the Commercial interest and the South Coast legislators are on.

H-3463.1

HOUSE BILL 2446



State of Washington 64th Legislature 2016 Regular Session By Representatives Rossetti, Orcutt, and Blake
Read first time 01/13/16. Referred to Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources.


1 AN ACT Relating to the distinction among the roles of
2 governmental employee participants and nongovernmental employee
3 participants on work groups established by the director of the
4 department of fish and wildlife; and amending RCW 77.04.120.


5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:


6 Sec. 1. RCW 77.04.120 and 2000 c 107 s 3 are each amended to
7 read as follows:
8 (1) The director shall investigate the habits, supply, and
9 economic use of food fish and shellfish in state and offshore waters.
10 (2) The director shall make an annual report to the governor on
11 the operation of the department and the statistics of the fishing
12 industry.
13 (3) Subject to RCW 40.07.040, the director shall provide a
14 comprehensive biennial report of all departmental operations to the
15 chairs of the committees on natural resources of the senate and house
16 of representatives, the senate ways and means committee, and the
17 house of representatives appropriations committee, including one copy
18 to the staff of each of the committees, to reflect the previous
19 fiscal period. The format of the report shall be similar to reports
20 issued by the department from 1964-1970 and the report shall include,
21 but not be limited to, descriptions of all department activities

1 including: Revenues generated, program costs, capital expenditures,
2 personnel, special projects, new and ongoing research, environmental
3 controls, cooperative projects, intergovernmental agreements, and
4 outlines of ongoing litigation, recent court decisions and orders on
5 major issues with the potential for state liability. The report shall
6 describe the status of the resource and its recreational, commercial,
7 and tribal utilization. The report shall be made available to the
8 public.
9 (4) In the director's execution of this section or any other duty
10 or responsibility of the department, the director may appoint and
11 utilize work groups, task forces, subcommittees, and other formally
12 recognized and designated processes that are intended to collect,
13 process, or disseminate expertise and opinions from other state
14 agencies, other levels of government, Indian tribes, constituent
15 groups, and unaffiliated citizens. Any process utilized by the
16 director that includes the participation of nongovernmental
17 employees, or a person acting in a nongovernmental role, must, unless
18 otherwise specifically designated by an act of the legislature, be
19 chaired by a nongovernmental participant and not by an employee of
20 the department. Employees of the department must be limited to staff
21 support and levels of participation less than that traditionally
22 bestowed upon the chair.

--- END ---
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/22/16 12:40 PM

I've noticed that some advisory groups have a "chair"... others not.

GH and WB are in the NOT camp.

Not really sure how it changes outcomes. I could envision the lay chair leading the group of advisors, taking votes amongst the group for the purposes of passing recommendations .... bonafide advice to the agency.

The agency is still free to take the advice or leave it.... WDFW still has the final say.

As it stands now in the WB and GH advisories, WDFW leads the discussions.... input comes from all around the table from individual advisors, WDFW says OK we've heard the opinions in the room, then WDFW makes its independent decisions. Of course at the end, they will say they made the decision with advisor input for additional cover... the perception being as if the group gave its tacit approval for the decision, when in fact that may NOT be the case at all.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/22/16 05:54 PM

A real critical aspect of any group like that is agreed-to minutes. WDFW should provide a note-taker who submits DEAFT to all attending members. At the next meeting they finalize them with changes if necessary. Lack of minutes is a serious problem.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/16 06:14 AM


Mike from R 6 sent this out so I thought I would share it.

Hi Group,

It is that time of year again, time to get ready for the NOF process. Attached is a list of the upcoming meetings that you will want to put on your calendars. This is not a fully completed list, as more meetings may be added as the process progresses. We are working diligently with the Quinault Tribe to get the forecasts completed. Looking forward to seeing you all again soon.

Have a good weekend.

2016 North of Falcon Meeting Schedule
Date: Purpose: Location:
Feb 24th. Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay Salmon Forecast mtg. Montesano City Hall

March 1st. State-wide Forecast meeting Olympia GA Auditorium

March 8th. Willapa Bay Advisory mtg. Raymond High School
March 9th. Grays Harbor Advisory mtg. WDFW Office Montesano

March 9-14 PFMC #1 Sacramento Ca. Double Tree Hilton
March 16-17 NOF #1 Lacey Committee Center

March 22nd. Willapa Bay Public mtg. TBD - Raymond Elks or High School
March 23rd. Grays Harbor Public mtg. Montesano City Hall

March 29-31 NOF #2 Lynnwood Embassy Suites
April 9-14 PFMC #2 Vancouver Wa. Hilton.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/16 08:09 AM

Kind of like sticking your finger in a light socket over and over
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/16 10:52 AM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
Kind of like sticking your finger in a light socket over and over


zap, zap, zap, zap

Grays Harbor Management Plan and the Willapa Plan, very clear on the direction both the harbors are going, and the path to be followed.

Stay the course !!!!!!!!

GHMP, has some swells in the waters....

1. major one.....WDFW and QIN, need to be on the same page co-management of all of Grays Harbor. Time to change the we/they to us, would be nice to reduce the conflict between the 2 agencies. The sharing of data could help in a better management of escapement goals and reduced conflict between user groups.

2. Escapement goals must be met, for good of the fish, no excuses.

3. Once a clear understanding of escapement has been met, then section 7 of the GHMP needs to be a priory so that forced closures, like 2015, can be avoided. Section 7, pretty clear......just some individuals have a tough time with it......WDFW Commission, saw this as a important goal.

I prefer not to have my fingers in the light socket.....year, after year, after year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/16 11:46 AM


Well here is a new wrinkle. What is the thought on what this means? One view is gut the Willapa & Grays Harbor management plan.



H-2499.1

HOUSE BILL 2311

State of Washington 64th Legislature 2016 Regular Session
By Representatives Blake, Scott, Hargrove, Hurst, McCaslin, Griffey, Rodne, Manweller, Buys, Holy, Zeiger, Condotta, Vick, and Van Werven

Prefiled 12/17/15. Read first time 01/11/16. Referred to Committee on State Government.

1 AN ACT Relating to the validity of administrative rules; and
2 adding a new section to chapter 34.05 RCW.


3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:


4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 34.05
5 RCW to read as follows:
6 No policy of any agency may be enforced by an agency until and
7 unless that policy has been adopted pursuant to this chapter and
8 filed with the office of the code reviser pursuant to RCW 34.05.380.

--- END ---
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/16 02:50 PM

I think you might be right, Rivrguy. The only thing I like about that bill is that it's pretty easy to understand. Too bad the legislation it proposes is a steaming pile, the likes of which could only come from Blake's office.

What a piece of work....

Seems to me it should be forbidden for any of our elected leeches to work on anything other than an education bill until the McCleary requirements are met. Every day these clowns put off the elephant in favor of an ant is another $100K in Federal fines.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/16 06:18 AM

I believe they are state fines for non compliance of McCleary.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/16 08:53 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02

Seems to me it should be forbidden for any of our elected leeches to work on anything other than an education bill until the McCleary requirements are met. Every day these clowns put off the elephant in favor of an ant is another $100K in Federal fines.



I agree.....Last year, lots of time was spent on "Introduction of bills that amounted to nothing more than a "waste of time". Then run out of time and have 2 extra sessions, at tax payer expense, AND STILL NOT TACKLE WHAT THE STATE COURT TOLD THEM TO DO, and still getting fined....more of our money being pissed away.......per diem pay should be ZERO.

Every one of the school districts in my area....is running "special levies", .... no change since 1968 when I started teaching.....need to fully fund basic education, as per State Constitution.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/16 12:20 PM

Thanks for correcting my understanding of who's penalizing whom, guys. Of course, learning that it is our own state assessing the fines makes this situation that much more outrageous, so now I'm really upset!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/16 06:39 AM

On Thursday February 4th Director Unsworth and staff will be holding a public input meeting in Southbend and here is the link. http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jan1116a/ I realize most will react with " oh my god another dog and pony show! " In many ways yeuuuupppppp could be correct. That said I attended a TU meeting that the Director was the speaker and folks the man is sincere. He is different than most of the past Directors if not all of them. He really does listen and learn from these things. By learn I think ( that is always dangerous for me that think thing ) he is from Idaho and is learning who we are. Who WE are folks and at 68 I can say with certainty that WE are the most cantankerous, opinionated, stubborn around. WE are also the most dedicated, passionate advocates for the fish around. So attend if you can and learn about Mr. Unsworth so in the process he can learn about you.

North of Falcon is around the corner so it is time to start looking ahead to what a small Coho runsize will mean. Just say the forecast is 30K which is a little above escapement. The GHMP dictates on a small run 5% if the runsize is less than 110% of escapement which allocates 73% / 1095 to fresh water and 27% / 405 to 2-2. ( bay fishery ) The 73% freshwater impacts also include the Chehalis tribal catch. This thing could ( likely will ) get tight.

For Chinook this year is when the ocean PDO loses should show in the 3 year old age group and if it is in the tank I am not sure exactly how you craft the seasons. Last year's fishing genetic testing in Willapa 2T showed substantial GH Chinook impacts so that will be in the mix also.

This down turn is normal, has happened before, and will happen again. The difference between the past and present is the loss of two million hatchery produced adults which in a normal year would be between 20 to 40k adults. This means our H over W mix is way way backward for C&R in a full blown fisheries.

We are all about to see what happens when our harvest is heavily dependent on natural production. We are about to see just why HSRG hatchery reform NOT being fully implemented was & is really a bad idea. You can thank the former director there I think. He did his best to maintain traditional fisheries and did a rather good job at it. The down side is we are about to get the bill for it all at once. Looking back I think maybe we screwed the pooch just a bit much on this one.

One last item. No I do not know the escapement numbers for last fall. I inadvertently ( I think ) got the fall Chinook numbers and sent them out immediately to folks, which I am not sure I was supposed to do. Before my screen melts no I do not know why numbers such as escapement are such a secret. It is absolutely as ass backwards approach as you can get from my seat. It is what it is though so we muddle forward.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/03/16 07:15 AM


Here is a write up on the reduction of the GH Chinook escapement goal. Make up your own mind but my read is it is a MSY montra. You know when I was younger PFMC & PSC protected the fish. Both organizations are now populated by folks who would sell your Mamma down the craper if it let them kill the last fish.

Grays Harbor Fall Chinook

Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was reevaluated and changed in 2014. The new natural spawning escapement goal is 13,500 naturally spawning Chinook for Grays Harbor with 9,880 for Chehalis River and 3,620 for Humptulips River.

The Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was 14,600, 12,364 Chehalis River and 2,236 Humptulips River. This goal was adopted in 1979 and was based on available spawning habitat and a spawning density of 36 fish per mile. A level of 24 fish per mile was used for the mainstem Chehalis River and all tributaries upstream of Cedar Creek, reflecting lower productive potential. This goal is defined as a natural spawning escapement goal.

The Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) is to review the biological basis for Chinook salmon management objectives under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PSC, 2009), Chapter 3, Section 2. (b) (iv), The CTC shall “…evaluate and review existing escapement objectives that fishery management agencies have set for Chinook stocks subject to this Chapter for consistency with MSY or other agreed biologically-based escapement goals and, where needed, recommend goals for naturally spawning Chinook stocks that are consistent with the intent of this Chapter…”. The abundance-based management regime for Chinook salmon established by the 2008 Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) is intended to sustain production at levels associated with maximum sustained yield (MSY, measured in terms of adult equivalents) over the long term. Therefore, the escapement goal for Grays Harbor fall Chinook was reevaluated based on spawner recruitment analysis.

The reevaluation of the Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal occurred in 2014. Three spawner-recruit functions were considered (Shepherd, Beverton-Holt, Ricker), and the Ricker model was identified as being the most appropriate form for both the Chehalis and Humptulips datasets. Brood years 1986 to 2005 were used in the analyses. In all analyses, parent generation escapement (i.e., spawners) includes both natural- and hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally. Spawner recruitment, biological based natural spawning escapement goals were developed for Chehalis and Humptulips rivers. Based on the Ricker analysis model, a Chehalis River fall Chinook natural spawning escapement goal of 9,880 was proposed and 3,620 for the Humptulips River. A harbor-wide natural spawning escapement goal of 13,500 was proposed.

On March 18, 2015 posted in the Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 52, NMFS proposes updates to management reference point values for Grays Harbor fall Chinook as recommended By the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for use in developing annual management measures beginning in 2015. These management reference point values are conservation objectives to provide necessary guidance for fisheries management within the guidance of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

There are four management reference points established in Federal Register V. 80:
1. 13,326 natural area spawners for Grays Harbor (9,753 Chehalis, 3,573 Humptulips) goals.
2. Smsy 13,326 natural area spawners.
3. Maximum Fishery Mortality Threshold (MFMT, generally equal to FMSY), total exploitation rate of 63%. Management all fishery exploitation to 63% or less.
4. Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST, Smsy * 0.5), 6,663 natural area spawners (13,326 * 0.5 = 6,663. If natural area spawners drop below 6,663, stock considered “over fished”.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/03/16 08:15 AM



http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01599/wdfw01599.pdf

Check out the figures on page 26 and 36 of the attached document on the link. The data presented are clearly inadequate to support an analysis of spawner recruit relationships sufficient to base escapement decisions on.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/03/16 10:49 AM

Rivrguy lamented that PFMC and PSC used to actually protect the fish, yet nowadays, they seem hell-bent on destroying them. Ultimately, the members of the PFMC answer to their superiors. Much like that of the WDFW Director, just who those superiors are is not openly stated, largely because those superiors aren't supposed to influence executive decisions (at least not in ways that are publicly understood). Their superiors receive a lot of political contributions from commercial interests, and that's why they "motivate" the PFMC to protect those interests first.

So why wasn't it apparent in the old days Rivrguy referred to? Simple. The salmon stocks were still healthy enough to support liberal commercial fisheries, sport fisheries, tribal fisheries, and conservation goals, so no commercial influence in the management process was necessary. Now that the resource is less abundant, competition for allocation motivates the commercial industry to donate to the folks who make the real decisions, who, in turn, seed the PFMC with like-minded people, thereby assuring maximum allocation to commercial fisheries. These days, that isn't leaving enough for the gravel. Instead of doing what they should to protect the fish, they use the tools at their disposal to justify reductions in escapement. It's bull$hit science, but because nobody's interested in funding better science (the only people with the money to do that are the ones perpetuating the status quo), it's still the best available.

I firmly believe that, if sport fishermen and the fish are ever to get a day in court, it will be because sport fishermen came together to out-contribute the commercial interests. We do have the money; trouble is, we keep investing it in fishing gear and licenses to participate in increasingly poor fishing opportunities. Include me in that; I just want to go fishing, so I keep sticking my fingers in f4b's proverbial socket, year after year.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/03/16 11:00 AM

Another point is that the Commercials and Tribes stick together. They may not agree with each other, but that is internal. You take on one, you take on all.

Sporties are more "my way or the highway" in that (for example) fly-flingers and hardware tossers will rather fight each other than the tribes of commercials.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/03/16 12:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy



There are four management reference points established in Federal Register V. 80:
1. 13,326 natural area spawners for Grays Harbor (9,753 Chehalis, 3,573 Humptulips) goals.
2. Smsy 13,326 natural area spawners.
3. Maximum Fishery Mortality Threshold (MFMT, generally equal to FMSY), total exploitation rate of 63%. Management all fishery exploitation to 63% or less.
4. Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST, Smsy * 0.5), 6,663 natural area spawners (13,326 * 0.5 = 6,663. If natural area spawners drop below 6,663, stock considered “over fished”.


I'm particularly interested in bullet point 3...

Exploitation cap of 63%. I know without a doubt that Humptulips fails than benchmark. Gonna pose the question about Chehalis... I suspect managers fail there too since we keep chronically underescaping Chehalis chinook
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/03/16 09:13 PM


This is from, Barbara A (DFW) [Barbara.Mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov] looking for folks comments on the Willapa Policy. More later I am sure but late now.



Hi Everyone,

The Department will be presenting a review of the Willapa Bay Basin Salmon Management Policy with regard to the 2015 fall salmon season to the Fish and Wildlife Commission on February 27, 2016 in Olympia.

We are interested in finding out from all of you what you think the Commission should hear. There is time set aside for the public to provide direct comment at the meeting, so you will be able to elaborate if we miss something or don’t cover something in the detail you wish.

If you have substantive comments you think should be included, please reply back to Chad Herring and myself by February 15, 2016.

Thank you!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/04/16 10:13 AM


So should you send comments in? Is this a thinly veiled attempt to get your comments to ... ah ... sanitize them to the Commission? Is this a end run to try to get the Commercials thought up front? Is this ( insert question of choice )? I do not know and everyone should use there own judgement as this is a citizen participation thing.

That said in my mind any comments to the contact identified should have a CC copy to the Commission & Director. That will pretty much take of sanitation of your thoughts. After that guys this is a personal decision for all to make.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/16 08:48 AM

So how did the get to know you meeting in South Bend go? Rather well I think as it had a good turnout. Agency staff did a very good job and frankly it was a straight ahead event. The Region 6 Director and Director Unsworth spoke and then it was comment and meet the agency time. From my spot on the limb he is different from previous Directors. By that I mean he is making a real effort to look forward to the future but to do it with us right with him. Now guys say what you will but that is way way different from the we agency / you public of the past. So if anyone has a chance to speak with Mr. Unsworth do so. I do believe he actually listens which again is a huge departure from the past.

Now on to the 2016 seasons. Nope on the preseason forecast but the preseason ocean abundance forecast ( before harvest ) for the Columbia Coho. It is the early run that you look to for a quick look for comparisons. Last year it was forecast for 550k and in the end came in at around 150k. Now this year it starts at 153k in the ocean before harvest and folks that is so ugly it gives ugly a bad name. I would like to think that our Coho would perform better but my gut says I am dreaming.

Now Chinook are different. Coho only do 1 1/2 years in the salt so any down turn is really fast as is recovery. Chinook age groups in any year have 3, 4, 5, and 6 year olds. ( twos are jacks ) The dominate years are the 4 & 5 year fish with the 4 year fish the largest percentage and 3 years the smallest. ( well 6 year is smaller but we have very few anymore ) So for Coho this is the second year returns are in the dumpster due to poor ocean conditions but for Chinook we are only at the 3 year point so it should not show the same. While that is good it is kinda like standing on the railroad tracks watching a locomotive come at you and not being able to move.

So when we do get the preseason forecast we should be OK for Chinook in GH and Willapa for this year and less so next depending on just how bad the poor ocean conditions are. Now the bad. ( hate that don't ya ) Unlike Coho that can rebound quickly ( the lowest Coho escapement I found was in 1994 at around 8k ) Chinook do not. To get a good solid run you need 3,4,5 year fish and that is the rub it takes FIVE years, if you're lucky. With the massive Alaska and BC intercept fisheries our rule was blow escapement two generations with careful management to get out of the toilet. 10 years guys and unless something is done to reduce ocean intercept 2018 will be the start of that decade it will take to recover. I realize this sounds like crystal ball time but I have seen this before and after I am gone you young guys will see it again. In fact broodstocking we had one year of the five that was a bit short. Why? No idea but it got blasted with harvest was my thought and just never rebounded due to ongoing ocean harvest rates applied across the full run.

So this is where I make my pitch to the Rec fisher that usually if not always gets me in trouble. The numbers of Rec fishers continues to grow, ( Puget Sound is headed our way ) the number of fish available is in the process of shrinking rapidly, and there ain't no way no how that we can all fish the same ways in the same places we always have. We need to look to finding ways to structure our fisheries that meets not just the conservation needs but also recognizes the ever increasing fishers from outside the area.

Easy to say but hard to do. Why? Because Rec fishers are FIRM believers in circular firing squads! Setting in a NOF meeting a couple years back a couple of Recs were arguing a point and a gillnetter setting across from looked up and quietly said " you gotta tell those guys to quit bringing a knife to a gun fight " That is us guys the Rec fisher! The most quarrelsome, argumentative, stubborn bunch you will ever meet. We are also the most passionate defender of the fish, foot the bill to manage harvest and work the hardest to protect and restore habitat. So in rather short order we will again ( at least in the short term ) be faced with adapting or face rapid loss of opportunity. I favor adapting, quickly.



Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/08/16 11:02 AM


Well here is a gentleman from Willapa comments to the Director who could not make the South Bend meeting. Agree or disagree on his views he gets a A+ for effort and participation.

I appreciate your coming to South Bend to educate and hear from the local public, Director Unsworth. Unfortunately, the last meeting of Pacific County Planning Commission where they will hear comments on our new/draft Shoreline Master Plan is also that night. It is the last chance for public input, so we and some others will be there. Comments we would rather have given to you in person include;

1. Columbia River--We need to start achieving and communicating successes in complying with HSRG at Columbia Hatcheries. The recent staff presentation in Vancouver concentrated on how well harvest allotments were met, not on escapement or HSRG percentages. If improvements are needed we need to make them on a business-like schedule. 70% NOR in gravel and at least 30% NOR in hatcheries, plus meeting escapement goals are the key here. We have heard from the applicable advisory group that Summer Chinook, for example, seldom meet escapement. The days of having a limit of one fish/day put on those (poles) with the lowest mortality rate while netting thousands with non selective gear need to be over. Many steelhead are killed by nets also, and they are supposed to be game fish. The old saw of "netting to get rid of the surplus" did not work on our coastal fish and cannot in the Columbia either.

2. We are apparently faced with the Columbia River Endorsement surcharge being extended below Tongue Point to Buoy 10. We the public could not see any gain from this license increase unless the gillnet phase out continues as announced. Since announcing this phase out, our fishing area below the Astoria Bridge has shrunk. A large area where our family used to fish West of the bridge and south of the green buoy line, down towards Warrenton, has been placed off limits. This was to allow more fish into the commercial terminal net program in Young's Bay. Still, the Region 5 staff is not showing much anticipation for the main stem net phase out. At the same time, a race of Fall Chinook called Tules is in trouble, requiring harvest of unmarked t Tules to be restricted. As a result sport fishing at Buoy 10 is prematurely halted every year now, on or before Sep 1, not just to allow escapement, but to allow for net mortality above Tongue Point. Record runs bypass a truncated sport fishery to allow protected Tule Naturals to be available for non-selective net mortality. Before being cut off each year, the B-10 fishery is crowded more than ever before. The result is that as Region 5 staff data recently showed, sport fishing at B-10 is not growing, even when runs are at record levels. It is not growing because it is truncated by the "necessities" of non-selective gill netting upstream. These "necessities" include higher mortality rates put on fish not meeting escapement and HSRG goals, while sport fishermen with lower mort rates on these and other races are beached! Raising recreational fees while restricting the ability to apply lower mort rates on troubled runs would not make sense. The non-selective harvest must be stopped as we were told it would.

3. There is a move afoot to again kill burrowing shrimp with pesticide in Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor. An application to reinitiate an NPDES permit process that was cancelled due to public pressure last year has been filed. We have no sturgeon season in Willapa Bay because of the dearth of both white and green sturgeon here, as well as Grays Harbor. Green Sturgeon are ESA listed! The main forage for green sturgeon here are burrowing shrimp. Since about 2002, one of the two species of burrowing shrimp has all but disappeared. With half of these native invertebrates gone, a program to decrease the other half makes no biological sense and is not legal per ESA. This would be the Poster Child for net loss of ecological function! Although WDFW personnel sometimes attend hearings and workshops on such subjects, they do not speak on behalf of habitat or wildlife conservation. This tradition must change. It is as if, sometimes, there is no wildlife division. Last year in a meeting in Pacific County we were told by a senior manager "WDFW does not have much to say about habitat." We would ask that this change. When people see and hear this, they sometimes feel as if their habitat input is of no use. There is no "net loss of ecological function" allowed with respect to our shorelines per the Shoreline Management Act. When the public sees that habitat is not regularly monitored, and not visibly protected by WDFW in permitting processes, it seems it is of no use for the public to speak up either.

4. There are several areas in Pacific and Grays Harbor counties owned by WDFW that have lent themselves to waterfowl management in the past. Some are no longer clearly being managed for waterfowl. What is our State Duck Stamp money for? One is the John's River area. For some reason sedges were mowed down there this year. These are major forage for ducks and geese, or were. There is an area in the Chehalis Valley that was purchased for waterfowl, but has gone downhill since WDFW purchase. It has been good that WDFW keeps numbers on salmon and waterfowl. Still, waterfowl counts are being drastically reduced for Willapa Bay again. Pacific Brant counts have been turned over to USFWS, who refuses to provide information on brant location in Willapa Bay when asked repeatedly. Waterfowl including brant, green and white sturgeon, and Natural Spawner salmon are on a downslide and we would like to see a proactive WDFW in this area.

5. Sport Fishing in Willapa Bay is ripe for enhancement. Chinook have been declared a recreational priority, yet thousands are dying in areas of North Nemah and Naselle Rivers where sport fishing is not allowed. Some such closed areas include public land! The most often reason heard by the public is that WDFW has inadequate resources to monitor such fishing. At the same time non-selective netting is heavily monitored on these same fish. This is not consistent with a recreational prioirity, or with license fee increases which should be used as necessary to allow the lower pole mortality rate to be put into play where needed for both recreational enhancement and for the resource. As currently managed, if we ever met Chinook escapement goals in the Willapa Drainage, neither hatchery nor gravel percentages prescribed by HSRG would be met anyway, with the North Nemah as a possible exception. The puny average size of these once magnificent fish directly reflects genetic domination by hatchery stock. We now have a policy that can turn this around with proper application of lower unmarked fish mortality rates. We ask that harvest be allowed, and volunteer programs be designed, to carry this out.
6. The new Willapa Policy has a flaw I have described as the "lump of coal" for recreational fishers' Christmas. It places sport priority in the North Bay where production is now being drastically lowered for HSRG reasons. It places surplus fish up in rivers in the South where recreational fishing is not optimized, and fish die. It leaves the Naselle River as a target for politically motivated moves to increase production through non HSRG compliant schemes which seem to sprout with each New Year. Keeping recreational fishers off these fish seems consistent with reserving them for future non-selective netting. The death of "surplus" fish is a positive PR item for commercials, and nothing more. Natural Origin Recruits die right alongside hatchery recruits. We have no quarrel with selective harvest of these fish. We have a quarrel with keeping them away from recreational selective harvest, and if budget priorities continue to not reflect functional weirs.

A WDFW serious about conservation and recreational fishing will allow the most selective harvest to take place when and where fitting in order to meet HSRG standards. A WDFW serious about enhancing recreational and commercial fishing of Coastal Fall Chinook in Pacific County will prioritize functional weirs on rivers such as the Naselle and Willapa. Given no sign of this we would be headed for minimal harvest in our two largest rivers, while managing a segregated run in the only place currently practicable, the North Nemah. In the North Bay we would have the recreational "lump of coal" between Tokeland and South Bend in a few years, where the sport fishery of most economic benefit to the county has taken place in the past. A WDFW serious about conservation will speak up about loss of estuarine habitat for ESA sturgeon, waterfowl, shorebirds, and naturally spawned salmon smolts. It will take action. It will do so in public where it can be properly appreciated by a more motivated public going forward.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
South Bend, WA
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/16 08:00 AM



Ok what we have here is a E mail that Mike sent out from R-6 with a Power Point presentation that will be used in the year end review by Region 6. Those who want it let me know and I will forward it. So right here one must give kudos to Mike & Steve for putting this forward PRIOR to the Commission review. In the past staff did not do this and frankly the blow back was rather strong so kudos to staff for breaking the mold and going for transparency. So I urge everyone to look at the Power Point and provide your thoughts on any or all elements of the presentation to Mike and his e mail address is below.

I have gotten the question already relating to your thoughts be represented. This guys is staff asking for input, which is good, and I urge all to do so. I also urge all to feel free to also comment Directly to the Commission & Director your thoughts on 2015 Salmon seasons and how the GHMP performed. You can work with staff in a positive manner and not sell your soul. Below are comments from a Rec fisher from a CC as an example.

• Page 19 of your power point presentation has the following…”A draft Wynoochee Mitigation plan has been completed, we help for constituents, and submitted to the QIN for review”………… Just doesn’t sound right.

Area of concern, from my point of view

Guiding Principles
Item 7….

“In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, fishing opportunities will be fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of WDFW-managed fishers”

This was one of the driving forces in designing the GHMP………Conservation and then to make sure in river fisherpersons had a fair chance. In river includes waters from 101 Bridge, to head waters of the Chehalis and all tributaries.

2015 was another in a long line WDFW structured seasons, where NT, marine sportsmen, had most of their season……..then when Conservation became an issue, shut the whole system down. There are many Chehalis River sportsmen that choose to not fish until the QIN and NT fishers are done with their season,,,,,,,,,,, they did their share for Conservation in 2015, again!!!!!


FROM MIKE & STEVE: Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov

Subject: draft 2015 GH salmon management policy review presentation for upcoming WDFW Commission meeting

Hi all,

Attached is a draft presentation reviewing the policy guidance during the 2015 GH salmon season. This will be presented at the WDFW Commission meeting later this month. Please provide constructive feedback. Understand that it was a difficult year, did the Policy provide the guidance it was intended? I appreciate any comments, suggestions, or recommendations.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/16 09:31 AM


Here are the 2015 escapement numbers. Forgive the formatting as posting a Power Point presentation is above my pay grade but you can figure it out easy enough. Bottom line Chinook came in stronger than forecast as did Chum and the fish did OK. Now Coho is another matter. The 20K figure is give or take about 71% of escapement. Now Hump Coho at 1097 escapement is only 16% of escapement.

Houston we have a problem.

Metric Objective Pre-Season Actual
Chehalis River Natural-Origin Chinook
Run-Size 19,108 23,090
Spawner 9,880 9,947 14,250
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 5% 4.44% 3.88%
% Impact in Commercial in 2A, B, D 0.80% 0.77% 0.44%
170 fish 102 fish
Chehalis River Natural-Origin Coho
Run-Size 121,734 31,800
Spawners 28,506 66,652 20,000
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 15.44% 11.11%
% Impact in Commercial in 2A, B, D 3.80% 2.92%

These are in-season estimates.


Humptulips River Natural-Origin Chinook
Run-Size 7,403 7,703
Spawner 3,620 4,024 4,840
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 21.39% 20.57%
% Impact in Commercial in 2C 5.40% 0.68% 0.00%
56 fish None
Humptulips River Natural-Origin Coho
Run-Size 5,861 1,112
Spawners 6,894 3,720 1,097
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 1.81% 1.32%
% Impact in Commercial in 2C 0.54% 0.00%

These are in-season estimates.




Metric Objective Pre-Season Actual
Grays Harbor Chum
Run-Size 28,852 47,000
Spawner 21,000 21,029 33,705
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 12.55% 10.46%
% Impact in Commercial 10.13% 9.63%
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/16 05:49 PM

Chehalis coho turned out much worse than the state and QIN's in-season projection.

Basically a run failure at only about 1/4 of the preseason forecast.

At 31K the entire run was basically at the 110% e-goal threshold... in other words NO harvestable surplus. In hindsight the entire run could have gone to the gravel.

With Hump coho also in the toilet, there was NOTHING to buffer the basinwide coho goal, either. Basinwide goal is 35.4K... which is what QIN manages to.... actual escapement was only 21.1K. You gotta ask... W T F?

Basinwide runsize was 32.9K. Harvest was about 11.8K (fuzzy number as the Hump harvest is statistically indistinguishable from ZERO [1112 - 1097 = 15 fish] Things that make you go HMMMM? )

So the post-season co-manager report card is a big fat "F-".... basically took an unfishable run and put a targeted 36% exploitation rate on GH wild coho when they should have only put a 10% incidental impact on those fish.

Sorry to be so pessimistic... BUT ... the fish don't stand a fukkin' chance in 2016.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/16 05:58 PM

how long was it open above 101 before it got shut down? Seems like people were fishing Morrison Park in August?
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/16 08:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

2015 was another in a long line WDFW structured seasons, where NT, marine sportsmen, had most of their season……..then when Conservation became an issue, shut the whole system down.



the Chehalis opened above 101 bridge on MAY 1! so it was open for months before it closed.
Posted by: ronnie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/16 09:50 PM

f4b

So, being open for months means what? OPPORTUNITY only. The run was depleted before it got there. That is why the river closed. Do you think the in-river recs caught so many that they had to close it down? What color is the sky in world you live in?

Soap Box: If there were real time reporting of some kind, these posts would not be necessary. We would have a lot more information to go on.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 06:40 AM

Hey guys we have a Springer season. Inland also has summer fisheries also but have little impact into the fall numbers. This thing where bay fishers and inriver toss the hand grenade back and forth is childish f4b. That last year inriver had some impact but not much above tidewater in fact it was mostly South Monte. The GHMP has allowable impacts for both so it ends up that staff really screwed up last year just anyway you cut it. The fact is as the numbers crashed it was the NT Nets that were the final nail in the coffin not the bay. Staff screwed the pooch and just ran for cover when it hit the fan and in fact violated the GHMP in the process. Not their best moment to be sure.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 07:06 AM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Chehalis coho turned out much worse than the state and QIN's in-season projection.

Basically a run failure at only about 1/4 of the preseason forecast.

At 31K the entire run was basically at the 110% e-goal threshold... in other words NO harvestable surplus. In hindsight the entire run could have gone to the gravel.

With Hump coho also in the toilet, there was NOTHING to buffer the basinwide coho goal, either. Basinwide goal is 35.4K... which is what QIN manages to.... actual escapement was only 21.1K. You gotta ask... W T F?

Basinwide runsize was 32.9K. Harvest was about 11.8K (fuzzy number as the Hump harvest is statistically indistinguishable from ZERO [1112 - 1097 = 15 fish] Things that make you go HMMMM? )

So the post-season co-manager report card is a big fat "F-".... basically took an unfishable run and put a targeted 36% exploitation rate on GH wild coho when they should have only put a 10% incidental impact on those fish.

Sorry to be so pessimistic... BUT ... the fish don't stand a fukkin' chance in 2016.


Harvest (at any cost) Management should have taken notice that the Chehalis Basin's coho were missing.
Even the charter boats out of Westport were running South to find some catchable numbers.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 08:03 AM

Originally Posted By: slabhunter
Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Chehalis coho turned out much worse than the state and QIN's in-season projection.

Basically a run failure at only about 1/4 of the preseason forecast.

At 31K the entire run was basically at the 110% e-goal threshold... in other words NO harvestable surplus. In hindsight the entire run could have gone to the gravel.

With Hump coho also in the toilet, there was NOTHING to buffer the basinwide coho goal, either. Basinwide goal is 35.4K... which is what QIN manages to.... actual escapement was only 21.1K. You gotta ask... W T F?

Basinwide runsize was 32.9K. Harvest was about 11.8K (fuzzy number as the Hump harvest is statistically indistinguishable from ZERO [1112 - 1097 = 15 fish] Things that make you go HMMMM? )

So the post-season co-manager report card is a big fat "F-".... basically took an unfishable run and put a targeted 36% exploitation rate on GH wild coho when they should have only put a 10% incidental impact on those fish.

Sorry to be so pessimistic... BUT ... the fish don't stand a fukkin' chance in 2016.


Harvest (at any cost) Management should have taken notice that the Chehalis Basin's coho were missing.
Even the charter boats out of Westport were running South to find some catchable numbers.


This is the point that really frustrates me. They knew by July the fish weren't coming in anything close to the numbers forecast, yet they took absolutely zero corrective action before it was way too late. Makes it pretty clear what drives Region 6 fish management, and it also points out that the Co-Managers don't give a flying $hit about conservation. There really is no sense in sugar coating that.

Here's your Grays Harbor fishing forecast for the forseeable future:

If the runs exceed expectations, everyone will catch lots of fish. Otherwise, the gillnets will be the only ones to catch fish. (All forecasts assume salmon have not yet been driven to extinction.)

Any bets on when we'll see a proposal to lower the coho e-goals?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 08:33 AM

Right after they finish screwing Chum over which is underway. One could say the goal is to develop a more accurate methodology but history says nope as it usually results in a new MSY escapement goal. Remember Chinook being lowered last year.

From the GHMP draft of 2015 review.

Implemented project to evaluate Grays Harbor Chum escapement methodology.
Project shared with QIN
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 10:39 AM


There should be an independent technical review of the spawner/recruit data and resulting escapement goals. No competent independent statistician would support the manner in which they beat the data into submission to get the answer they want.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 12:45 PM

Even an indépendant review would be worthless unless one first defined what the exact goal is supposed to be.

In one AK system, the coho are managed at a 60% harvest rate that has shown itself to be rather sustainable. But, the annual run will vary based on pink escapement. At no pinks, the run is about 16-1700; at 2 kilos of pinks per square metre the run in 8-10,000 or more. What should the MSY goal be? If, as is the case here in WA where all escapement levels are 5-10% of pre-fish the [Bleeeeep!] out the run levels, you would set the MSY goal in the AK stream at about 700. On the other hand, if you wanted to maximize the coho harvest (but significantly reduce pink) you could set it at 2-3,000 plus a boatload of pinks.

Same here. We are dealing with systems that are way under seeded, in habitat that could be improved, with oceans that are also being heavily harvested for the forage fish. So, before we can really set any escapement goal we have to look at how we want to manage the whole ecosystem-and then follow through.

If we insist, for example, in further lowering the chum escapement in WB and GH then we can follow that up with lowering coho.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 01:02 PM

When it comes to e-goals, MSY is king. The problem with the MSY mantra is that no matter how $hitty the runs get, there's ALWAYS a theoretic mathematical "sustainable" MSY spawner escapement.

How does it play out in real life? History suggests that less begets less.

Does anyone really think we're gonna harvest our way to recovery for any of these depleted runs?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 03:39 PM

This came from Barbara at R-6 and is the newly appointed & reappointed Willapa Advisers.


Willapa Bay Salmon Advisory Group 2016-2017



Name City Interest Affiliations Experience
Marlisa Dugan Roy FW Sport Past WB Advisor
Lance Gray Chinook Commercial WB Gillnetters Assc. Past WB Advisor
Andy Mitby Grayland Commercial WB Gillnetters Assc. Past WB Advisor
Jack Hollingsworth Aberdeen Commercial WB Gillnetters Assc. Past WB Advisor
Norman Reinhardt Port Orchard Sport Kitsap Poggie Club Past WB Advisor
Francis Estalilla Aberdeen Sport Past WB Advisor
Tim Hamilton Mcleary Conservation Twin Harbors Advocacy Past WB Advisor
Paul Philpot Raymond Economic Pacific County EDC Past WB Advisor
Jack Berryman Bay Center Sport Wild Steelhead Coalition New Advisor
Tom Petersen Tokeland Commercial WB Gillnetters Assc. New Advisor
Steve Boerner Cosmopolis Sport New Advisor
Greg McMillan Long Beach Commercial WB Gillnetters Assc. New Advisor
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 05:26 PM

What seems to fly-by folks is that MSY escapement is on the order of (say) 20% of what it was pre-Euro-American fisheries commenced. Now, if you harvest one resource down that far, it may work. But if you remember from the ecology the transfer of energy from one level to the next is like 10%. Now, we harvest the lower levels of the food chain (crabs, shrimp, clams, herring sardines, anchovies) down and then are surprised when the system supports fewer predators (salmon).

Then, to muck it up more, we try to "restore" the salmon predators like whales, seals, and birds.

Simply put, if you want a lot of salmon you will have to have enough food to seed them and the appropriate number of predators to eat them. You can't manage a single species by ignoring all the others. Well, actually you can because that is what we are doing so successfully.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 05:58 PM

All well and good. But you dont reduce escapement on an obviously over depleted stock using bogus data and math just because you cant meet escapement. The data they are using are crap. Let a few more back like Oregon did, and see if the runs increase as Oregons chinook did. Take your foot off the gas pedal, co-managers.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/16 09:48 PM

Well, in the 70's WDF published a report on how well PS salmon management was going. One example was Chinook. At that time they had the twin problems on some streams of hatchery surplus and not meeting wild escapement. The solution, which they bragged about, was to lower lower the wild goal and fish harder. The result was that they could hit the lower goal and reduce the surpluses.

They just keep on keeping on.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/16 09:38 AM


Now for something totally different. If any of you guys are out and about the river below South Monte slow down and look for the gulls. Every year we have rather large schools of bait fish move up and hang out in tide water. Well this year is something else. Above and below Higgins Island we have hundreds of gulls feeding on the bait fish and this has been going on for three days. We always have this but the sheer number of the gulls is amazing and it is one dive one fish. They have gorged themselves to the point they are resting on the the old log dump pilings then back at it. If I had my old throw net I would take a shot at getting what species the bait fish are but one thing about it this is the largest push I have seen in years.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/16 10:40 AM

Maybe smelt?

Some video would be cool to see.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/16 11:02 AM

Not maybe smelt.......but real smelt........Is it legal to dip???? Might have to put the net back on my long handle "smelt dippers", if it is.........
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/16 12:20 PM

Grays Harbor is a big time anchovy nursery. Never heard of anchovies moving up a river, but I never asked.... probably smelt, though....

See any sturgeon swirling about in the area? I bet that's a neat sight....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/16 12:43 PM

You know I am clueless as to what they are. The Anchovies are my bet but conversation says smelt also moved in so your guess. Now a inboard is out puttering around and looking at the river ( could be state or tribal or not ) but they are a little late. The schools move back and forth with the tide so we have a pause until slack as it seems they really show when the tide turns to outgoing then you really get to see it.

Missed the Sturgeon thing. Nope no see but you just about have to be on the river to see them. They will be around though as any time you have birds and bait fish they are waiting for a meal !
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/12/16 01:35 PM

I have seen sky-carp gorging on smelt in the lower Cedar River. That is what they are probably after in the Chehalis. Different species, probably eulachon, but same idea for the gulls; lots to eat.

Obviously have to open a fishery as there must be a significant surplus if the gulls are congregating to feed. IF sturgeon were open................
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/13/16 05:37 AM

Find the discussion about MSY escapement goals and the lowering of those goals interesting.

If indeed the managers are worshipping at the altar of MSY (maximizing the harvest) than lowering that goal would seem to illogical and counter-productive. Lower the goal means that the manager are shooting for a goal further down the spawner/recruit curve which by definition would produce on the average fewer fish to harvest - less than maximum harvest. Of course the other explanation is that the habitat and productive of the fish population is declining and such population parameters such as carrying capacity, MSY, etc. are naturally lower. By extension that also means that we as a society continue to be crappy caretakers of our rivers and our lip-service of habitat restoration is failing.


Of course that also means that this constant search for managing for a better escapement number, eliminating hatchery fish or just generally doing a better job of managing fisheries is not addressing what is driving our fish populations. Addressing the major factors that is driving our salmon populations downward would require all of society stepping up to the plate and making what is ultimately would financial costs in the name of the fish. Heaven forbid that debate of what to do for the fish were to shift in that direction!

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/13/16 07:27 AM

Had an interesting look at the PS wild chum data. Plugged each river into the Ricker curve to get MSY. Couple interesting things emerged.

First, as ocean conditions improved so did the runs and MSY goal. But, goals remained where they had been set in the 70s. This, of course, allowed for even more short term gain from harvest. Then, when ocean conditions changed, the MSY goal declined. This was the case when looking at all the data, starting in the 60s.

Now, managers look at short, recent data sets. As Salma says, models poor conditions you get results that say MSY is small.

Years ago, I believed in fixed goals. A fixed target was, or should be, easier to hit and we all knew that there was one point of optimum production. I now believe that a FIXED harvest rate, set appropriately low, is best for optimum management and harvest. Have seen both modeled situations and real-world where the fixed rate gave more catch than fixed goal.

Again, as Salma says, the discussions need to be expanded over all the impacts. With the insatiable growth in human population playing a key role.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/16/16 08:28 AM

I thought I would post up my comments on the GHMP review for 2015. These are my thoughts and all have their opinions so I urge all to put their thoughts in. Submit your thoughts to Mike at Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov


February 15, 2016

Steve Thiesfeld
Director Unsworth
WDF&W Commission
Ron Warren
Mike Scharpf

COMMENTS GHMP REVIEW:

In general the Grays Harbor Management Policy ( GHMP ) worked as well as it could under the circumstances we faced in the 2015 seasons. In the end we had failings but I feel I must point out that these were failings of staff to follow the intent of the GHMP not the GHMP itself. That said I will limit my comments to these items.

Section 8 Guiding Principles: ( Also known as 4/3 ) while staff has voiced concerns over the " difficulties " poised by this section in reality they do not exist except for one issue. It prevents staff from combining Non Treaty Commercial fisheries with tribal fisheries to create seven day a week commercial net seasons which is the purpose of section 8 to prevent just that.

8) Recreational and WFDW-managed commercial fisheries shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur. If the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week.

Adaptive Management Item 1: ( known as the 3/5 penalty box ) This section has troubled many including myself and as much as I would like to see it removed it needs to remain in place. Had not for the 4/3 & the 3/5 penalty box this past year we would have likely not made escapement for Chinook as the run cannot sustain two full out fisheries, the numbers do not permit it. With the continuing disagreement between Region 6 ( R-6 ) staff and the Quinault Indian Nation ( QIN ) regarding harvest sharing not being resolved it is the penalty we fishers must endure to protect the fish.

Adaptive Management: As a component of the annual fishery management review, the Department shall assess if spawner goals were achieved for Chehalis spring Chinook, Chehalis fall Chinook, Humptulips fall Chinook, Chehalis Coho, Humptulips Coho, and Grays Harbor chum salmon. If the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years (beginning in 2009), the Department shall implement the following measures:

a) The predicted fishery impact for that stock in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Grays Harbor; and

b) If a spawner goal for fall Chinook salmon is not achieved, the Grays Harbor control zone2 off of the mouth of Grays Harbor will be implemented no later than the second Monday in August and continue until the end of September.

Guiding Principle section 7: While the 4/3 provision provides fish available for the inriver fresh water recreational fisher it is reinforced by Section 7. From my perspective that for whatever the reasons this section of the GHMP was not adhered to. This is reinforced by how the 2015 seasons played out with almost the entire conservation needs being borne by the inriver recreational fishery as the Coho run failed to materialize. This is not a GHMP failure but rather a failure of R-6 staff to follow the intent of the GHMP.

7) In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, fishing opportunities will be fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of WDFW-managed fishers.

The next issue is complex but goes to the heart of the failure in Grays Harbor salmon management in 2015. In the season setting process staff worked to provide opportunity to all. In fact I would say that the efforts of Steve Thiesfeld and Mike Scharpf in the season setting process were exceptional and need to recognized. As much as I support the R-6 staff in the 2015 season setting process what followed in the months afterward I do not view in a favorable manner.

From the beginning the preseason forecast for Coho was problematic and in not supported by the NOAA PDO forecast for ocean survival. This was followed by landings showing the Coho runs coast wide appearing to be very weak right up to the first Grays Harbor fisheries. On week 38 ( September 13-19 ) the QIN fishers harvested but then Week 39 ( September 20-26 ) pulled for a week. The QIN resumed scheduled fisheries through Week 42 ( October 11-17 ). Additionally R-6 scheduled half day Non Treaty Commercial fisheries for a half day in front and after the Week 42 QIN fisheries and two days in Week 43 before closing all fisheries for conservation followed by the QIN doing the same.

R-6 has stated it received the QIN harvest numbers October 18th other than the Week 38 numbers which had been posted on the WDF&W website. This is a very serious problem as Week 40, 41, & 42 are the primary weeks of the Coho run through the estuary and when the numbers were made available to the public they showed a total collapse of the Coho run forecast. This raises the question. Did the QIN withhold harvest numbers and continue fishing their schedule knowing the forecast run was not materializing? Did R-6 fail to ask for the QIN harvest numbers in a timely manner? Many believe that staff had been given the QIN harvest numbers verbally and that staff chose to withhold the information from the public which is problematic on so many levels it is difficult to describe. The questions I and many others could fill pages but can be boiled down to this. What did R-6 know about the QIN harvest numbers both Coho and Chinook and the failure of the Coho run forecast and when did they know it? If the QIN did not share the harvest numbers this is a substantial issue. If R-6 did not ask for the numbers or disregarded them this just as large failure. I would like to point out that in Willapa R-6 did react in a positive manner to adjust to the issue of the Coho run collapse be it to being late in the game. Additionally the time it takes for Grays Harbor harvest numbers to be placed upon WDF&W's website is appalling! This does not happen in other regions so why does R-6 struggle with posting Grays Harbor harvest numbers?

The citizens who worked so hard to get the GHMP in place deserve a forthright and honest explanation for the staff failure as it is totally unacceptable. Then one must recognize the broader issue. With what I outlined previously coupled with the landings and harvest in the ocean fisheries and the first returns to the Columbia showing a total collapse of the Coho run why was not action taken by the marine managers? Where is the monitoring and coordination of harvest between the ocean and fresh water? To wait until the very end to implement any conservation objectives only at the terminal fisheries defies logic. In fact in my mind the failures of R-6 pale in comparison to the failure of senior WDF&W staff to coordinate and manage the 2015 marine harvest and frankly did a very real injustice to R-6 ( and other regions ) fresh water management staff. The street slang for the manner in which the ocean managers functioned is called " autopilot " and I do believe that is just how senior harvest managers functioned in 2015. I doubt any terminal management policy can succeed with ocean managers and Olympia based senior staff conducting business in that manner.

My final thoughts reside in a issue that plagues all of WDF&W staff and it is the refusal to not speak in forthright and open manner. As a example I will use Steve Thiesfeld's comments in his presentation at the Commission meeting in which R-6 made a presentation updating the Grays Harbor 2015 season several weeks back. In that presentation he identified the many challenges faced but one particular statement stood out. When addressing the failure to likely to make escapement he more or less stated that the small commercial season Coho harvest even if cancelled would not have allowed us to make escapement. That is true except that the other fact is by allowing that fishery to proceed it totally destroyed any chance of a inriver fishery, violated Guiding Principles Section 7, and did not address just why the three prime week QIN harvest numbers were not made available. Later when many reacted in a unfavorable manner it was followed by staff describing the South Monte tidewater fishery as providing inriver equity. The Chehalis River is the second largest watershed in the state and to call tidewater fisheries meeting requirements is simply fiction. Whatever the issue is WDF&W staff cannot regain the public's trust if they do not speak candidly. It is true that when the agency staff have spoken frankly it has made many people angry. The other side is when they do not speak frankly they make everyone angry. I urge frankness and openness as in the long run folks can respect honesty but not duplicity.

A very good example of how to be open and transparent is the Power Point that R-6 recently provided that is going to be presented at the Commission meeting shortly. Mike Scharpf forwarded it out to the Advisers and public for them to look at and offer suggestions on its content rather than wait until it is presented to the Commission. I can say nothing negative as to this effort to reach out to the citizens. It is a excellent example on how staff should function which gets lost in the discussion due to it not being the consistent ongoing manner that staff does business.

One final item. Wynoochee Mitigation and remember Mr. Osborn and kicking the can down the road? Sad to say the only thing that has moved forward is the can, down the road, and little else. I grade it F- as little to nothing has been accomplished since the adoption of the GHMP instructing staff to move forward and meet the mitigation requirements.

Sincerely
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/17/16 07:40 AM

Here is the agenda for the upcoming Commission meeting.

Meeting Agenda
Download PDF version
FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING
February 26-27, 2016
Natural Resources Building
1111 Washington St SE
Olympia WA 98501
First Floor, Room 172

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2016

8:00 AM 1. Call to Order
1. Commissioners’ Discussion
2. Meeting Minute Approval

8:15 AM 2. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda.

9:00 AM 3. Director’s Report
The Director will brief the Commission on various items.

9:45 AM 4. Periodic Status Review (Northern Spotted Owl, Snowy Plover, Western Gray Squirrel, and Greater Sage-grouse) – Decision
Department staff will request approval from the Commission on the Periodic Status Reviews compiled for these four state listed species.
Staff Report: Penny Becker, Diversity Division Manager, Joseph Buchanan, Natural Resource Scientist, Derek Stinson and Gary Wiles, Wildlife Biologists

10:05AM Break

10:20 AM 5. Lands 20/20 – Briefing
Department staff will provide a briefing on the lands 20/20 process and the list of projects approved through the 2015 Lands 20/20 process; the Department will seek funding for projects approved in the Lands 20/20 process.
Staff Report: Cynthia Wilkerson, Lands Conservation and Restoration Section Manager and Lauri Vigue, Lands 20/20 Acquisition Coordinator

11:00 AM 6. Puget Sound Clam and Oyster Seasons – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will brief the Commission on proposed season changes for clams and oysters on Puget Sound public beaches.
Staff Report: Philippa Kohn, Intertidal Bivalve Program Manager

11:15 PM 7. Puget Sound Commercial Smelt Quick Reporting - Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will provide the Commission a briefing on proposed permanent rules for quick reporting on Puget Sound commercial smelt fisheries.
Staff Report: Dayv Lowry, Ph.D., Research Scientist
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

11:35 AM Lunch

1:00 PM 8. Hood Canal Chum Management Review – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will provide the Commission with a briefing on methodology used for evaluation and in-season updating of Hood Canal chum run size for use in commercial fishery management.
Staff Report: Laurie Peterson, Puget Sound Salmon Manager and Kirt Hughes, Fishery Planning, Modeling, Regulations, and ESA Response
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

2:00 PM 9. Executive Session
Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.
No action will be taken in executive session, and the public is not permitted to listen to the executive session.

3:00 PM Recess


SATURDAY, February 27, 2016

8:00 AM 10. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda.

8:30 AM 11. Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy Review – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will present an annual review to the Commission on the Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management Policy (C-3621) as set in the Adaptive Management objectives of the policy
Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager and Mike Scharf, Fish Biologist
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

9:30 AM 12. Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy Review – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will present an annual review to the Commission on the Willapa Bay Basin Salmon Management Policy (C-3622) as set in the Adaptive Management objectives of the policy.
Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager and Chad Herring, Fish Biologist
PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

10:30 AM 13. Miscellaneous and Meeting Debrief
The Commission will discuss items that arise immediately before or during the meeting and after the preliminary agenda is published.
11:30 PM Adjourn

Contact the Fish and Wildlife Commission Office for further information:
Phone (360) 902-2267
Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov

Persons with disabilities who need reasonable accommodations to participate in the public meeting are invited to contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.govl). Reasonable accommodation requests should be received at least three (3) business days prior to the meeting to ensure availability. Please provide two (2) weeks’ notice for requests for ASL/ESL interpretation services. For more information, see
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/17/16 05:44 PM

They need to ban charter boats from bringing salmon aboard to determine if they're clipped or not. Extremely high mortality there. Also, enforce the barbless rule on charters.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/16 07:00 AM



Just a reminder of a couple of meetings concerning Grays Harbor. We have the NOF schedule for setting the 2016 seasons and the upcoming review of the 2015 seasons. It is at the Monte NOF that Region 6 staff release the 2016 preseason forecast. So as always I urge all to participate as one has little room to bitch if they do not stay involved. As soon as I get the numbers and information ( power point ) I will get it out to you all.




2016 North of Falcon Meeting Schedule
Date: Purpose: Location:
Feb 24th. Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay Salmon Forecast mtg. Montesano City Hall

March 1st. State-wide Forecast meeting Olympia GA Auditorium

March 8th. Willapa Bay Advisory mtg. Raymond High School
March 9th. Grays Harbor Advisory mtg. WDFW Office Montesano

March 9-14 PFMC #1 Sacramento Ca. Double Tree Hilton
March 16-17 NOF #1 Lacey Committee Center

March 22nd. Willapa Bay Public mtg. TBD - Raymond Elks or High School
March 23rd. Grays Harbor Public mtg. Montesano City Hall

March 29-31 NOF #2 Lynnwood Embassy Suites
April 9-14 PFMC #2 Vancouver Wa. Hilton.



________________________________________


NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/
February 18, 2016
Contact: Commission Office (360) 902-2267
Commission to consider listing status of four species,
discuss Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor salmon fisheries
OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is scheduled to take action on the protective status of four wildlife species at a public meeting Feb. 26-27 in Olympia.
The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), will convene in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building at 1111 Washington St. SE in Olympia. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. both days.
An agenda for the meeting is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/.
During the meeting, the commission will consider WDFW’s recommendations to keep greater sage-grouse and western gray squirrels on the state’s threatened species list and snowy plovers and northern spotted owls on the state’s endangered species list.
The department’s listing recommendations are included in the recently updated periodic status reviews for each species. The report for greater sage-grouse can be found online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01757/, while the review for the western gray squirrel is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01758/. The reviews for the snowy plover and northern spotted owl are available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01751/ and http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01752/ respectively.
The commission also will receive briefings and take public comments on salmon management actions over the past year in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay as well as in-season management of Hood Canal chum salmon.
In other business, shellfish managers will provide a briefing on proposed season changes for clams and oysters on 20 Puget Sound public beaches. The commission will take public comments on those proposals before making a decision.
Additionally, WDFW staff will provide a briefing on 10 proposals to acquire land for fish and wildlife habitat and public recreation. The department will seek potential funding from state and federal grants for approved projects later this year.
Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW News Releases & Weekender mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/16 07:08 AM

What time is the NOF meeting on the 24th in Monte? Bob R
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/16 07:44 AM

Well good question so I e mailed them. I imagine it is 6 or 7 but as soon as I get a reply I will post it. If someone else knows post it up.

Got it off the website.

Willapa Bay & Grays Harbor Forecast Meeting

6 p.m. – 8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 N Main St., Montesano WA
WDFW presents Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor salmon abundance forecasts. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2016 are discussed.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/16 08:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy



WDFW presents Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor salmon abundance forecasts. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2016 are discussed.


Paper fish, anyone who expected to fish the upper Chehalis or many of the tributaries know what happened to WDFW fishing opportunities in October, November and December 2015. Hope that any seasons that are set, put the WDFW management plans, both GH and Willapa, on the VERY FRONT OF THE BURNER.....grrrrrrrr to WDFW and how the plan worked, again, in a negative manner for the main stem Chehalis, above S. Montesano and the tribs. IMO
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/16 11:40 AM


We have a location change for the NOF forecast kick off meeting.


February 23, 2016
Contact: John Long, (360) 902-2733

Public meeting on salmon forecasts moved to new location

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has changed the location of the March 1 salmon forecast meeting in Olympia.

The department has scheduled the meeting from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the auditorium of General Administration Building, 210 11th St. SW, in Olympia.

Parking is available in the visitor lot of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. SE, which is a short walk to the General Administration Building.

At the meeting, WDFW will present initial forecasts – compiled by state and tribal biologists – of 2016 salmon returns.

A schedule of meetings and more information about the salmon season-setting process for Puget Sound, the Columbia River and the Washington coast is available on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/16 10:44 AM


Here are the GH Numbers:


2016 GRAYS HARBOR PRE-SEASON FORECASTS SUMMARY


SPRING CHINOOK

FORECAST

2,700
GOAL 1,400
HARVESTABLE 1,300


FALL CHINOOK

CHEHALIS

HUMPTULIPS
NATURAL NATURAL
ORIGIN HATCHERY ORIGIN HATCHERY
FORECAST 19,500 4,410 8,300 3,020
GOAL 9,880 578 3,620 369
Achieve goal 3 of 5 years No Yes


COHO

Ocean Age 3 Estimates
CHEHALIS HUMPTULIPS
NATURAL NATURAL
ORIGIN HATCHERY ORIGIN HATCHERY
FORECAST 40,600 * 13,100 3,600 7,300
GOAL 28,506 2,850 6,894 2,120
Achieve goal 3 of 5 years Yes No

* Not agreed-to with Quinault Indian Nation
CHUM NATURAL
ORIGIN HATCHERY TOTAL
FORECAST 33,500 2,200 35,700
GOAL 21,000 500
Achieve goal 3 of 5 years Yes
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/16 10:46 AM


AND WILLAPA

2016 WILLAPA BAY PRE-SEASON FORECAST SUMMARY
updated 02.22.16

CHINOOK
NATURAL
ORIGIN HATCHERY TOTAL
TOTAL FORECAST 3,261 36,186 39,447
Willapa/ North River 1,426 17,291 18,717
Nemah/Palix 213 14,013 14,226
Naselle/Bear 1,622 4,882 6,504


COHO

Ocean Age 3 Estimates

NATURAL
ORIGIN HATCHERY TOTAL
FORECAST 39,516 28,093 67,609
Willapa/ North River 25,840 5,090 30,930
Nemah/Palix 5,091 0 5,091
Naselle/Bear 8,585 23,003 31,588


CHUM

NATURAL
ORIGIN HATCHERY TOTAL
FORECAST 46,604 951 47,555




2016 WB Pre-Season Forecast Summary 02.09.1
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/16 05:17 AM


I thought I would post up my input the Grays Harbor Policy review that submitted to the Commission.



Good morning Commissioners my name is Dave Hamilton and I would like to address two issues. First is since the adoption of the GHMP we have all struggled as it was implemented but staff has struggled more than the citizens of the Chehalis Basin. District 17 staff have never received the support necessary to fully do their job prior to the GHMP and even more so now. Just things, the tools needed to do ones job with some hope of success. In Willapa this was not the case as that support was provided internally but not Grays Harbor. I am asking that this be addressed immediately as issues such as in season monitoring which is a critical element of any management strategy will not be possible. The failure to provide the tools to District 17 staff or even recognize the need is a serious issue and frankly we failed staff. We ..... Commissioners from the Director to advocates such as myself on this issue we failed staff. The District 17 staff need to be provided the tools to do their jobs.

My second issue is what is known as the 3/5 penalty box which requires no targeted fishery on a stock that has failed to make escapement three out of five years. Since the implementation of the GHMP myself and others have struggled understand how the 3/5 provision works for conservation as it is applied. Last year a neighbor who is 82 years old asked why no Chinook retention and I explained it right down to reading the passages from the GHMP as he is legally blind. His response has stayed with me and goes to the heart of the issue. " Why are we being punished? We did nothing wrong! " He is correct Commissioners as the Rec fisher has had little to do with the failure to make escapement but are the ones who are being required to shoulder the burden of the 3/5 conservation standard.

To further complicate the issue is the simple fact that all the Quinault Indian Nation fishery ( QIN ) managers have to do is fish as they always have coupled with small runs or below escapement forecast in one or more species and over a period of years the GHMP 3/5 will dictate almost zero non treaty harvest. Add to mix all the QIN managers need to do is move a couple of days strategically to remove any opportunity for NT commercials. The Chehalis Chinook and Humptulips Coho are two prime examples as the GHMP 3/5 coupled with the 5% limiter due to a small runsize forecast and non treaty fisheries are almost nonexistent. With the 2016 Coho run being forecasted at a small run designation coupled with the GHMP 3/5 provision for Chehalis Chinook & Humptulips Coho it is hard to imagine any meaningful season for the Rec or the NT Commercial fisher.

In the coming weeks the 2016 seasons must be crafted. The question is how can this be done with the 3/5 provision without punishing those not responsible for the failure to make escapement in the past? Additionally information provided at the NOF preseason forecast meeting indicates that the QIN forecasting methodology had been changed resulting in vastly different numbers than WDF&W. This lends credence to the thought that the QIN representatives are manipulating their processes to create the most dire situation for the non treaty fishers and undermine the GHMP.

Whatever the outcome of the 2016 season setting process there is a pressing need to address the fact that the 3/5 provision regardless of the intent has in the end punished those who had almost zero to do with the issue of failure to make escapement, which is the inland fresh water Rec fisher, and did little to solve the issue. The fact is the non treaty fisher is being punished for the failure of the QIN managers to address equitable sharing of harvest. Add to the mix the fact the 3/5 clause actually provides an incentive to the QIN managers to not address the failure to make escapement as 3/5 actually provides benefit to the tribal managers for failures to make escapement by limiting non treaty harvest resulting in an even larger QIN harvest share at the states non treaty fisher's expense. This issue needs to be addressed immediately to insure that the non treaty fishers are not again punished for the past failures to make escapement as they had little to do with that failure.

Commissioners recognition is needed of the fact as written the GHMP 3/5 provision punishes with the greatest severity the non treaty Rec fisher who had the least to do with the failure to make escapement. A adjustment of some sort is required to insure that the Rec fisher does not continue to shoulder the entire conservation needs of the fish driven by the ongoing issues & disagreements between the state and tribal managers in Grays Harbor.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/16 08:35 AM

Good input Rivrguy. Thanks.

Sg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/16 08:52 AM

And another citizens view of the issue.


Dear Commissioners and Director Unsworth:

I attended the Saturday February 27, 2016 meeting reviewing the Grays Harbor and Willapa Management Plans. The citizen input for the Grays Harbor Plan created some confusion around natural origin Chinook escapement goals and the 3/5 “penalty box”. My purpose is to try to address the confusion and highlight the real issue.

The discussion centered on the Chehalis natural origin Chinook escapement goal in 2010 which was 12,364 and the 2014 change to 9,880. These goals determine whether or not we made escapement in three of the past five years (known as the “penalty box”). Being in the penalty box eliminates direct harvest of Chinook regardless of harvestable numbers. This is not the issue. We failed to meet escapement in 2012, 2013, and 2014 under either of these escapement goals.

The real issues are that the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) manages by different rules and by acting in their own best interest they can keep the non tribal fishers in the penalty box forever! This unanticipated result could lead to destruction of the Management Plan that we all worked so hard to develop.

The QIN and WDFW agree on a run size and the harvestable number of fish available each season. The QIN is limited to half the harvestable number of total Chinook entering Grays Harbor. The WDFW rules consider natural origin and hatchery origin fish and also divide them between the Humptulips and the Chehalis rivers when considering escapement. The penalty box presently concerns the status of the Chehalis natural origin Chinook escapement. This is not a limitation for the QIN. It will be in their best interest to over harvest the Chehalis stock driving it to under escapement while still meeting all their harvest obligations. In addition there are no penalties if the QIN totally fail to meet any harvest criteria.

If this situation develops we will always be in the no direct Chinook harvest penalty box through no fault of WDFW management. The commission needs to prevent this penalty box condition from taking effect if it is due to actions by the QIN. If we have no way to escape the penalty box, the plan is unlikely to survive.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/07/16 06:50 AM

Next up we have the Advisers meeting in the 8th for Willapa and 9th for GH at Montesano the 9th.

March 8th. Willapa Bay Advisory mtg. Raymond High School
March 9th. Grays Harbor Advisory mtg. WDFW Office Montesano
March 9-14 PFMC #1 Sacramento Ca. Double Tree Hilton
March 16-17 NOF #1 Lacey Committee Center
March 22nd. Willapa Bay Public mtg. TBD - Raymond Elks or High School
March 23rd. Grays Harbor Public mtg. Montesano City Hall

Attached is the Power Point presentation from the NOF meeting in Montesano. Lots of information to look at it but it is Chehalis Coho that should jump at you. The State is forecasting 40k and the QIN 30k. Big difference so I do not know what is the final going to be.

Also a paper by Bill Bakke is attached. For you science readers it is good read. ( E mail me if you want either of these two items )

Now my last item is not one I care for. Rather than try and answer the e mail questions here is what I know. At the NOF kick off meeting in Olympia a couple of guides and others got R-6 to agree to allow them to use the WDF&W offices for a Recreational user meeting for the 2016 seasons BUT only a select few were on the list. I went off the deep end and blew a gasket. Ain't no way no how R-6 should ever allow a sanctioned meeting out of the public eye and they did sanction it. If you recall I had to go to court and use the PDR process to get Advisers meetings open and the model unlocked.

This was followed by one involved coming back and saying he had thought it out and what they were doing was not right. Followed by e-mails from the guides to staff saying they still wanted to meet in Montesano. Then here comes a e mail from staff in Montesano on state letterhead announcing that there is a meeting for the people trying to do this but now stating staff will not be present. ( in the back rooms I guess as they have to have staff present to open the doors and oversee for security ) More e mails and these gillnetter comments drug me into the mud.

Gillnetter: W hy is the state even considering letting the recreational fisherman hold a meeting without staff being there. Don't they have a clubhouse for that. That is a waste of taxpayer money. The commercial fisherman already feel the state is siding with the recs now, I guess this proves it.

My Response: Whoa there. This thing has nothing to do with the Rec fisher. It is a couple of guides and some others and for heaven's sake nobody outside the selected few even know that this is happening. I objected but pretty much got swept aside so don't do this Rec's fault as they don't even know about it.

Oh it gets better later in the email thread from a gillnetter: This is good to know that the region six office is open to the public, maybe Tuesday we can sell girl scout cookies, Wednesday little league can sell donuts, Thursday cake of the month and Friday a bake sale for those out of work due to the policy!! Looks like not many know by the names on the list. Good to know what not many people are and that the region six office is open to the public with very little notice. Just curious what not many people is? Can we use the NRB building for the flavor of the month club next week?

Bottom line I will not be present for this attempt by some to manipulate the NOF process for their own interest at the expense of the inland Chehalis Basin fishers. I am not perfect by any means in fact I am a rather flawed person in my own view but I do have ethics and core values. The line in a movie went " my hypocrisy only goes so far " and this crap is off the deep end.

You know what amazes me ? Just how on earth did staff get sucked into this knowing the history of this basin? If you figure it out you let me know.


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/07/16 12:59 PM

Well depending on your views on the GH policie I do believe that a all out attack is underway. Draw your own conclusions.

Hi Everyone,

At the February 27th Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting, Department staff did not recommend any changes to the Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy. However, Commissioners asked the Department if there were any adaptive management measures that could be implemented this year to assist in setting the seasons. Department staff committed to reviewing some options and potentially bringing those options back to the Commission for further discussion. With North of Falcon upon us, some resolution is needed in short order.

Department staff will work with the Fish Committee on some initial ideas. If we feel there are some viable options for consideration, we would bring them forward for a discussion with the entire Commission. We are tentatively looking at the afternoon of March 22nd for a special Commission conference call to discuss this issue. We feel it is important for the public to have an opportunity to provide some feedback regarding any options that are discussed. Therefore we are planning on having listening stations in both Montesano and Olympia for you to listen to the discussion and then provide any testimony. We will do our best to get any options developed out to you in a timely manner, although there may only be a few days between Fish Committee and the special Commission call.

I'll try to keep everyone informed when a final date and time are selected.

Thank you.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/07/16 02:34 PM

This meeting tonight has a lot of folks wondering what the heck is going on so in chronological order. At the NOF kick off a GH Adviser thought a meeting suggested to him was a good idea. After getting home he changed his realizing it was inappropriate.

March 2
Subject: Meeting
Steve.. After severe consideration, I no longer wish to hold any meeting prior to Next Wednesday's meeting. I feel we will be out of step dealing with the policy. I therefore do not need the WDFW meeting room next Mon.
Joe & Duane, This decision comes, for me, with severe concerns. If some one wants to circulate their thoughts, feel free to do so at your expense.
Will see all at the Advisers meeting Wed, Mar. 9.
XXX

The same day this and look to the definition of number of people and who were invited to attend in red.
D,
I feel we need to meet and talk with whoever wants to talk because this is a big issue......and several other people are coming so Steve, D and I and several others will be there.....
Thanks J

The same day this.
Steve,
Based on the critical nature of this season and season setting process, Jxx and I as well as others will intend on meeting at 6pm on Monday. I feel it's very important to be united on the recreational side when you and staff and the advisors meet to ensure forward progress with less in-fighting. If we have agreement and goals that we are in agreement on, it should make your job and this process easier on all.
Thanks,
Which resulted in the following response from me.
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 1:08:41 PM
Subject: RE: Meeting
Steve Ron

XXX called and said you endorsed the Rec Advisers and some folks to get together to come together with a common approach to 2016 seasons. Lord guys I about had a stroke as I cannot do that. My reasons are below and I do have some ethics. I argued like everything to get the process open to the public and stop the perception of the advisers diving up the pie out of the public eye. It goes against everything I believe in.

B & J

Guys I cannot set down with some advisers and select people to put forth or agree to anything. If you recall XXX I fought like hell to get the adviser process open to get rid of the making deal bit. It goes against everything I stand for.

That said if someone sponsors a meeting with public notice for advisers to listen to input from the public to carry into the process I am good to go.

Dave


Dave

This was originally on the e mail became 30 plus names including the gillnetters followed by this from staff on March 4 and the five person group

I’m sending this notice to let you know that some folks from the Grays Harbor recreational fishing community want to get together Monday evening to talk about the upcoming 2016 salmon season. The Department has been asked if the Regional office can be used as the meeting place. This is NOT a Department meeting, but we will have the office available from 6 to 8pm Monday, March 7th. Department staff will not be available for questions. Again, the recreational fishing community want to get together to talk.

So you guys have to draw your own conclusions but until I yelled foul it was a limited by invite thing and only changed after I objected. So there it is make your own call as to what just happened.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/07/16 11:39 PM

Good meeting and very productive discussion tonight for 18 rec participants who sacrificed a long drive and/or 2 hours of their precious personal time to meet as private U.S. citizens exercising their 1st Amendment Rights to "peaceably assemble" as members of the recreational angling community.

We promptly changed venue to dash any ill-contrived perceptions and horribly misguided allegations of impropriety in assembling and conducting state business on WDFW property. For the record, we assembled with the intent of mutually sharing ideas about how to achieve the best possible season for recreational salmon fishing in Grays Harbor for 2016.... nothing more, nothing less. Get over it!

Cliff Notes version:
We met to casually talk about fishing seasons, and if any of you conspiracy theorists don't like it, you can kiss my red-necked podunk country Ornamental a$$ and FOOK OFF!



See ya Wednesday night!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/16 03:43 AM


Well glad to see it all worked out for you Francis.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/16 09:22 AM

I was also at the meeting......lots of good comments. Approach is the same as its been "forever". Started with 2C, then went to Humptulips, mentioned the Coho run that hasn't made escapement in 20+ years but NO SOLUTION as to how to deal with that problem, just how to get as much fishing time as possible.

Chehalis side, 2A and 2C, limited Coho.......not really sure many people know "what upper Chehalis is". Time to deal with the Chehalis above Porter/Centralia/Adna/Doty, so they can share in a fishery and do the #1 goal of the Commission, CONSERVATION 1st.

Creative methods will be called for......different approach....do I have an answer???? No, but I see the a problem.

Perhaps it was a over sight but didn't see many of the jet boat guides at the meeting last night.

NOF will be interesting in 2016......Coho in the crapper, again!!!!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/16 11:28 AM

I think we need a massive change in how we look at and manage our fisheries.

Conservation is #1. Not above goal, no fishing.

Fishing priority is given to the watershed that produced the fish. The landowners are the ones who pay to protect the habitat. If they have enough fish, or if there are more fish than they can catch, the fisheries move out.

Now, if somebody further outside wants to fish they can negotiate with the terminal area. Perhaps pay for the hatchery production. Perhaps pay for the additional electricity that allows a dam or dams to be removed.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/16 12:02 PM

Conservation parameters and constraints are specified in the GHMP.

In case anyone forgot, this is now NOF time, the process by which fish beyond those conservation parameters WILL die. Recs are going to stump for the maximum season possible within those constraints.

Unlike last year, we're going into this knowing full and well that coho are in bad shape. I sense a willingness from all sides to move sufficient fish inland for the upriver guys to have a better shot than last year, but ALL must acknowledge the reality that overall opportunity will likely be reduced in some fashion for everyone.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/16 02:59 PM


While we have been occupied so to speak the Advocay guys have stayed right with the Willapa issues.


JUDGE REJECTS GILLNETTERS ATTEMPT TO BLOCK INTERVENTION BY THE ADVOCACY AND CCA

On March 4, 2016, Judge Anne Hirsch heard the motion from the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy and the CCA to jointly intervene in the legal challenge to the 2015 commercial season in Willapa Bay filed by the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association. In its response to the joint motion, the WBGA asked the court to reject the intervention claiming we would slow down the process and prejudice their case. If the court did allow the intervention, the WBGA then asked that the two be required to use a single attorney and help the WBGA pay the costs of producing the extensive record of the public proceedings that resulted in the passage of the WB Salmon Policy in 2014 by the DFW Commission and the subsequent gillnet season that followed in 2015.

Advocacy counsel Joe Frawley drafted the reply for the two groups and argued before the court. He pointed out to the court that his clients had already conducted an extensive review of the record and were waiting on the gillnetters attorney to do the same so any delay would be on their side not ours. Then, he pointed out the inappropriateness of one side trying to chose or limit the counsel representing another. He then qouted the Administrative Procedures Act being litigated to show the statute did not allow for one side to require the other to pay their costs of producing the record as a condition of participation.

State Assistant Attorney General Michael Grossman appeared on behalf of the Department of Fish & Wildlife. He confirmed the state's position was the Department was not opposing the motion to intervene.

Judge Hirsch listened and then ruled from the bench. The WBGA's opposition to the joint intervention was rejected and the motion to jointly intervene was granted. The attempts by the WBGA to limit the counsel to only one representing the two groups and to transfer costs of producing the record from the WBGA onto the intervenors were likewise rejected. From our prospective, it was pretty much a "clean sweep”.

The next step will be reaching agreement on how to reduce the size of the record down to a volume that the court can absorb. Currently, it takes a person familiar with all the proceedings about 48 hours to review the electronic files. Then, approximately 30 hours of audio tapes of public meetings will have to be reviewed to determine which one's need to be converted into written text by a court reporter. While this significant task is being completed, a schedule for the hearing before the Thurston County Court will be set.
Posted by: Black Bart

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/16 03:16 PM

Mr. Hamilton ... I have yet to post in this thread but I can not stand it any longer !

Thank you Sir, so very much for what you are doing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/16 05:42 AM



Bunch of stuff to get to you so first the new Willapa models are out so if you want them just let me know. Beware you cannot print them out on a standard printer and they give a MAC fits.

Below is a announcement from Region 6 as to upcoming Commission actions as to Grays Harbor.


From Steve Thiesfeld:

At the February 27th Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting, Department staff did not recommend any changes to the Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy. However, Commissioners asked the Department if there were any adaptive management measures that could be implemented this year to assist in setting the seasons. Department staff committed to reviewing some options and potentially bringing those options back to the Commission for further discussion. With North of Falcon upon us, some resolution is needed in short order.

Department staff will work with the Fish Committee on some initial ideas. If we feel there are some viable options for consideration, we would bring them forward for a discussion with the entire Commission. We are tentatively looking at the afternoon of March 22nd for a special Commission conference call to discuss this issue. We feel it is important for the public to have an opportunity to provide some feedback regarding any options that are discussed. Therefore we are planning on having listening stations in both Montesano and Olympia for you to listen to the discussion and then provide any testimony. We will do our best to get any options developed out to you in a timely manner, although there may only be a few days between Fish Committee and the special Commission call.

I'll try to keep everyone informed when a final date and time are selected.


Next how did the Willapa Adviser meeting go? Well OK I think. Steve was sick but Chad and Barbara did the run out and Ron Warren sat in to support them. With the change in the makeup of the Advisers staff was very careful to walk all through each issue from the model to the preseason harvest. They offered up opportunities to input seasons, explained things well, even justifying why such a huge preseason Coho forecast. The answer by the way was it mathed out and last year Willapa performed much better than other watersheds around the state and looked to do the same again. So from my perspective if I was to look at it from the point of view as a staffer it would be a solid B+ for staff with a A for the Advisers themselves.

From my view A for advisers but a C for staff. Why? Two items jump at me from my notes. First when a Adviser asked if Willapa Policy was on the Commission agenda coming up shortly as Grays Harbor. The answer was not direct as it was not no but about stream designation. Now this is a big deal. Change Naselle to stabilizing ( low straying & escapement requirements allowing more commercial harvest ) which many are trying to do and you totally alter the south Bay fisheries. So by not fully vetting the issue and why this was being done was not a good thing.

The second was when pressured on why the proposal to open certain reaches on the Naselle and Nemah closed to inriver Rec ( one Adviser has been pressuring them for several years ) that have huge numbers of hatchery fish. Staff fell back to the standard will look at it thing, property owners not likely to care for it, just the usual thing. Standard answer but does little to fully vet or respond to the question and is how staff dodges things such as this.

In the public session I spoke to that. I urged the Advisers and public when making season or fishery proposals to not just ask but to require staff to respond in writing with reason and rational for their response if negative or positive. This is important as to develop a Rec or commercial idea one must propose something and if rejected use the rejection ( that is why a documented response is needed ) to look at ones proposal adjust / modify / just work it toward a acceptable proposal. It is necessary as it is difficult to do anything in two Adviser meetings. ( that is all they will have ) This is a real issue and that is why issues and proposals just set year after year as the agency is a master at rope a dope and utilizes it to avoid addressing and formally responding to proposals. Get it in writing the only way to deal with staff responses.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/16 08:14 AM


And another view.

Chehalis system could 96 percent fewer wild silver salmon in 2016
By Jordan Nailon
The Chronicle

The forecast for 2016 salmon returns are in, and the outlook is not promising for coho. Low returns are predicted almost across the board, and that could mean the cancellation or extreme abbreviation of popular fisheries on a number of local waterways, including Grays Harbor, Chehalis River, Columbia River, Willapa Harbor and Puget Sound.

The forecasts, which were formulated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and treaty tribes, project especially dire silver returns for the Chehalis River system. The anticipated return of wild coho on the Chehalis in 2016 is listed at just 4,951 fish, down sharply from the 142,554 wild returners in 2015. The hatchery return is also expected to be down by about half this year, with only 22,890 clipped fin coho anticipated.

According to John Long, salmon fisheries policy lead for WDFW, the dual hardship of poor hatchery and wild coho returns could combine to put the screws to the popular silver salmon fisheries in the region.
“Unfavorable ocean conditions led to fewer coho salmon returning last year than we anticipated,” said Long, in a press release. “We expect to see another down year for coho in 2016 and will likely have to restrict fishing for salmon in a variety of locations to protect wild coho stocks.”
Elsewhere, the coho return to the Columbia River is projected to be only about half of last year’s forecasted return of 380,000 fish. Salmon forecasting can be a slippery task though, and only 242,000 coho actually wound up returning to the Columbia last year. Some stocks of Columbia River coho receive protections under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Again, in Puget Sound, the forecast of about 256,000 returning coho in 2016 is only about one-third of the forecast from 2015. The chinook run is also expected to be down from 2015, with only about 165,000 fish expected to make their comeback.

Guides Concerned
Bill “Swanny” Swann is a veteran angling guide familiar with many of the well-fed drainages of Southwest Washington. Swann is especially cozy with the confines of the Chehalis River system, but the dismal forecast released this month by the WDFW has him feeling altogether uneasy. “The poor returns means little or no fishing, and for the professional guides who bring in clients to the communities and spend money on licenses, food, gas, lodging, et cetera, it is going to affect everyone,” explained Swann as he looked into his bait-scented crystal ball in order to predict shortened or cancelled coho seasons on the Chehalis and other local waterways.

From Swann’s perspective, the disappearing coho are no mystery, although he doesn’t believe the WDFW have been completely forthcoming either. “Ocean conditions are a coverup of the real problem between commercial nets and commercial sport boats,” said Swann “Last year alone there were 80,000 coho taken in the ocean before they ever got to the rivers they were headed to.”
According to Swann, the blame can be passed around like a Thermos on a fishing boat, but a lack of oversight on commercial netting is the primary culprit.

“The lack of WDFW managing the treaty side is appalling,” said Swann. “They do not manage them. They only co-manage, (and) co-management means no management, which means mismanagement,”
Swann’s assertion references the 50/50 split co-management system between treaty tribes and the WDFW. With no majority stake in the decision-making process, each group is free to offer suggestions to the other and negotiate in good faith, but ultimately the regulations are not subject to any sort of binding agreement. Swann added, “But we can not blame the tribes, we have to blame WDFW for letting them do it.”

Talking specifics and pointing the focus back at sport fisheries, as well as a finger at the WDFW, Swann noted, “Several years ago WDFW made the limit for coho in the Chehalis three wild or hatchery (fish),” explained Swann, who prefers a lower limit “We the sportsman protested and they did it anyway! … This happened two years in a row and now look what we have.”

Still, if you ask Swann, proprietor of Swanny’s Guided Fishing, all hope is not yet lost. “Habitat is the key to success for strong returns of all fish,” noted Swann. “The Chehalis system has some of the strongest habitat in the world for baby fry to live and feed with major protection before heading to sea.” In order to rebound returning salmon stocks on the Chehalis River, Swann suggests that the WDFW, “go back to the 1-1 system,” when anglers were permitted just one hatchery and one wild fish per day.
“This system worked well for years,” said Swann, who pointed out that “there are more wild coho in the Chehalis than hatchery.”
In any case, without some meaningful change, Swann sees a cut and dried ending for coho stocks, postulating that, “If we are taking more fish from the system than what is coming back, that is not a sustainable fishery.”

Public Input
Fish officials are asking for public input as they work to write up the sport salmon fishing seasons for this year. A series of public meetings have been scheduled through early April in order to accumulate citizen input in light of the recent return forecasts before any final decisions are made. “We’re going to have to be creative in order to provide fisheries in some areas this year,” Long said in the press release. “We would appreciate input from the public to help us establish priorities.”
Information about the public meetings, specifics on salmon forecasts, and an online commenting tool can be found on the WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/. The Pacific Fishery Management Council is expected to make a final decision on ocean fisheries and harvest levels during its April 8-14 meetings in Vancouver. WDFW and tribal co-managers will likely set freshwater and harbor seasons at that time as well.

Numerous attempts to contact the WDFW for comment on this story were unsuccessful.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/16 08:29 AM

Swanny, another "pro" when it comes to salmon management. Knows a lot about the laws applicable to salmon management too. NOT.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/16 08:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Swanny, another "pro" when it comes to salmon management. Knows a lot about the laws applicable to salmon management too. NOT.


Yeah, that's one guy I don't see at any meetings concerning conservation or how to help guide the state in policies, it seems all he cares about is lost revenue, certainly NOT conservation of resources. And I don't think he ever got back on the Paultzes pro staff. Sure embarrassed the hell out of them! Bob R
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/16 12:10 PM

Minutes from the NOF Grays Harbor Adviser meeting. Mike did them and frankly much better than I do.


2016 Grays Harbor North of Falcon Advisory Group Meeting March 9, 2016 6- 8 p.m.
Region 6 Office, Montesano, WA
Staff: Mike Scharpf, Barbara McClellan, Chad Herring

Spring Chinook fishery
• Season May 1 through July 31
• Season April 16 through July 31

Skookumchuck spring chinook harassment when opening Oct 1 instead of Oct 15
• Very little coho available that early in the season for fishers
• Present something for the reason behind the issue

Wishkah River
• Low release due to fish die
• Consider closing

Commercial sector’s opinion of the model shown is that the days in Humptulips 2C is a waste of time in the first week of November.

Commercial Fishery
1. Option 1: Fish 3rd week of October in 2C (24 hour days), Release UM Coho
• Week 43 - 2 days
• Week 44 - 1 day
• Week 45 - 1 day
• Output
o 5.4% UM CHK impacts
o 4.9% Coho impacts

2. Option 2: 12 hour days
• Week 43 – 2 days
• Week 44 – 2 days
• Output
o 5.4 % CHK impacts
o 4.87% coho impacts

There should be consideration to re-opening the outer part of the Marine Area 2.2 for the recreational fishery if / when the natural coho runsize becomes larger than the escapement.

Wishkah
• Possibly close earlier than normal, Nov 30 instead of Jan. 31

If there is harvestable available then model:
• 1 unmarked coho retention or
• 1 fish bag limit and done fishing (hatchery chinook, hatchery coho, unmarked coho, chum) in Marine Area 2.2 and freshwater (where hatchery fish are available)
• Would keep people from sorting through unmarked fish to get to their hatchery fish.

Wynoochee
• One fish per day since no hatchery fish planted

Retain the first fish landed no matter which species or mark status and stop fishing Close South Channel in Marine Area
Take all surplused carcasses not used by RFEG and use as nutrient enhancement
If we have an emergency closure in freshwater do not reopen especially in upper sections Public Comment:
If tribes give up fishing for coho then WDFW should too

Request the presentation that DFW will give or gave to the Fish Committee to look at before the conference call on March 22

Shorter recreational season Oct – Nov with 2 fish limit then Dec for steelhead
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/16 06:54 AM


A friend sent this to me so I thought I would put it up for those following the flood thing in the Basin.


Bill Creates Chehalis Basin Office
PROVIDING OVERSIGHT: Governor and Flood Authority to Choose Board Members, Two Tribes to Be Represented

By Kaylee Osowski / kosowski@chronline.com |0 comments
The Legislature has approved a bill to create an office focused on reducing flood risks and restoring aquatic species in the Chehalis River Basin. Rep. Richard DeBolt, R-Chehalis, proposed the bill, and the House agreed to Senate amendments on Tuesday. It was delivered to the governor on Thursday. DeBolt told The Chronicle that while the bill creating the Office of the Chehalis Basin may not seem like a big deal, it is to him.

The office will be under the state Department of Ecology, which Chehalis River Basin Flood Authority member Ron Averill thinks is a good thing. “I do think it’s good to tie the projects to an agency within government to give it some structure,” Averill said. J. Vander Stoep, a member of the Work Group, said it’s not clear how the bill will affect the group, but he thinks that over time the role of the group will be folded into the board.

He thinks that putting a state office in charge is a positive step and creates a responsibility to get work done with flood damage reduction and restoring species.
The bill also creates a treasury account, and the office will be modeled after the Office of Columbia River created in 2006. Lewis County Commissioner and Flood Authority member Edna Fund said she is excited about the bill, especially after talking to those involved with the Columbia River office. She said the language in the bill is very specific, stating that the purpose of the office is to “aggressively pursue” a strategy to reduce flood damage and restore species.

Senate amendments adopted last week include that the office must be funded from appropriations for basin-related flood hazard reduction and habitat recovery activities. The Senate also amended the bill to create the Chehalis Board to be made up of seven voting members. Four must be appointed by the governor and must include one member of the Chehalis Indian Tribe and one from the Quinault Indian Nation. The other three members must be chosen by the Flood Authority.
Averill said the original bill didn’t provide the Flood Authority much of a role, but the three appointments give the group more say and oversight.

Five state officials will serve as nonvoting members, including the director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the executive director of the Conservation Commissioner, the secretary of the Department of Transportation, the director of Ecology and the commissioner of Public Lands. The board will oversee the strategy that results from the programmatic environmental impact statement for the basin and will develop budget recommendations for the governor.

Currently, the Flood Authority works on smaller flood projects and the Work Group handles larger projects. Funding for projects currently goes through the capital budget and is administered by the state Recreation Conservation Office.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/16 09:19 AM

Commercials having to release UM coho is a joke. that is 100% mortality and a waste of fish, even if they don't violently shake them out of the net like they commonly do.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/16 09:25 AM

But ON PAPER the fish were released or were never caught at all because the fish ticket shows a zero for coho. In that way, the computer-based manager can sleep easy.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/14/16 11:38 AM


Here is the latest.

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
March 14, 2016
WDFW contact: Kyle Adicks, (360) 902-2664
NWIFC contact: Tony Meyer, (360) 528-4325, cell (360) 951-9341
Fishery managers consider closing ocean salmon
seasons due to projected poor coho returns
OLYMPIA – Poor forecasts for returning coho salmon are prompting state and tribal fishery managers to consider closing all salmon fisheries in Washington’s ocean waters this year as part of a federal season-setting process for the west coast.
State, tribal and federal fishery managers have developed three options for non-treaty ocean salmon fisheries that reflect the anticipated low coho returns. Two options would permit some salmon fishing this year, but one would close recreational and commercial ocean fisheries for chinook and coho salmon.
Those alternatives were approved Sunday for public review by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), which establishes fishing seasons in ocean waters three to 200 miles off the Pacific coast. A public hearing on the three alternatives for ocean salmon fisheries is scheduled for March 28 in Westport.
Jim Unsworth, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), said he hopes fishery managers can provide some ocean salmon fishing opportunities this year, but must place a higher priority on protecting the diminished number of wild coho expected to return this year.
“Fishery managers face many difficult decisions in the weeks ahead as we move toward solidifying salmon-fishing seasons for the state,” Unsworth said. “We know that severely limiting opportunities will hurt many families and communities that depend on these fisheries. But conserving wild salmon is our top priority and is in the best interest of future generations of Washingtonians.”
Lorraine Loomis, chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, said tribal and state co-managers must have a full range of options – including no fishing at all – in working to shape possible fisheries over the next month.
“We hope it doesn’t come to that. Our cultures, treaty rights and economies depend on salmon. But the resource must come first,” she said. “We face an extraordinary conservation challenge this year. In many instances returns will likely be far below minimum levels needed to produce the next generation of salmon. Conservation must be our sole focus as we work to rebuild these stocks.”
Chinook and coho quotas approved by the PFMC will be part of a comprehensive 2016 salmon fishing package, which includes marine and freshwater fisheries throughout Puget Sound, the Columbia River and Washington's coastal areas. State and tribal co-managers are currently developing those fisheries, which will be finalized at the PFMC’s April meeting in Vancouver, Wash.
The non-treaty recreational fishing alternatives include the following quotas for fisheries off the Washington coast:
• Alternative 1: 58,600 chinook and 37,800 coho. This option includes early season fisheries, from June 18-30, for hatchery chinook in Washington’s ocean waters (marine areas 1-4). This option also allows hatchery coho retention in all four marine areas during the traditional summer fishery.
• Alternative 2: 30,000 chinook and 14,700 coho. This option does not include early season fisheries for hatchery chinook, but provides summer chinook fisheries in all four marine areas. Hatchery coho fishing would be allowed only in Marine Area 1 (Ilwaco).
• Alternative 3: No commercial or recreational salmon fisheries in Washington’s ocean waters.
For more details about the options, visit the PFMC webpage at http://www.pcouncil.org/. Last year, the PFMC adopted recreational ocean fishing quotas of 64,000 chinook and 150,800 coho salmon.
This year, forecasters expect 380,000 Columbia River hatchery coho to return to the Washington coast, which is about half of last year’s forecast. Only 242,000 coho actually returned last year to the Columbia River, where some coho stocks are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Poor ocean conditions, such as the Pacific Ocean “blob” and warmer water temperatures, contributed to last year’s lower than expected return of coho.
Meanwhile, a robust return of Columbia River fall chinook salmon is expected back this year, including about 223,000 lower river hatchery fish, which traditionally have been the backbone of the recreational ocean chinook fishery.
In addition to the March 28 public hearing, several other meetings will take place later this month and in early April to discuss regional fisheries issues. The public can comment on the proposed ocean alternatives as well as on other proposed salmon fisheries through WDFW's North of Falcon webpage at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/
A schedule of public meetings, as well as salmon run-size forecasts and more information about the salmon-season setting process can also be found on the webpage.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/16 11:54 AM

I think this article in the Tribune was a relevant read for folks.


Ocean salmon fishing shutdown an option for 2016 season
Two other options would allow some fishing
Low coho return to Columbia River drives decisions
Final decision to be made by federal panel in April

Recreational and commercial salmon fishing off the coast of Washington could be shut down this summer because of a low number of returning coho salmon. The closure is one of three options being considered by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which sets fishing seasons in ocean waters 3 to 200 miles off the Pacific coast. The two other options, released early Monday would permit some salmon fishing this year.

Fishery biologists expect 380,000 Columbia River hatchery coho to return to the Washington coast this year, only about half of last year’s forecast. There were 242,000 coho that returned last year to the Columbia River, where some coho stocks are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Biologists are citing a lack of forage fish and warmer water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean “blob” and from El Nino as key factors in last year’s lower than expected return of coho.

As for chinook, the forecast calls for a robust return of Columbia River fall chinook salmon this year. That includes about 223,000 lower river hatchery fish, which traditionally have been the backbone of the recreational ocean chinook fishery, according to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The last time the ocean salmon fishing season was closed was 1994. In 2008, fishing was severely curtailed.

“It’s not what we want to see, since all the coastal fishing communities are dependent on tourism and our commercial fishers going out and catching salmon. That’s our Microsoft and Boeing out here on the coast,” said Butch Smith, owner of CoHo Charters and Motel in Ilwaco. He also serves on a state advisory panel and was at the meeting in Sacramento where the ocean options were discussed.
Smith and Tony Floor, director of fishing affairs for the Northwest Marine Trade Association, believe there are enough salmon to craft some sort of fishing season for 2016.\
“From the recreational industry fishing perspective, we are in the circle of protecting the needs of wild coho,” Floor said. “Our hopes are in fishing for hatchery coho. There is no reason for us not to be pursuing hatchery coho.”
“There were far fewer coho and chinook in 1994, so I don’t think we are in a 1994 situation,” Smith said. “But we haven’t had an option like this for a very long time.”

Jim Unsworth, director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, said in a news release the priority is protecting the diminished number of wild coho expected to return this year. “We know that severely limiting opportunities will hurt many families and communities that depend on these fisheries,” he said in the release. “But conserving wild salmon is our top priority and is in the best interest of future generations of Washingtonians.”

Lorraine Loomis, chairwoman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, said tribal and state co-managers must consider no fishing as they work during the next month to create fishing seasons. “We hope it doesn’t come to that. Our cultures, treaty rights and economies depend on salmon. But the resource must come first,” she said in the news release. “We face an extraordinary conservation challenge this year. In many instances, returns will likely be far below minimum levels needed to produce the next generation of salmon. Conservation must be our sole focus as we work to rebuild these stocks.”

The process of setting salmon fishing seasons will conclude April 8-14 in Vancouver, Washington. At those meetings, the state and tribal co-managers will finalize fishing seasons for Puget Sound and the Columbia River, while the Pacific Fishery Management Council will choose among the three options for the ocean fishery.
Chuck Custer was running his charter boat Freedom out of Westport when fishing was closed in 1994. “Its a huge impact. That’s our bread and butter,” he said. “We just did what we could. Went bottom fishing, tuna fishing, anything we could to keep going.”

Custer said a closure would impact about 40 charter boats operating out of Westport. “When the salmon season is going, the town is going full tilt. (A closure) affects everybody, not just the charter boats. The restaurants and hotels need the fishermen. We’re all in it together.”

Jeffrey P. Mayor: 253-597-8640

RECREATIONAL OCEAN FISHING OPTIONS
Alternative 1: 58,600 chinook and 37,800 coho. This option includes early season fisheries, from June 18-30, for hatchery chinook in waters from Ilwaco to Neah Bay. It also allows hatchery coho retention in all four marine areas during the traditional summer fishery.

Alternative 2: 30,000 chinook and 14,700 coho. There would be no early season fishing for hatchery chinook, but allows summer chinook fishering in all four marine areas. Hatchery coho fishing would be allowed only in Marine Area 1 (Ilwaco).

Alternative 3: No commercial or recreational salmon fisheries in Washington’s ocean waters.

Last year’s quotas: 64,000 chinook and 150,800 coho salmon.
Learn more: For more details about the options, go to pcouncil.org.
Get involved: The public can comment on the proposed ocean alternatives as well as on other proposed salmon fisheries at wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/16 05:09 AM

This a letter forwarded to me that is interesting in two ways. First the lady owns property on the Nemah. Second is she darn near had to claw her way on to the Willapa Advisers and has been fighting for the Recs. Her efforts to fully open up the Nemah & Naselle for all to fish is one of the best stands on Rec opportunity I have bumped into.



Hi Steve,

Sorry to hear you were under the weather for the last meeting.

The out look for the commercial fishing opportunity in the Willapa appears very grim. I'm not sure how you can justify much of a season " if any" with the conservative options put forth by the PFMC and current Willapa restraints in place.

No one could have anticipated the Coho population would drop off the face of the earth, placing the mainstay of commercial fishery in peril. I try to be compassionate about their declining fishery. However, when one door closes another often opens. Their misfortune should be recreational's opportunity.

For too many years the fresh water fishing opportunities were slowly bled dry as the nets choked off the supply. It warms my heart to see " even if by default" a reverse in this trend.

I've been reviewing the 2014 freshwater CRC data for the Naselle, The Willapa and the N. Nemah. It's interesting to note that although the Naselle is only releasing 800,000 Chinook in comparrison to the 3.3 million releases both the N. Nemah and the Willapa are fishing on . The Naselle's Hatchery surplus is disproportionately higher. This must largely be a result of the closed areas on the river during the Chinook run.

Hatchery Chinook Release CRC 2014 Hatchery Surplus

Nemah 3.3 mil 2,751 72

Willapa 3.3 950 1,476

Naselle 800,000 535 3,494


While the Naselle hatchery surplus is much higher than it should be. It's important to note: SXXX GXXX had petitioned the WDFW and the commission to keep much of the Naselle river closed for Chinook opportunity- thus limiting recreational participation and increasing the hatchery surplus. It is entirely possible that faced with a possible decline in hatchery Chinook production to reduce surplus and disease there, opening the closed area's of the river to freshwater opportunity may now be more appealing! I propose:
1. Temporary openings in the closed areas of the Naselle and the Willapa to reduce hatchery surplus and additional recreation fishing opportunities.
2. A recreational dip net fishery similar to Alaskan rivers- on appropriate selected days
3. Create a handicapped fishing weekend, below the hatcheries
These options may be more acceptable to the local landowners than simply throwing the season wide open. We need creative recreational options to manage hatchery harvest and reduce pre-spawning mortality. These recreational opportunities may not last long and should not be wasted.

Furthermore, their should be no retention of wild Coho in the Nemah until after November 1st because the entire early Sept/Oct run is simply gone. Let's replace the missing portion of Nemah's Coho run with some early run hatchery Coho stock from the Naselle, let them naturalize and call it good.

Review of the Coho CRC data for 2014 shows a whopping 14 Coho were caught in the N. Nemah in September.

Hatchery Coho 2014 CRC Freshwater Data 2014 hatchery Coho surplus

N. Nemah 14 0
Naselle 6,471 6,284
Willapa 3,104 2,454

Clearly the Naselle Coho recreational fishery is very robust. But with so many surplus hatchery Coho and the issue over pHos continuing to be a problem- additional creative recreational opportunities should be considered
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/16 03:00 PM

Well here is the decision time information. As to testimony I have about zero ideas as we do not even know what is up for discussion let alone the Commissions final actions.


SPECIAL MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT MEETING via CONFERENCE CALL
Agenda WHEN: Thursday, March 24, 2016 – 9:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M. WHAT:
A. Grays Harbor Salmon Management – Discussion and Public Hearing
Staff will brief the Commission on some possible ways to implement adaptive management in considering 2016 fisheries.

B. General Discussion
Commissioners and the Director may discuss recent activities and items of interest.

WHERE TO ATTEND:
The public will have the opportunity to provide testimony by going to the Department of Fish and Wildlife headquarters, Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia room 172 or the Montesano office located at 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano. Comments can also be submitted via email to Commission@dfw.wa.gov


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/16 11:14 AM


Here is Region 6 staff report to the Commission for the Grays Harbor conference call. Read and think.


Summary
Meeting dates: March 24, 2016
Agenda item: Grays Harbor Salmon Management

Presenter(s):
Ron Warren, Assistant Director, Fish Program Jim Scott, Special Assistant, Director’s Office Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager
Background summary:
1) The purpose of the Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management policy is to advance the conservation and restoration of wild salmon. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state, and provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences and a fair distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Grays Harbor Basin.
2) The policy includes a risk control provision that presumptively limits the impacts of WDFW-managed fisheries to 5% if a spawner goal has not been achieved for 3 of the last 5 years.
3) The forecasted return of 19,503 Chinook salmon to the Chehalis River in 2016 is more than twice the spawner goal. Despite this large predicted return, the risk control provision, if applied without any flexibility, would limit fishery impacts for WDFW– managed fisheries to 5%.
4) The Department evaluated potential adaptive management actions that would relax the 5% risk control provision but still result in a high likelihood of achieving the spawner goal.
5) Preliminary analysis indicates that an 85% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 8% nontreaty harvest rate, and a 77% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 12% nontreaty harvest rate.
6) A key assumption of the analysis is that the Quinault tribal fishery will be managed to achieve 50% of the harvestable number of Chinook salmon as determined by the preseason forecast of abundance.

Additional information is provided in the attached briefing paper.
Policy issue(s) you are bringing to the Commission for consideration:
During the North of Falcon preseason planning process, the Department proposes to explore adaptively managing the state-managed Grays Harbor fishery to provide a high likelihood of achieving the Chehalis Chinook salmon spawner goal and providing a limited recreational Chinook fishery with a target harvest rate of 8%-10%.
Public involvement process used and what you learned:

N/A
Action requested:
Public input and Fish and Wildlife Commission discussion of proposed adaptive management actions.
Draft motion language:
N/A
Justification for Commission action:
N/A
Communications Plan:
Adaptive management proposal will be discussed with stakeholders during the North of Falcon preseason fishery planning process.
Form revised 12/5/12

Adaptive Management of Grays Harbor Basin Chinook Salmon
Draft March 22, 2016

Synopsis
1) The purpose of the Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management policy is to advance the conservation and restoration of wild salmon. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state, and provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences and a fair distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Grays Harbor Basin.
2) The policy includes a risk control provision that presumptively limits the impacts of WDFW-managed fisheries to 5% if a spawner goal has not been achieved for 3 of the last 5 years.
3) The forecasted return of 19,503 Chinook salmon to the Chehalis River in 2016 is more than twice the spawner goal. Despite this large predicted return, the risk control provision, if applied without any flexibility, would limit fishery impacts for WDFW–managed fisheries to 5%.
4) The Department evaluated potential adaptive management actions that would relax the 5% risk control provision but still result in a high likelihood of achieving the spawner goal.
5) Preliminary analysis indicates that an 85% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 8% nontreaty harvest rate, and a 77% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 12% nontreaty harvest rate.
6) A key assumption of the analysis is that the Quinault tribal fishery will be managed to achieve 50% of the harvestable number of Chinook salmon as determined by the preseason forecast of abundance.
7) During the North of Falcon preseason planning process, the Department proposes to explore adaptively managing the state-managed Grays Harbor fishery to provide a high likelihood of achieving the Chehalis Chinook salmon spawner goal and providing a limited recreational Chinook fishery with a target harvest rate of 8%-10%.

Summary of Grays Harbor Policy
The purpose of the Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management policy is to advance the conservation and restoration of wild salmon. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state, and provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences and a fair distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Grays Harbor Basin.
To promote the achievement of these objectives, the policy provides a general policy statement, guiding principles, and fishery and species-specific guidance. The policy also recognizes that adaptive management “will be essential to achieve the purpose of this policy”. The policy states that “Department staff may implement actions to manage adaptively to achieve the objectives of this policy and will coordinate with the Commission, as need, in order to implement corrective action”.

Priority of Achieving Spawner Goals
During the development of the policy, Commissioners and stakeholders frequently stated the importance of achieving the spawner goal for Chehalis River Chinook salmon. The policy includes a number of provisions intended to promote this outcome, including improved fishery management and technical tools, enhanced monitoring and enforcement, and an increased emphasis on in-season management. In addition, to increase the

certainty of meeting spawner goals, the Policy also includes a provision to limit the impacts of WDFW-managed fisheries to 5% if the spawner goal has not been achieved for 3 of the last 5 years.
This risk control provision is a strong, but relatively blunt tool, for increasing the certainty of achieving spawner goals. The spawner goal for Chehalis Chinook salmon has been achieved in 1 of the 2 years since passage of the policy, and in 1 of the last 5 years.

2016 Adaptive Management
The forecasted return of 19,503 Chinook salmon to the Chehalis River in 2016 is more than twice the spawner goal. Despite this large predicted return, fishery impacts for WDFW–managed fisheries would presumptively be limited to 5% by the risk control provision absent adaptive management action.
The Department evaluated potential adaptive management actions that would relax the 5% risk control provision but still result in a high likelihood of achieving the spawner goal. An important source of management imprecision is the preseason forecast of Chinook salmon to Grays Harbor. Since 1990, the actual run has ranged from 62% to 212% of the preseason forecast. The distribution of these forecast errors was used to evaluate the likelihood of meeting the Chehalis Chinook spawner goal under various management options.
Preliminary analysis indicated that the 5% risk control provision can be loosened slightly and still provide a high likelihood that the spawner goal would be achieved for Chehalis Chinook salmon. The analysis indicates that an 85% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 8% nontreaty harvest rate, and a 77% probability could be maintained with a 12% nontreaty harvest rate.
Key assumptions of the analysis are:
1) The Quinault tribal fishery will be managed to achieve 50% of the harvestable number of Chinook salmon as determined by the preseason forecast of abundance.
2) The harvest rate in the nontreaty fishery will not exceed the specified level.
3) The performance of preseason forecasts is consistent with the pattern observed from 1990 through 2015.

During the North of Falcon preseason planning process, the Department proposes to explore adaptively managing the state-managed Grays Harbor fishery to provide a high likelihood of achieving the spawner goal and providing a limited recreational Chinook fishery with a target harvest rate of 8%-10%.
Posted by: larryb

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/16 03:34 PM

in other words. the Q's get theirs to hell with anyone else. has the state ever been right on their forecasts?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/16 04:32 PM

This depends on QIN stopping at 50, the Chehalis reporting, WDFW getting the forecast right.

That penalty box is there because actions have consequences. Don't like the consequences, don't **ck up.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/16 05:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


Preliminary analysis indicated that the 5% risk control provision can be loosened slightly and still provide a high likelihood that the spawner goal would be achieved for Chehalis Chinook salmon. The analysis indicates that an 85% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 8% nontreaty harvest rate, and a 77% probability could be maintained with a 12% nontreaty harvest rate.




85% or 77% probability doesn't cut it with me given their absolute failure to properly manage over the last couple decades, not to mention their dishonest numbers, models and tricks to give gillnetters more days. Remember "multipliers of zero" ??
Posted by: eyeFISH

J F C ! ! ! - 03/23/16 05:52 PM

Assalotta IF's, Carcassman.

The policy has been in place for only two years, and already two runs have been made at trying to undo the 3 out of 5 penalty box rule on wild escapement.

First, was the disingenuous attempt to have the commission retro-actively apply the new and improved (i.e. REDUCED) escapement goal to past returns that were previously managed for the higher goal. Turns out the guys behind this scheme didn't do their homework. Even with the lower benchmark, managers still failed to meet e-goal at least 3 of the previous 5 years! :middle finger:

And now this? J F C ! ! !

Look... 8-12% is a HUGE number. Even at 8%, that's NOT just a 3% increase.... it's a 60% increase in wild Chehalis chinook impact! At 12%, it's a 140% increase in dead kings!

YGTBFK, right? Come on, GMAFB!

For at least the past 20 years, WDFW has missed the Chehalis chinook e-goal 80% of the time. For the record, I've been lobbying the commission to do something about this chronic under-escapement problem for 12 years now. The GH Policy is the commission's first run at finally correcting decades of mismanagement, and it's only been in effect for TWO fishing seasons.

The conservation benchmark is achieving a ridiculously LOW e-goal a whopping 60% of the time. Gee, when I was growing up, 60% was considered a D-minus.

So now that they can't achieve 60% under current management, they're asking for at another 60%-140% slop factor to allow for more fishing.

SERIALLY?

Going to 8% impact reduces the probability of making e-goal by 15%. The 12% impact reduces that probability by 23%. How does anyone justify this when the historic record is failure to meet e-goal at least 80% of the time? Can we really afford to do anything that increases the risk of missing the mark again?

No...
Not no...
Not just no...
BUT HELL NO!


Posted by: Carcassman

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/23/16 10:28 PM

I agree Doc. They'll all find a way to hammer the run.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/24/16 09:30 AM

When WDFW meets escapement 80% of the time, then we can talk about relaxing the 3 out of 5 penalty box. They make escapement ONE time and want to consider relaxing the "penalty?" This simply re-confirms a "harvest at any cost" philosophy within the harvest management group. I think the "bluntness" of the 3 for 5 rule is exactly the sort of restriction necessary to realign harvest management thinking to include the serious consideration of fish conservation.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/24/16 11:12 AM


Just so all know the QIN dispute the failure to make the Chinook escapement goal in 2014 on the Chehalis side. Also they use the aggregate of all GH streams in the escapement in compliance with the courts. It is the state that separates the Humptulips & Chehalis which is a action that the QIN do not agree with and I am told do not intend to recognize.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/24/16 11:48 AM

Conference call.....WDFW Commission, most members either present or "on-line", different WDFW "higher ups", were in attendance but Steve Thiesfeld did the majority of the speaking.

I'm not going to give a report.....but am here to say that the process went VERY WELL, was very clear, could hear all the questions and all the responses. Only thing I'd like to see is that when a commission member asked a question...that they give their name, 1st.....then you'd know who was framing the question.

NOF meeting tonight;

March 24

Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion
•6 p.m. – 8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 N Main St., Montesano
•Public discussion of management objectives and preliminary options for Grays Harbor. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2016 are discussed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/26/16 08:23 AM


The following is a guest opinion that I submitted and was published in our local newspaper the Aberdeen Daily World. My opinion folks.


SALMON POLICY -- NOTHING IF NOT COMPLICATED

On Thursday March 27th the WDF&W Commission will have a conference call to review options for the 2016 Grays Harbor salmon season. In recent days the forecast for salmon returning home this fall has been released and the numbers of harvestable Coho is dismal. Questions are everywhere as to what this means but this salmon harvest thing it is complicated. For Grays Harbor fishers this comes on the heels of last year's closure following the Quinault Nation's and WDF&W state managed commercial fisheries that left many in the inland community feeling disfranchised as once again as the inland communities recreational fisher bore the brunt of conservation and lost its fall salmon season with over a million dollars of economic activity. The 2016 Coho forecast with only a few thousand harvestable natural origin Coho this year it is difficult to see how one crafts meaningful seasons for Coho fishers without addressing some very difficult issues.

In 2014 the WDF&W Commission implemented the Grays Harbor Management Policy ( GHMP ) which are conservation driven guidelines for harvest that are fundamentally a solid management strategy. That said it does not mean that the GHMP is without issues. The most difficult resides with Chinook which is the most prized fish of the vast majority of fishers be it commercial or recreational. Within the GHMP is a clause that dictates that if a species fails to achieve the goal of the required number of spawning salmon ( escapement ) three out of five years that we cannot have a directed fishery and are limited to a small catch and release mortality of 5% of the runsize. This has become known as the " 3 / 5 Penalty Box " and at the time of the implementation Chehalis River Chinook had been just below escapement for years. The WDF&W Commission chose 2009 as the year we started to a count our 3/5 Penalty Box years from and resulted in no directed Chinook harvest just catch and release.

This is where as in all things the world of unintended consequences come into play. 2014, 2015, and our projected 2016 Chinook returns are some of the best in many years with a 2016 forecast of 23,910 returning Chinook which provides 13,452 above escapement in 2016 and are available for harvest. The 3/5 Penalty Box clause will dictate that rather than harvest the states non treaty 50% of 13,452 we will be limited to the 5% catch and release mortality impact of 1195. Add to the mix is the fact from the GHMP implementation the Quinault Nations fisheries managers have simply utilized their fisheries to harvest the Chinook that the state fishers were not allowed to harvest due to the 3/5 Penalty Box clause as the GHMP only governs the state's share of harvest. This must be viewed with the backdrop of the fact that WDF&W and the Quinault Nation have very different views not just in management philosophy but right down to how you count the returning salmon.

So what to do? My thought is pragmatism and logic would dictate that the Commission change GHMP start date for the 3/5 Penalty Box from 2009 to 2014 which would remove the Chinook harvest limiter. This would also give WDF&W staff two or more years at the least to reach some accommodation with the Quinault Nation on the differing views of how to count and manage harvest.

So we have a problem that only the WDF&W Commission can address that is mired in the politics of salmon harvest. From those on the conservation side it is do not change a word in the GHMP, stay the course which is driven by history of poor management choices in Grays Harbor by WDF&W. From the non treaty commercial gillnetters it is throw the entire GHMP in the dumpster as it limits them to their share of harvest. From inland communities the fear resides in the fact that the 2015 harvest was a return to the ways of old where the inland recreational fisher shouldered nearly the entire conservation burden. Pragmatism and logic are the two things that appear to the first victims of a process that is being driven by fear and anger in how we manage our salmon harvest with the conservation driven GHMP.

The answer resides in the Adaptive Management provision of the GHMP which provides the tool needed to address issues not foreseen at the time of the implementation of the GHMP.

Adaptive Management
The Commission recognizes that adaptive management will be essential to achieve the purpose of this policy. Department staff may implement actions to manage adaptively to achieve the objectives of this policy and will coordinate with the Commission, as needed, in order to implement corrective actions. Components of the adaptive management will be shared with the public through the agency web site and will include the following elements:

Hopefully the Commission will act to act to rectify in some manner the problematic 3/5 Penalty Box clause. At risk are the of the recreational fisheries economic impacts in Grays Harbor and the entire Chehalis Basin communities which have averaged over 2.3 million dollars a year in the last fifteen years and in the last five years over 3.2 million dollars a year. This is not chump change and to throw the Chehalis Basins communities under the bus due to a process underway driven by inflexibility, fear, and anger is not what was intended with the adoption of the conservation driven GHMP salmon harvest guidelines. What seasons that can be crafted will emerge rather quickly and they may actually provide harvest opportunity with protection for those salmon that need it . Will the Commission be able to craft a solution? I do not know as I said this salmon harvest thing it is complicated but we will all know shortly.
Posted by: CedarR

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/26/16 09:05 AM

Well written letter. Thanks for making the effort to get info out there. Good to let WDFW and the co-managers know people are paying attention to their policies and their actions.
Posted by: FishNg1

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/26/16 10:40 PM

Bravo, and well put for most to understand , even non- fisher folks.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/27/16 09:53 AM

Dave:

Thanks for all you do. In general, most people have no idea of the amounts of time and effort it takes to get fisheries where there is so much competition for EVERY fish.

Grays Harbor is one of the tough area for the above tide water sportspersons. The tide water demands for salmon is unbelievable, QIN takes their part, NT wants their share, and more, and of course the sports fishers.

The GHMP, at least, try's to level the playing field. Is the GHMP perfect, no...but it is better than the recent past. Wasn't many years ago, that there was a marine sport fish, then some weeks of 7 days of gill netting between the QIN and NT. I sometimes fish the upper tide water area of the Chehalis.....there might be 7 - 10 boats, "hog lined" and no one catching any fish for days at a time.

I like the GHMP, once some of the "bumps" are worked out...it will be in the best interests of first, fish conservation, then the others will come into line.

I know this for sure...the increase demands by the total amount of people for areas to salmon fish, are not going to decline. Sports fishing dollars far out weigh the value of a commercial caught fish.

My neighbors are going to hate the "1 fish and done" fishery, that is being "kicked around"....BUT that is better than no fishery.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/28/16 11:47 AM


Barbara sent me all the presentations from the Montesano NOF meeting and I am sending them around. Anyone who wants them that I missed just e mail me and I will forward them. I will get Willapa's out tomorrow.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/28/16 05:30 PM

For anyone interested, the PFMC hearing to discuss ocean options starts in about an hour and a half... Chateau Westport.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/31/16 08:19 AM


What we have here are suggestions from the public at the last NOF meeting for Grays Harbor in Montesano. Keep in mind these are suggestions from the public and were not vetted. More or less a shopping list if one chooses to view it that way,


2016 Grays Harbor North of Falcon Public Meeting March 24, 2016 6 – 8 pm
Montesano City Hall, Montesano, WA


Staff: Steve Thiesfeld, Mike Scharpf, Barbara McClellan, Chad Herring, Curt Holt Public: 47 Individuals

• No directed salmon fishing at all and begin Steelhead Feb.1

• Spring chinook fishery in marine area 2.2

• Seal/sea lion issues and accounting of those lost fish

• Close rivers that do not have hatchery production available

• Spring Chinook through the end of July

• Close Wynoochee in Oct and Nov all fishing

• Chehalis Main Stem & Satsop - 1 fish release all wild Chinook and coho

• Skookumchuck - no wild retention

• Commercial week 43 and 44 1 day each week

• MA 2.1 – Close for two weeks in the main marine area and move those impacts to the Humptulips North Bay and add two weeks to that fishery

• One fish and done - wild or hatchery coho

• Wynoochee – keep open thru October, close October 15 or November

• Keep Wynoochee open

• Humptulips North Bay fishery – try moving fishery into July

• Require knotless net use

• No bait to reduce recreational mortality

• Chehalis MS – to Fuller open October 1st

• No commercial fishing in 2A

• 5 days a week for freshwater fisheries when QIN is not fishing

• Open fisheries with hatcheries

• Mandatory retention required in one and done fishery, first legal fish you have to keep it

• No mandatory retention

• Boat limit in saltwater allowed now, should we reconsider this?

• Partial week fishery if we are not able to cut enough coho to meet goal

• Consider bait ban Fuller downstream to mouth of MS

• Fish every other day

• Jack fishery in the Chehalis - will we lose it?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/31/16 11:57 AM


From up North BC. Interesting read.


Scientists want Canadian federal government to restore fisheries protection
Bob Weber | The Canadian Press | Mar 24, 2016

Prominent scientists and environmental groups are urging the federal Liberals to hurry up and repair what they see as damage to fisheries done by the previous government.

"We request that previous habitat protections be immediately reinstated in the Fisheries Act," says a letter signed by 47 individuals and organizations.

The signatories run from the World Wildlife Fund to the B.C. Federation of Fly Fishers and include researchers such as David Schindler from the University of Alberta, whose work revealed some of the earliest evidence that the oilsands were releasing contaminants.

"The time to start is quickly," said signatory John Smol, an ecologist at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.

"Delay in the environment costs us dearly. Nature is very slow to pardon mistakes."

Repeal sought of Tory law

The letter asks Federal Fisheries Minister Hunter Tootoo to repeal changes made under the Harper Conservatives in a controversial 2012 omnibus bill. Those changes removed prohibitions against the harmful alteration, damage or destruction of any fishery. Attention was instead focused on commercial fisheries.

"One of the biggest factors that affect fish abundance is habitat," said Smol. "We have to restore habitat protection."

Smol pointed out the changes came as fisheries began to face threats, including climate change, invasive species and new contaminants.

"If anything, we have to strengthen the act. Instead, it was weakened."

Protecting commercially valuable fish without protecting the habitat for all fish just doesn't work, said Linda Nowlan of the West Coast Environmental Law Centre.

"I don't think we humans are capable of picking which parts of nature need protection. You need to look at the ecosystem as a whole."

Mandate letter ordered changes

Tootoo has been instructed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to restore the protections.

Prominent Alberta researcher David Schindler is among those lobbying the Liberal government in Ottawa to repeal legislative changes made in 2012. (CBC)

"Work with the minister of transport to review the previous government's changes to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Protection Acts, restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards," says Tootoo's mandate letter from Trudeau.

After he gets done with that, Tootoo can move on to reforming the 150-year-old act to put science at its heart and with a view to the future, Smol suggested.

"We want long-term thinking. We don't want typical mandate thinking of four years."

An amended act should limit the discretion of politicians to override scientific evidence and enshrine cautions that ensure future generations enjoy the same fisheries as Canadians do today, said Nowlan.

"They need to make their decisions in accordance with modern environmental law principles."

Thursday's letter is the latest open letter from scientists hoping to influence government policy. Two such letters this month — one criticizing studies into liquefied natural gas exports in British Columbia and another discouraging investment in fossil fuel infrastructure — have already been sent to the federal Liberals.

Scientists are hoping the new government will listen more closely to their warnings than did the previous administration, Smol said.

"We're seeing the muzzling of scientists being changed. We have issues that we think need looking at and we think we have a government that will pay some attention to it."
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 03/31/16 12:10 PM

Encouraging news from BC. We need some of that sense of reason instilled into our lawmakers.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/01/16 09:20 PM

BC intercept gonna go hog wild with the news of strong summer and fall upriver CR stocks, plus a resurgence of WCVI stocks. They plan on taking a bigger bite out of our LRH tules

COUNT ON IT!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/04/16 07:50 AM

I obtained this document with a Public Document Request ( PDR ) while trying to figure out just how on earth last years Coho collapse got past both the co managers until it was too late. It appears to be a template that is altered each year but one cannot be sure. Also just who did the writing is not known but either the QIN or WDF&W did to be sure. It is article IV that I find fascinating as for years many claimed the seasons were set on auto pilot and just ran has agreed to. Do not know but it certainly leaves one wondering just how long this document or something similar has been used.

Formatting stinks but I am careful not to change anything in a document such as this when making them public.



A Joint Report Prepared By

Quinault Department of Fisheries

and

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife








April 2015




Harvest Management Plan for Grays Harbor 2015 Fall Salmon Fisheries


The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Quinault Indian Nation, subject to their authority within Grays Harbor and its watershed (Figure 1), agree to conduct the 2015 fall salmon fisheries in accordance with the following management plan.

I. Management Objectives

The fisheries will be managed to achieve the following objectives:

1. Meet the following escapement goals for the Grays Harbor system:

Natural coho 35,400
Natural chinook 13,500
Natural chum 21,000

The parties recognize the need for a reasonable distribution of the escapement throughout the watershed, particularly between the Humptulips and Chehalis system. They will try to provide for the individual needs of these two systems.

2. Maximize the fishing opportunities of each party to obtain their respective shares.


II. Pre-season Predictions


The 2015 terminal predictions are:

Chehalis Humptulips Total
Coho (OA3) Hatchery1 31,074 13,315 44,389

Wild2 133,695 6,401 140,096


Chinook Hatchery 3,463 5,186 8,649

Wild 19,108 7,403 26,511


Chum Wild Na Na 28,852

Coho (option 1505) Hatchery1 26,903 10,537 37,440

Wild2 120,916 5,769 126,685


1 Including net pen fish = 1,879 Net pen returns included on Chehalis side total
2 Including South Bay OA3 wild returns =2,183 returns included on Chehalis side total



III. Harvest Management Plan

The Grays Harbor fall fisheries are described as follows (see appendix 1):


The Non-Treaty gillnet fishery will be managed as follows:

1. Grays Harbor Salmon Management Catch Area 2A and Area 2D (Chehalis): One (1) 16-hour day: 6 am to 10 pm September 23, 2013, and seven (7) 8-hour days: 7 am to 3 pm October 20, 8 am to 4 pm October 21, 9 am to 5 pm October 22, 9:30 am to 5:30 pm October 24, 7 am to 3 pm November 2, 8 am to 4 pm November 3, and 9 am to 5 pm November 4, 2015. In this fishery, live boxes required for wild Chinook and there will be short soak times. Release wild Chinook will be required.

Grays Harbor Salmon Management Catch Area 2C (Humptulips): four (4) 12-hour days: 6 am to 6 pm each October 26, 27, 28, and 29, 2015. In this fishery, live boxes will be required for wild Coho and there will be short soak times. Release wild Coho will be required.

2. The Non-Treaty Marine sport fishery will operate from Sept. 16 to Nov. 30th easterly of a line from the mouth of Johns River north to the Tripod Station on Brackenridge Bluff, with a 3 fish bag limit, no Chinook retention. Non-Treaty Marine sport will operate from Aug. 1 to Sept 15. north of a line from south end of the eastern jetty at Ocean Shores Marina, east to Sand Island, then to the Tripod Station located on Brackenridge Bluff with a two fish bag and no wild Coho retention.

The Non-Treaty freshwater sport fisheries will operate as published in the 2015-2016 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife sport-fishing guide.

3. The Quinault Treaty gillnet fishery will be managed as follows:

Humptulips River - This includes fishing in the Humptulips River and Area 2C. Maximum mesh size is 6 ½-inches. The fishery includes four (4) days of fishing for one week for the period from September 20th to September 26th, five (5) days for the week for the period from September 27th to October 3rd, four (4) days for two weeks for the period beginning October 4th to October 17th, then two (2) days for the week and period from October 18th to October 24th, then three (3) days for the week and period from November 8th to November 14th, then five (5) days per week for the period from November 15th through into the beginning of the steelhead season. The treaty gillnet fishery for winter steelhead will begin in week 48, the week beginning November 22rd.

Chehalis River - This includes fishing in the Chehalis River and Areas 2A-1, 2A, and 2D. Maximum mesh size is 6 ½-inches. The fishery includes fishing two (2) days for one week for the period from September 13th to September 19th, fishing three (3) days per week for two weeks for the period from September 20th to October 3rd, then fishing four (4) days for one week in the period from October 4th to October 10th, three (3) days for the week and the period from October 11th through October 17th, then four (4) for the week for the period of November 8th to November 14th, then five (5) days per week for the period beginning November 15th through November 21st and continuing into the steelhead season. Steelhead season begins in week 48, which begins on November 22nd.

IV. In-season Management

The projected harvest rates and spawning escapements presented in this agreement anticipate environmental and fishery conditions falling within normal ranges of variation. These normal conditions are related mostly to river discharge and fishing participation. If environmental factors or fishery participation are found to be outside the range of anticipated normal variation, the parties to this agreement will discuss the potential effects of the abnormal variation and determine whether any modification to this agreement are necessary.

There will be no in-season run size updates this year. Adjustments may be made in the Treaty commercial fishing schedule if extremely high river discharge conditions cause the river to be completely unfishable for at least one full day. A day scheduled for fishing will be declared unfishable only if river conditions prevent any nets from being set and no catch is made on that date. A make-up day will be taken when conditions permit, in the same week as the day lost and will occur immediately following the normally scheduled closure. QIN will notify WDFW by telephone or e-mail of intent to make-up an extension of the weekly period. When conditions do not permit days to be made up within the same week, days will be made up in subsequent weeks provided the modeled Chinook rates on the Chehalis, and wild coho rates on the Humptulips side do not exceed those anticipated during the day(s) lost because of conditions.

V. Interaction Between Fisheries

The parties intend to minimize overlap in fishing time between treaty and non-treaty fisheries, which operate in the same or immediately adjacent fishing areas. The parties shall coordinate their fishery openings to ensure that overlap in time is minimized including avoidance of commercial fishery on weekends to the extent possible.

VI. Chehalis Tribal Fishery

As a result of a recent federal court ruling (1998) the Chehalis tribes’ harvest share is included in the non-treaty allocation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will negotiate with the Chehalis Tribe harvest levels for their fall fisheries prior to the beginning of the fall management period.

VII. Terminal Area Model

The QIN and WDFW agree to coordinate the annual review and update of terminal area models.





AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION
AND THE
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
FOR FALL, 2015


This agreement is the culmination of the efforts of the undersigned to manage, through the design and implementation of one joint plan, for salmon returning to the Grays Harbor Rivers and tributaries in the fall of 2015.

For this season only, the parties agree to set aside divergent views on management philosophy and approach, and manage by the plan set forth in the document entitled “Harvest Management Plan for Grays Harbor 2015 Fall Salmon Fisheries." No part of this management plan or the basis thereof shall be construed as a precedent for future years.

This agreement may be amended or otherwise changed at any time only by agreement of the parties.





Agreed to this ______________day of ______________________, 2015.







_________________________ _____________________________

Jim Scott Ed Johnstone
Washington Dept of Policy Representative
Fish and Wildlife Quinault Indian Nation
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/04/16 12:30 PM


Interesting press release. Here is the thing, there is no doubt this is a good thing. Now the other shoe absolutely not one fish produced from this will be added to the run escapement. We harvest to the MSY escapement so it should and will produce more fish in those streams but will not be added to the basin escapement but rather harvest. It is the " Big Lie " that fix habitat and all is good. Nope we have a harvest problem plain and simple in the Chehalis Basin.


WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
April 4, 2016
Contact:
• David Price, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 360-902-2565
• Kirsten Harma, Chehalis Basin Lead Entity, 360-488-3232
• Alice Rubin, Recreation and Conservation Office, 360-902-2635
Chehalis Basin restoration projects will open
130 miles of streams to migrating fish
OLYMPIA -- Public and non-profit organizations in Grays Harbor, Lewis, and Thurston counties are receiving about $6 million in state grants this spring for 28 habitat restoration projects in the Chehalis River Basin.
The projects represent an initial phase of a long-term effort to restore habitat and reduce flood damage throughout the basin. State lawmakers included the grant funds in the 2015-17 capital budget as part of a $50 million appropriation for the overall initiative.
Most of the grant projects, scheduled for completion by July 2017, are designed to restore fish passage where it is blocked by culverts or dams. Altogether, they will open more than 130 miles of streams to migrating salmon and other aquatic species, said Kirsten Harma of the Chehalis Basin Lead Entity, a consortium leading the effort that includes local, state, and tribal governments and interested citizens.
Projects receiving funding are shown in the accompanying table. They include:
• Eight culvert corrections proposed on private property by the Lewis County Conservation District. The projects are designed to open 68 miles of streams to migrating coho, steelhead, and cutthroat trout.
• A culvert removal project on Darlin Creek, a tributary of the Black River in Thurston County. The project, sponsored by the Capitol Land Trust, will open two miles of coho and cutthroat habitat in an important section of the Chehalis watershed.
• Improvement or replacement of three culverts that block fish passage in the Johns River watershed of Grays Harbor County, under the sponsorship of the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force.
The competitive grant process was conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Chehalis Basin Lead Entity’s Habitat Work Group. Proposals were selected for funding by biologists, engineers, and habitat restoration professionals from WDFW, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Quinault Indian Nation, and a representative of the Lead Entity’s citizen advisory committee. The state Recreation and Conservation Office is administering the funds and overseeing the projects.
Projects were evaluated based on their potential benefits for fish and other species, value to local communities, and the likelihood that they could be implemented quickly and cost-effectively. Twenty-five (25) of the projects involve on-the-ground restoration work, while three are for planning and design of restoration activities that will take place in future years in Grays Harbor and Lewis counties.
More information on the Chehalis Basin Strategy, including opportunities for public involvement, is available at http://chehalisbasinstrategy.com/
Grant recipients:
• Capitol Land Trust: Amanda Reed, 360-943-3012
• Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force: Lonnie Crumley, 360-482-3037
• Lewis County Conservation District: Kelly Verd, 360-748-0083, ext. 114
• Lewis County Public Works Department: Ann Weckback, 360-740-1440
• Sylvan Terrace Owners Association: Dorothy Zee, 360-943-6430
• Wild Fish Conservancy: Jamie Glasgow, 206-310-9302
Chehalis Basin Habitat Restoration Grants 2016
Project Sponsor County Grant award Stream miles opened
Lower Satsop River: Restoration project design and permitting Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Grays Harbor $251,000 N/A
Fish barrier corrections scoping and design Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Grays Harbor $308,000 N/A
Big Creek Polson Camp Rd. fish barrier correction Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Grays Harbor $529,000 4.8
Gaddis Creek South Bank Rd. fish barrier correction Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Grays Harbor $307,000 6.5
Darlin Creek fish passage improvements Capitol Land Trust Thurston $100,000 2.0
Bunker Rd. and Wisner Creek barrier removal (2 projects) Lewis County Conservation District Lewis $45,000 5.4
South Fork Newaukum stream and habitat assessment Wild Fish Conservancy Lewis $98,000 N/A
Great Eight barrier removal (8 projects) Lewis County Conservation District Lewis $799,000 68.1
Harstad Creek Middle Satsop Rd. fish barrier correction Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Grays Harbor $306,000 3.3
Boyer Road fish barrier correction Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Grays Harbor $66,000 2.5
Eaton Creek South Bank Rd. fish barrier correction Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Grays Harbor $307,000 3.3
Taylor Creek Taylors Ferry Rd. fish barrier correction Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Grays Harbor $293,000 2.9
Johns River tributaries barrier corrections (3 projects) Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Grays Harbor $1,150,000 11.0
Mox Chehalis Branch Rd. fish barrier correction Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force Grays Harbor $412,000 12.2
Sylvan Terrace barrier removal Sylvan Terrace Owners Association Thurston $97,000 0.5
Stearns Creek tributary fish barrier removal Lewis County Public Works Lewis $39,500 2.4
Prairie Creek fish barrier removal Lewis County Public Works Lewis $39,500 4.8
Carlisle Lake/Gheer Creek fish passage Wild Fish Conservancy Lewis $700,000 10.2
Notes: Stream miles opened to fish passage are rounded to the nearest 0.1 mile.
Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW News Releases & Weekender mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html
Posted by: milt roe

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/04/16 02:28 PM

Wild Fish Conservancy gets a $98000 reward from the state, for good behavior I assume.
Posted by: OncyT

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/04/16 04:12 PM

Yeah, this time they sued NMFS rather than WDFW.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/04/16 04:17 PM

They are getting that money to do barrier removal projects. You could do the same, just get organized and make a proposal that wins the competitions. Then, do the work.

There is a shitload of work and expense involved in barrier removal and the state is certainly not stepping up to do the work.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/04/16 07:51 PM

According to the release, the WFC grant is for assessment.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/05/16 08:20 AM

It does make me curious what assessment $98,000 gets. The SF Newaukum consists of habitat suitable for coho, cutthroat, and steelhead. What will the agencies get that they don't already know?
Posted by: Todd

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/05/16 08:32 AM

Wouldn't it just be the best if they used the grant money to gather the information needed to file another lawsuit?

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/06/16 11:00 AM

OK all read and draw your own conclusions.

Hi everyone,

I thought I would update you on our meeting with Quinault tribe from yesterday. The Grays Harbor portion of our meeting did not go well.

We again offered to meet in the middle on the Chehalis coho forecast, but QIN would not agree to that “at this time”. Without an agreed to forecast, the meeting stalled without further discussion of Grays Harbor fisheries.

So we are virtually in the same place with regards to fishery planning as we were prior to meeting.

We are scheduled to meet again on Friday and we shall see if further Grays Harbor discussions take place.

Sorry for the lack of progress.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/06/16 12:21 PM

IMO:


Meeting needs to be set.

Think its time for a "peace pipe" to be loaded with something. Pass the pipe around, until what ever problems exist between the 2 agencies, are lessened.

Time to move past the major fight every year, not only NOF but Wynoochee mitigation funds.

The hundreds of hours spent in these battles, every year, is not good for the resource but also the public image is not good.
Posted by: bob r

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/06/16 01:25 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
IMO:


Meeting needs to be set.

Think its time for a "peace pipe" to be loaded with something. Pass the pipe around, until what ever problems exist between the 2 agencies, are lessened.

Time to move past the major fight every year, not only NOF but Wynoochee mitigation funds.

The hundreds of hours spent in these battles, every year, is not good for the resource but also the public image is not good.


Neither the
Quinault or the state really care about "the public image". If that was the case we wouldn't be where we are at now. Bob R
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/06/16 01:36 PM

Quote:

I thought I would update you on our meeting with Quinault tribe from yesterday. The Grays Harbor portion of our meeting did not go well.

We again offered to meet in the middle on the Chehalis coho forecast, but QIN would not agree to that “at this time”. Without an agreed to forecast, the meeting stalled without further discussion of Grays Harbor fisheries.




It would be really nice if the "co-managers" would actually co-manage and work together. The perception of the tribe would be somewhat more favorable, and region 6 would at least not look like a bunch of lap dogs. Usually, as in this time, it just a bunch of bull [Bleeeeep!].
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/06/16 05:00 PM

J F C ! ! !
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/06/16 06:20 PM

Well, Folks, the issue is not one of public perception. 90% of the public don't fish, do buy fish, and do sincerely believe that the Tribes need the fish they catch to sustain their livelihood and "traditions." That means that 90% would believe that the QIN is proposing a smaller forecast in the interest of protecting wild salmon and their heritage. Pretty nice PR move on their part, no?

I think about 100% of the 10% who do fish see things differently, but we are in the minority, so we get what we get. Pretty simple, even if it does suck.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/14/16 12:01 PM

A nice statement, but you know how it goes with each tribe

Tough Times Mean Hard Decisions in Planning Fishing Seasons
Lorraine Loomis, Chair Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission | 4/6/16

Tough times call for hard decisions, and we are facing some of the most difficult times we’ve ever seen when it comes to this year’s expected coho returns to western Washington.

After last year’s disastrous coho run, the tribal and state co-managers are taking the drastic step of considering a zero option for salmon fishing off the Washington coast and in Puget Sound.

Coho returns in most areas last year were less than half of what was expected. Those that returned displayed the effects of poor ocean conditions: warmer-than-normal water and less nutritious food for salmon. Most were 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal. Females returned with about 40 percent fewer eggs. That will result in a huge drop in both natural and hatchery production in the years to come.

The tribal and state co-managers need a full range of options – including no fishing at all – as we work to craft limited fisheries to meet basic needs over the next month. We hope it doesn’t come to that. Our cultures, treaty rights and economies depend on salmon. But the resource must come first.

We don't know how many coho will be coming back, how healthy they will be or how many eggs the females will have. We have never seen runs this low, so we don't know how well they might bounce back. That’s why zero must be the starting place for fisheries management planning this year.

Both hatchery and naturally spawning coho are in the same boat this year because both are equally affected by poor ocean conditions. In many instances, returns will likely be far below minimum levels needed to produce the next generation of salmon.

The Nisqually Tribe’s Kalama Creek Hatchery and the state’s Wallace River and Minter Creek hatcheries likely won’t even come close to reaching egg-take goals. It will be a nail-biter for many other hatcheries.

We must reduce impacts on returning hatchery fish to maximize returns to some facilities so we can meet egg shortfalls at others. Tribes are evaluating possible impacts from cherished ceremonial and subsistence fisheries that are a cornerstone of our cultures. That’s because every impact matters, whether from mark selective sport fisheries targeting hatchery salmon in marine waters to in-river trout fisheries that impact both hatchery and naturally spawning coho.

With plenty of good habitat, salmon populations are naturally resilient and able to withstand the impacts of poor ocean conditions. But today we are losing salmon habitat faster than it can be restored and the trend shows no signs of change. As a result, low returns are getting lower and returns for healthy populations are declining, too. The overall trend points in only one direction: downward.

We are in a situation where every year each returning salmon is becoming more and more important. The room for error continues to shrink. Even small mistakes can have huge consequences in times like these. That’s why conservation must be the first rule of fisheries management.

We don’t know what the future holds for the salmon and us, but we do know that we cannot sacrifice tomorrow’s salmon for today’s harvest. Those fish belong to the generations that will follow us.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/14/16 12:03 PM



This also arrived today & as always you want the attachments PM me.



Hi Everyone,

We are getting close to having a fishery regulation proposal package for the CR-102. We have attached an updated planning model, a summary of suggestions and comments we have heard to-date, and an updated chart for the outer marine recreational boundary.
The planning model utilizes a 4 fish adult bag in Marine Area 2.1 under Willapa Bay rules beginning on July 16th though January 31st. The freshwater regulations are similar to last year’s regulations (4 fish adult bag) except for a couple of changes that are discussed below. The commercial season is similar to what has been suggested by commercial advisors except for the removal of one 12 hour fishery in areas 2T and 2U in statistical week 39 (Sept. 18-24) in order to set aside at least a half a percent in both the Willapa River and Naselle River natural Chinook mortality rates for any Experimental Commercial Fisheries exploring alternative gear.

The first change I want to point out is on the North Nemah River. Currently there are 4 sections in the pamphlet and the second section (from bridge on Nemah Valley Rd to bridge at Nemah Hatchery) does NOT have salmon rules. This year we are considering splitting that second section into 3 smaller sections and each section will have different rules.

1. Bridge on Nemah Valley Rd. upstream to WDFW property line approx. 1.74 miles
a. Will remain closed to salmon (All Game Fish rules only)
2. WDFW property line upstream approx. 160 feet to the bridge at the Nemah Hatchery
a. Will be for Seniors Only (70 years+), Aug. 16 – Jan. 31
3. The bridge at the Nemah Hatchery upstream to the Nemah Hatchery weir
a. Will be for Seniors (70 year+) and ADA access Only, Aug. 16 – Jan. 31
b. The 400 foot closed water restriction will be removed.

Also, there are sections on the Willapa River (Hwy 6 upstream to Fork Creek) and Naselle River (Hwy 4 Bridge upstream to hatchery) that did not open for Salmon until September 16th. These fisheries when open during Chinook timing have been problematic in the past. While this model run has these sections open Aug. 16th through January 31st with a 4 fish adult bag, some consideration should be given to reducing this bag limit to a 2 fish adult bag in these sections to try to minimize some of the issues that have occurred in these areas historically. Additionally, the 400ft closed water restriction downstream from the weir on the Naselle River would be changed to 300 feet.

The second attachment is an updated version of the Marine Area 2.1 boundary line with GPS coordinates.

The third attachment is a list of all of the fishery season comments we’ve received as of April 6, 2016 either from the Advisory or public meetings or emails.

As a reminder of our APA process, we will likely have three separate CR-102 filings this year; WB commercial, GH Commercial, and Coastal Freshwater. The Marine Area WAC (220-28-620) will be filed through the folks in Olympia since most of this WAC includes Ocean Marine Areas. We will just provide our changes to them. The Coastal Freshwater WAC most likely will be a bit delayed due to on-going co-manager negotiations in Grays Harbor and the North Coast that may last beyond PFMC this week. As soon as Grays Harbor and North Coast changes are incorporated and formatted, the Coastal Freshwater WAC can be filed in CR-102.

If you have any other suggestions you want to provide or any comments regarding any of the suggestions listed in these attachments, please send those to both Chad Herring and myself.

Thanks. Barbara


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barbara McClellan
Area Fish Biologist | Willapa Bay
WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife| Region 6 Montesano
office #360.249.1213 | cell #360.470.3459| fax #360.249.1229
Email: Barbara.Mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/15/16 10:53 AM

Update from Barbara but the thing on Willapa is highlighted in red.

Just an fyi for everyone who wouldn’t know where to find this information.

Below is a link to the PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council) website where they have announced the 2016 Salmon Seasons for the ocean late yesterday afternoon (it is still preliminary until the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) approves these recommendations, which should happen by May 1, 2016).

http://www.pcouncil.org/2016/04/41865/dr...g-press-release

The important part to notice is on Table 2, the Recreational Management measure adopted by the Council for non-indian ocean salmon fisheries, 2016.
It states from Queets River to Leadbetter Point (Ocean Area 2):
July 1st through earlier of August 21 or a subarea guideline of 16,600 Chinook.
Seven days per week. All salmon except coho; one fish per day. Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Grays Harbor Control Zone closed beginning August 8 (C.4.b). In-season management may be used to sustain season length and keep harvest within the overall Chinook and coho recreational TACs for north of Cape Falcon.

This means that Willapa Bay Marine Area 2.1 will not begin until July 1st under Ocean Area 2 Rules (as opposed to previous years where the start date was sometime in May) and the retention is only one fish per day, release all coho.

Just wanted to pass on the information.
Thanks. Barbara
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/16/16 05:22 AM


Mike set this out for us to look at. This is the non treaty seasons being discussed with the QIN. Not set in stone only talking guys.





2016 Grays Harbor Fall Non-Treaty Terminal Area Planning Model
2016 Runsize with 2016 Public proposal, Preliminary and Subject to Change 032416
Model Run Description Preseason planning 03/24/2016
PFMC Option # 2
FRAM Run # 1617

Fishery Description
Sport
Marine 2.2 Dates Bag Limit
Area 2D only Oct 1-Nov 30 1 Adult bag: release wild Chinook
Area 2C only Aug 1 - Sept 16 2 adults, release wild oho.

Chehalis River Mouth to Hwy 6 April 16 - June 30 1 Adult bag:
Chehalis River Mouth to Porter Aug 1-Sept 15 : Release adult salmon
Sept 16-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho

Chehalis River Porter up to High Bridge Sept 16-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho
0 0
Hwy 6 to high bridge

Hoquiam Closed 0

Wishkah Oct 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho


Wynoochee Oct 1-Nov 30 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook and wild Coho

Satsop Oct 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho
0 0

Black River Closed 0

Skookumchuck Oct. 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho


Newaukum Oct. 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho

Elk and Johns Closed 0

Humptulips River FW Sept. 1-Sept 30 2 Adult bag: 1 may be a wild Chinook, release wild Coho
Oct 1-Nov 15 2 Adult bag: 1 may be a Chinook, release wild Coho
Nov 16-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho
Commercial Dates # days Details
Area 2A/2D 43 Oct 16, 2016 0 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook
44 Oct 23, 2016 3 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook

Area 2C 43 Oct 16, 2016 2 16 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Coho
44 Oct 23, 2016 2 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Coho
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/16/16 11:07 AM


Now for something different and I would have loved to see the cops face!


http://www.bdoutdoors.com/living-fossil-caught-with-huge-surprise-inside/
Posted by: CedarR

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/16/16 03:39 PM

Pretty tall tale with a dateline of April 1, 2016.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/17/16 07:07 AM


BD and others always run the A 1 thing for fun. This one had a lot more effort put into it and was well done. I thought it would take longer to catch the date. I must be slowing down.
Posted by: Chum Man

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/17/16 07:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

The first change I want to point out is on the North Nemah River. Currently there are 4 sections in the pamphlet and the second section (from bridge on Nemah Valley Rd to bridge at Nemah Hatchery) does NOT have salmon rules. This year we are considering splitting that second section into 3 smaller sections and each section will have different rules.

1. Bridge on Nemah Valley Rd. upstream to WDFW property line approx. 1.74 miles
a. Will remain closed to salmon (All Game Fish rules only)
2. WDFW property line upstream approx. 160 feet to the bridge at the Nemah Hatchery
a. Will be for Seniors Only (70 years+), Aug. 16 – Jan. 31
3. The bridge at the Nemah Hatchery upstream to the Nemah Hatchery weir
a. Will be for Seniors (70 year+) and ADA access Only, Aug. 16 – Jan. 31
b. The 400 foot closed water restriction will be removed.

Also, there are sections on the Willapa River (Hwy 6 upstream to Fork Creek) and Naselle River (Hwy 4 Bridge upstream to hatchery) that did not open for Salmon until September 16th. These fisheries when open during Chinook timing have been problematic in the past. While this model run has these sections open Aug. 16th through January 31st with a 4 fish adult bag, some consideration should be given to reducing this bag limit to a 2 fish adult bag in these sections to try to minimize some of the issues that have occurred in these areas historically. Additionally, the 400ft closed water restriction downstream from the weir on the Naselle River would be changed to 300 feet.

that sort of strikes a nerve with me. these rivers all have fairly lousy bank access, and in the case of the north nemah, the entire section open to salmon fishing is heavily posted private land. the areas with closures are all in the more accessible reaches. they don't mention the "problems" but i'm just assuming it's the snagging that goes on because of lack of enforcement.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/17/16 08:08 AM

Opening the Satsop in October makes no sense...why open later when the wild fish encounters go up? I usually don't start encountering a good number of will Coho until Mid October. The last two years have seen plenty of fish in the usual opening around September 15th. Besides river levels, whats the advantage to opening later? Just curious.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/17/16 09:02 AM


We only have so many impacts ( dead fish be it C&R or keep ) so I imagine you could burn up the share before the Nov & late runs.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: J F C ! ! ! - 04/18/16 07:41 AM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
Opening the Satsop in October makes no sense...why open later when the wild fish encounters go up? I usually don't start encountering a good number of will Coho until Mid October. The last two years have seen plenty of fish in the usual opening around September 15th. Besides river levels, whats the advantage to opening later? Just curious.


I don't ever want to see a season like 2015....close Chehalis, mid October-December 16, Wynoochee completely closed, Wishkah, Humptulips, Satsop, closed in the lower part of the river....left open where the majority of fish needed protection.......grrrrrrrrrrrr

I like the season the way it is setup.....everyone feels a bit of the pain. Guess if you don't like the GHMP and the season the way its setup, move to King County and enjoy, maybe, no salmon fishing!!!!!!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/16 07:33 PM

So who can interpret this clause in the setting of no coho-directed and no chinook-directed gillnetting in 2A/2D.

"No fisheries directed at chum salmon shall occur unless the adult coho salmon return exceeds spawner objectives, or if coho salmon impacts remain after coho and Chinook salmon fisheries."

The only logical reason to put this provision in the policy is to prevent commercial exploitation of coho in a down year under the guise of "chum fishing". This is clearly a down year for coho and so the spirit /intent of this provision should be upheld.

Every other part of the policy makes reference to 110% of goal to create a little buffer for management error. This is clearly a year where the co-managers have accepted that wild GH coho will come in at less than 110% of goal (i.e. no harvestable surplus as the run is essentially at or below e-goal). My interpretation is that this clause in the policy means there should be NO CHUM-DIRECTED NETTING in state-managed fisheries.

What do you think?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/16 06:37 AM


I have several questions and that was the one at the top of the list. No idea as to how they stuck the three Chum net days in.

No idea on how the Chehalis tribal catch is modeled at near 800 fish.

No idea why the bay fishery modeled at 270 Coho and NT nets three days on Chum went for 590 Coho impacts.

A whole bunch of questions are out and about but few answers from staff at the moment.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/16 06:06 AM


OK folks this is from Region 6 / Mike and is what will be filed for the CR 102 for the 2016 season WAC. More later but digest this first.



Hi All,

Attached is a summary of the proposed salmon fishing package for GH and the associated planning model. We hope to have the CR 102s filed this week. If that doesn’t happen, the next filing date is May 18th. The planning model was updated from the last model I sent with the most recent Coho FRAM run. Changes to ocean fisheries resulted in a few more Coho crossing the bar, but no changes to the fisheries.

There has been some concern that the model has issues. I am available to meet with anyone to discuss any model issues you have.

Thank you all for helping during this tuff year.

Mike



2016 Grays Harbor Fall Non-Treaty Terminal Area Planning Model
2016 Runsize with 2016 Public proposal, Preliminary and Subject to Change 032416
Model Run Description Preseason planning 03/24/2016
PFMC Option # 2
FRAM Run # 1617

Fishery Description
Sport
Marine 2.2 Dates Bag Limit
Area 2D only Oct 1-Nov 30 1 Adult bag: release wild Chinook
Area 2C only Aug 1 - Sept 24 2 adults, release wild oho.

Chehalis River Mouth to Hwy 6 April 16 - June 30 1 Adult bag:
Chehalis River Mouth to Porter Aug 1-Sept 15 : Release adult salmon
Sept 16-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho

Chehalis River Porter up to High Bridge Sept 16-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho
0 0
Hwy 6 to high bridge

Hoquiam Closed 0

Wishkah Oct 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho


Wynoochee Oct 1-Nov 30 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook and wild Coho

Satsop Sept 16-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho
0 0

Black River Closed 0

Skookumchuck Oct. 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho


Newaukum Oct. 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho

Elk and Johns Closed 0

Humptulips River FW Sept. 1-Sept 30 2 Adult bag: 1 may be a wild Chinook, release wild Coho
Oct 1-Nov 15 2 Adult bag: 1 may be a Chinook, release wild Coho
Nov 16-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho
Commercial Dates # days Details
Area 2A/2D Oct 24,25, and 26 3 7:00am to 7:00pm 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook


Area 2C Oct 17 and 18 2 6:30am to 10:30pm 16 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Coho
Oct 30 and 31 2 7:00am to 7:00pm 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Coho
Hi All,

Attached is a summary of the proposed salmon fishing package for GH and the associated planning model. We hope to have the CR 102s filed this week. If that doesn’t happen, the next filing date is May 18th. The planning model was updated from the last model I sent with the most recent Coho FRAM run. Changes to ocean fisheries resulted in a few more Coho crossing the bar, but no changes to the fisheries.

There has been some concern that the model has issues. I am available to meet with anyone to discuss any model issues you have.

Thank you all for helping during this tuff year.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/16 07:20 AM

So there's going to be late coho gillnetting under the guise of a chum fishery? And release wild coho? out of a gillnet? [Bleeeeep!]
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/16 07:25 AM

Late Coho do not show in models until Dec 1. The fall Coho are what is known as normal timed with two components & the early part is from hatchery influence over the years and the Nov portion is similar to the Native Coho timing. The NT Nets will be netting the middle of the Normal timed Coho, give or take a bit. Now the release bit on the 2C NT Net fishery I am with you as Coho will not do well any how by anyone when transitioning from salt to fresh.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/16 08:25 AM

The need to:

1. Eliminate NT gill netting in Chehalis(2 A & D)/Humptulips (2C). NO NEED TO HAVE 3 gill nets seasons. QIN, Chehalis, and NT....low man out.

2. We keep playing games...if WDFW wants to keep NT fishing, 100% fish friendly gear or you don't fish.

There is NO EASY answer but clearly the present program has flaws, and wild Coho on both the Humptulips and tributaries to the Chehalis system and indeed the Chehalis itself need additional protection.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/16 06:28 PM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
So there's going to be late coho gillnetting under the guise of a chum fishery? And release wild coho? out of a gillnet? [Bleeeeep!]


NO... the fugger's'll be keeping them wild coho outright.

The TRHEE days of gillnetting in the Chehalis is designated a CHUM fishery.

Interestingly enough, the GH Policy expressly forbids a chum-directed fishery when there is a conservation concern for coho.... yet staff insists on including it in the non-treaty (state) schedule.

Let's hit 'em hard at the CR102 hearing, folks.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/16 07:40 PM

ok, the live boxes and releasing wild coho is in 2C. They get to gillnet coho in the Chehalis this year, keeping the wild ones we are trying desperately to protect. everybody should remember the video from a few years ago where the bastards were shaking fish out of their net that they had to release instead of handling them carefully and being stewards of the resource like they claim to be. Also, Not sure why there is more than one commercial fishery in the Chehalis, the tribes provide plenty of fish for the market.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/16 11:01 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
[

Let's hit 'em hard at the CR102 hearing, folks.


Did I miss the date????? Place?????? Time???????
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/16 11:30 PM

Filed either earlier today or May 18.

Hearing sometime thereafter.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 06:25 AM

mmmmmm, Why file then have the hearing?????? Seems "ass backward" to me. WDFW knows now there are questions, seems like a "smart agency" would tie up the loose ends before the CR102 is filed.

I wanta know why NT are allow retention of Wild Coho, at any time in GH!!!!

No retention for Coho on any sport fishery.....why the double standard?????
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 06:51 AM


The APA process requires the 30 day comment period and the agency can use comments or not. It is purely a legal requirement. I do not recall any significant changes ever after the CR 102 is filed.

Lets get this straight, it is about impacts. Nets could release Coho but most would be dead with phony mortality rates. The keep is the cleanest way to insure accurate impact numbers and get the nets in and out. Now that the three days of NT Nets is eating up a huge number of the marine impacts ( A & D ) is another discussion.

As to Rec retention of NOR Coho you would likely be off the water in mid Oct to Jan 1 in river if we did the retain NOR thing.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 07:16 AM

A year like this should have no NT netting period. Not sure why the state continues this form of welfare at the cost of creating further distrust with the sportfishing community who provide so many more dollars into the economy.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 09:28 AM

Gillnetting in October, when coho are the species of concern.... quality management right there. Of course, if the Cowboys didn't get those three days, the QIN would have taken four....

I'd really like to see a plan for in-season management, where we only get to fish after wild coho escapements are assured, but we know that won't happen, because it would all but assure no NT gillnet fishery would be allowed. With that, I think we should think carefully about whether we want to fish at all past September (assuming we wouldn't be shut down by then anyway). It seems very likely that, between WDFW's welfare fishery and the QIN's perennial slaughter, coho will miss escapement again this year. That would make 2 years in a row, leaving only one strike for the next three years before the GHMP penalty box comes into play, prolonging our inability to harvest wild coho for several more years. I don't think we want to afford the co-managers any way to lump sport fishers in as one of the user groups doing their share of the damage. Personally, I'd rather sit this one out and focus on a massive PR smearing of the Tribe and the NT gillnetters, who would be the only entities harvesting fish in a year of tremendous peril, and therefore in a rather indefensible position, should coho miss escapement again. It's time for the gloves to come off. We'd have to take the first punch on the chin, and it would hurt, but it's time we stopped giving the liars and cheats who manage our fisheries an out when THEY screw the fish over.

I say, let's get after hatchery kings early, then get the heck off the water before whatever wild coho are coming show up in earnest. If coho show in the numbers expected, fishing will suck, big time, so we won't be missing much. Let the other guys handle the abusive, irresponsible $hit, and make them pay in public perception.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 11:24 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
It seems very likely that, between WDFW's welfare fishery and the QIN's perennial slaughter, coho will miss escapement again this year. That would make 2 years in a row, leaving only one strike for the next three years before the GHMP penalty box comes into play, prolonging our inability to harvest wild coho for several more years.


We are effectively in "penalty box" mode due to the poor run-size forecast ... max 5% impact cap for 2016.

The same WILL happen again in 2017 when coho are a repeat NO SHOW (yes, even worse than this year!) and we again manage for a 5% impact cap on a runsize that will NOT make e-goal.

At that point, we will have missed e-goal for 15, 16, and 17. That's when the REAL penalty box kicks in. Policy would then prohibit wild coho-directed fisheries for 18 and 19. If all goes well for ocean conditions beyond 2017, the earliest we would get to fish for wild Chehalis-origin coho would be 2020. That's only IF the ocean turns the corner in 2017. Wouldn't hold my breath for that just yet.

Sorry to be the bearer of BAD news.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 12:12 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
It seems very likely that, between WDFW's welfare fishery and the QIN's perennial slaughter, coho will miss escapement again this year. That would make 2 years in a row, leaving only one strike for the next three years before the GHMP penalty box comes into play, prolonging our inability to harvest wild coho for several more years.


We are effectively in "penalty box" mode due to the poor run-size forecast ... max 5% impact cap for 2016.

The same WILL happen again in 2017 when coho are a repeat NO SHOW (yes, even worse than this year!) and we again manage for a 5% impact cap on a runsize that will NOT make e-goal.

At that point, we will have missed e-goal for 15, 16, and 17. That's when the REAL penalty box kicks in. Policy would then prohibit wild coho-directed fisheries for 18 and 19. If all goes well for ocean conditions beyond 2017, the earliest we would get to fish for wild Chehalis-origin coho would be 2020. That's only IF the ocean turns the corner in 2017. Wouldn't hold my breath for that just yet.

Sorry to be the bearer of BAD news.


Better put. Thank you... and damn you for confirming my fears!

This is really bad, but if sport fishing is as severely limited as it promises to be over the next few years, the golden goose (us) will eventually cease to lay. I strongly suspect that tightening up the purse strings will heighten WDFW's sense of priority regarding recreational fishing. That's when things will change, if there are still any fish left to fight over.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 12:14 PM

I'll bet the jet sled and drift boat market is starting to heavily favor buyers about now....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 12:46 PM

Quote:
Gillnetting in October, when coho are the species of concern.... quality management right there. Of course, if the Cowboys didn't get those three days, the QIN would have taken four....


Ah no.............. the QIN have been taking advantage of the GHMP 3/5 limiting our ( state ) Chinook impacts when we have had the most havestable Chinook in recent memory. If you look to the preseason model with the run reconstruction the QIN passed on a lot of Coho harvest recently but were quite happy to take what we ( state ) passed on in Chinook. So QIN blowing things apart is a bit off. Now that they not playing nice, one could make that case as well as they have restrained themselves. It is a matter of perspective to be sure.

As strong as supporter of the GHMP I must say it is flawed in three areas and the 3/5 clause being the most blatant. The fact that the Commission did not address it ( and staff refused to bring it forward to them at inception despite knowing of the problem even when I and others raised the issue) set this chain of events in motion. What Doc outlined could happen as well as the GHMP being modified which is more likely to happen next year. The question will likely be if we can save the good from thrown out with the bad.

Oh yeah I read a article that TRM cancelled 2 million in new orders.
http://thelens.news/2016/05/03/state-tri...season-for-now/
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 12:58 PM

Ok. I picked the wrong spot to take another jab at the Tribe. My post was not really aimed at the Tribe, so I should have restrained myself.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 01:22 PM

Just doing e mail and caught it but be unkind to the tribes if you like Ed Johnstone has a bit coming. God knows between the state and tribe pissing on each other for years it leaves us being the ping pong ball flying around. The problem is most do not have the historical memory ( I am really getting old! ) to get past the present to where and the hell things went South. In GH it was when the state split Hump & Chehalis in GH to enable the bay fishery followed by a bunch absolutely pure BS in release moralities. The tribe does the same as they ignore the 15 to 20 % Sea Lion theft like it does not exist. It has continued to go down hill picking up speed from that point with it just depending on the year as to who screws who with the Rec usually getting the shaft as with inriver last year.. The Bay Rec got screwed this year by the near 600 NT Net Coho impacts with the Bay Rec half that. For whatever the reason WDF&W just cannot turn loose of the NT Nets with last year screwing the inriver & this year the bay.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 06:40 PM

I'm still of a mind that we should work toward the elimination of hatchery salmon production in Gray's Harbor, except for mitigation in regard to Skookumchuck and Wynoochee. (I'm not anti-hatchery, mind you.) The presence of forecasted hatchery salmon in GH gives WDFW the excuse to try to manage for NT gillnet fishing, when it is clear to any objective observer that it should have been ended years ago.

Absent hatchery salmon, QIN would have little choice to manage for wild salmon escapements since they could not rely on their policy science that hatchery and wild salmon are the same and therefore hatchery fish could fill the escapement void.

And absent hatchery salmon, there would be no excuse to hold NT gillnet fisheries impacting wild salmon under the guise of harvesting abundant hatchery salmon (in the years when they are actually abundant, not this year or next, obviously).

When not faced with the coastal "blob" or freshwater drought conditions, GH is actually pretty darn productive of wild salmon, enough to provide satisfying treaty and NT recreational fishing. And WDFW would save all the money pissed away producing hatchery salmon for B.C. and managing a NT gillnet fishery that costs more to manage than it returns in commercial landings. That alone would contribute to a significant improvement in the image and integrity of WDFW, not to mention its financial solvency.

Sg
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/16 07:48 PM

Salmo, you used "image" and "integrity" in the same sentence with WDFW. How come???
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/06/16 09:06 AM

Carcassman,

We Pollyanna types are ever the optimist.

Sg
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/06/16 11:38 AM

Can't agree enough with Sg's thoughts on closing the GH hatcheries. I fear that idea would meet with political opposition by the Tribes and our local representatives (the ones keeping the NT nets fishing in GH), but I agree GH holds its own nicely when it isn't beset by poor ocean conditions or relentless overharvest.... Sadly, it's usually beset by one, the other, or both.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/06/16 12:43 PM

If the Leg or tribes want GH hatcheries (or anywhere in the state) let them fund them with GF funds and let the license funds go to benefitting those who pay.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/06/16 12:44 PM


It is common to cross things between places. GH has been managed for NOR always ( Hump Coho the exception ) and never managed for a directed hatchery harvest even when we had 6 times the production. Did make for rather good inriver fishing as NOR impacts limited hatchery harvest by nets. In tight times or situations such as the Hump C&R primarily Rec but hatchery fish are just a bonus. We are give or take 6 to 1 wild over hatchery in both Chinook & Coho so the concept that no hatchery fish would reduce NOR impacts is a bit of a reach. It is always the NOR impact limiting and targeted with hatchery in the mix. GH hatchery production is a small sideline thing that can be either a wash or beneficial but seldom to never a driver in harvest.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/18/16 07:55 AM

Just a catch up for folks as nobody is saying much. Region 6 Fish Programs Manager is very ill and will be off work a substantial time. I wish him success in his struggle and thank him for his time with our community. Steve is bit old school but a damn straight ahead guy and descent to work with which is about as good as it gets.

The other thing is Annette Hoffman is the the interim Region 6 R-6 Fish Program manager Region 4 and it is said she wiz at math. Thought I would get this out with rumors being so rampant.

Oh almost forgot the Grays Harbor CR 102 for the 2016 WAC setting the fall salmon seasons will be filed shortly.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/18/16 12:31 PM

Math whiz, eh? At this point, I'd settle for management that doesn't try to convince us that 2 + 2 is 5....

Just for fun. Nothing personally directed at Steve, who I would also like to wish well.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/18/16 07:05 PM

The CR-102 is out for Grays Harbor and Willapa.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#16-02-117b
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/02/16 09:39 AM

Here are the hearing date & times for the GH & Willapa CR 102's for those not on the distribution list.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - Notice of Proposed Rule Making

In an effort to reduce unnecessary printing costs and help protect our environment, we are asking those interested in viewing the CR-102 and proposed WAC changes to access it electronically at the following web site, where it can be viewed or downloaded http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html.


2016 North of Falcon Rulemaking - Recreational Salmon Fishery - Coastal Freshwater

A public hearing will be held in accordance with RCW 34.05.325 on June 21, 2016 at the Region 6 Montesano Office in the large conference room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563.

June 21, 2016 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.:
WAC 220-310-180 – Freshwater exceptions to statewide rules – Coast,
WAC 220-16-220 – Geographical definitions – Willapa Bay, and
WAC 220-56-185 – Marine Area Codes.
Contact Rules Coordinator to provide written comments by June 21, 2016


2016 North of Falcon Rulemaking - Recreational Salmon Fishery

A public hearing will be held in accordance with RCW 34.05.325 on June 24, 2016 in the Natural Resources Building, Room 172, 1111 Washington St. SE Olympia, WA 98501.

June 24, 2016 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.:
WAC 232-28-620 Coastal salmon – Saltwater seasons and daily limits (Marine Areas in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor) and
WAC 220-55-220 Two-pole endorsement
Contact Rules Coordinator to provide written comments by June 24, 2016


In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing you may submit written comments to: Rules Coordinator via mail at: WDFW Enforcement 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091, via e-mail: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or via fax: (360) 902-2155.

If you would like an email copy or need a printed copy of the proposed rules, please send a request
to: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or call (360) 902-2700.


Please be aware – if you open the attached Excel files on a Mac, the file will not load properly. It may appear that it does open correctly but there will be cells and data missing that you won’t notice.



And then this which is the briefing given the Commission early on this year.


Summary
Meeting dates: March 24, 2016
Agenda item: Grays Harbor Salmon Management

Presenter(s):
Ron Warren, Assistant Director, Fish Program Jim Scott, Special Assistant, Director’s Office Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager
Background summary:
1) The purpose of the Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management policy is to advance the conservation and restoration of wild salmon. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state, and provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences and a fair distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Grays Harbor Basin.
2) The policy includes a risk control provision that presumptively limits the impacts of WDFW-managed fisheries to 5% if a spawner goal has not been achieved for 3 of the last 5 years.
3) The forecasted return of 19,503 Chinook salmon to the Chehalis River in 2016 is more than twice the spawner goal. Despite this large predicted return, the risk control provision, if applied without any flexibility, would limit fishery impacts for WDFW– managed fisheries to 5%.
4) The Department evaluated potential adaptive management actions that would relax the 5% risk control provision but still result in a high likelihood of achieving the spawner goal.
5) Preliminary analysis indicates that an 85% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 8% nontreaty harvest rate, and a 77% probability of achieving the spawner goal could be maintained with a 12% nontreaty harvest rate.
6) A key assumption of the analysis is that the Quinault tribal fishery will be managed to achieve 50% of the harvestable number of Chinook salmon as determined by the preseason forecast of abundance.

Additional information is provided in the attached briefing paper.
Policy issue(s) you are bringing to the Commission for consideration:
During the North of Falcon preseason planning process, the Department proposes to explore adaptively managing the state-managed Grays Harbor fishery to provide a high likelihood of achieving the Chehalis Chinook salmon spawner goal and providing a limited recreational Chinook fishery with a target harvest rate of 8%-10%.
Public involvement process used and what you learned:

N/A
Action requested:
Public input and Fish and Wildlife Commission discussion of proposed adaptive management actions.
Draft motion language:
N/A
Justification for Commission action:
N/A
Communications Plan:
Adaptive management proposal will be discussed with stakeholders during the North of Falcon preseason fishery planning process.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/16 04:54 AM

Does anyone have any idea what is going on here? A end run by staff as it is outside the NOF process?



2016 North of Falcon Rulemaking - Recreational Salmon Fishery

A public hearing will be held in accordance with RCW 34.05.325 on June 24, 2016 in the Natural Resources Building, Room 172, 1111 Washington St. SE Olympia, WA 98501.

June 24, 2016 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.:
WAC 232-28-620 Coastal salmon – Saltwater seasons and daily limits (Marine Areas in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor) and
WAC 220-55-220 Two-pole endorsement
Contact Rules Coordinator to provide written comments by June 24, 2016



In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing you may submit written comments to: Rules Coordinator via mail at: WDFW Enforcement 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091, via e-mail: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or via fax: (360) 902-2155.

If you would like an email copy or need a printed copy of the proposed rules, please send a request
to: Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov or call (360) 902-2700.


Please be aware – if you open the attached Excel files on a Mac, the file will not load properly. It may appear that it does open correctly but there
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/16 10:07 AM


& the awnser is below and THX to Barb for clearing it up.



The June 24th public hearing is for comments relating to the two marine areas 2.1 and 2.2 for WB and GH. Those proposed regulations are filed in a different WAC than the freshwater regulations and that WAC is filed through the folks in Olympia not through me. So if anyone wants to provide public comments for either of the marine areas in WB or GH they need to either send in those comments to the Rules Coordinator or attend the hearing on the 24th.

If they have comments for any proposed freshwater regulations for WB, GH or North Coast they should attend the hearing on June 21st or send in their comments to the Rules Coordinator.

If you look on the email you received below, I included the title that the regulations are listed under on our webpage. I also highlighted in red what WACs the public hearing was for; the hearing on the June 21st said Coastal Freshwater Rules and WB Recreational Boundary and the hearing on the 24th said Saltwater seasons.

I hope that makes sense now. Let me know if it is still unclear.
Barbara
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/16 01:15 PM

I think I came to an AHA moment the other day.

The way the hearings are structured/scheduled to separate the fresh vs salt and the rec vs comm fisheries into multiple distinct hearings makes it extremely difficult to have a persuasive argument in just one hearing alone.

WHY?

Because the fisheries are inextricably linked in the harvest model to achieve the conservation objectives. Since it's a fully allocated zero-sum game, to give anything to one sector at this point means taking something away from the other. Changes simply can't be made in isolation.

"Oh wait.... that's a DIFFERENT hearing. Sorry, can't help you."

OK... maybe I'm just getting old and jaded.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/16 03:02 PM

You may be getting old but your vision seems to be getting more acute.
Posted by: wsu

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/16 03:54 PM

If you really want a jaded view, perhaps take into account that many of these hearings (Columbia River/B-10 for example) take place after the deal has already been inked with 3rd parties. Oregon and WA have already announced the damn agreement and seasons.

WDFW has exactly zero intention of listening to anything that is said. If they cared, they wouldn't hold the hearing after the decision was final.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/26/16 07:00 AM

The final ( well kinda ) 2016 Commercial Grays Harbor seasons were filed but with changes WDF&W had to do a supplemental CR 102. There were changes in the 2C Commercial seasons. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2016/wsr_16-15-064.pdf To save reading here are the changes.

This attachment summarizes changes made since the filing of the original CR-102 that was filed as WSR 16-11-102. These changes were made based on public input received and a review of season structure and management objectives within Grays Harbor.

Changes:
Catch Area 2C:
&#61623; Adjustment to days scheduled in week 43, October 17th and 18th, to 12-hour opens.
&#61623; Allow the retention of unmarked Coho during openings in week 43,, October 17th and
18th, and during openings in week 45, October 30th and 31th

Timing on hours chaned but that was a relatively small thing to be honest. The retain Wild Coho thing when the Rec have to release will and has some screaming on the Rec side. ( no idea what the Commercials think or if they do think ) So this, do a phony release thing with a paper mortality number that we all know is pure 100% U.S.A made BS or they fish to they get their impact number and off the water. Some ( including myself suggested ) this change. I think R-6 got it right as accountability outweighs by a mile the need for a REC fishers perception that this somehow is unfair because they cannot retain unclipped fish. That impact number was there even if the Commercial did the live box release fiasco just now the numbers will be real, or as close as one can get them.


.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/27/16 12:14 PM

Fawn Sharp who is President of the QIN recently wrote a op-ed bit for the Aberdeen World newspaper. Good article but dear lord it was about as self serving ( for the QIN ) as one can get. So this was published in the World and was written by the wife of a lifelong East County resident, oh and she fishes.


Editorial on the culvert case omitted key facts

The editorial published in the Daily World written by Fawn Sharp of the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) contains many factual points about habitat and declining salmon runs. It’s not what she says that is troubling, but rather what she omits.

The culvert case is the latest ruling of the long running suit wherein the federal government sued the state of Washington. The first major ruling in U.S. v- WA was the “Boldt Decision” which established the QIN had the right to “fish in common” with non-tribal citizens which Boldt translated to 50/50 sharing of the salmon. At that point, both tribal and non-tribal citizens were granted a right to fish together and the state and QIN would “co-manage” the resource.

Ms. Sharp wrote “Don’t fall into the trap of blaming tribal harvest for the demise of this precious resource. It’s just not true. ……..the process used to determine if the harvests are safe are exhausting, highly scrutinized and based on escapement levels tailored to available habitat.” I strongly challenge this commentary.

First, the escapement goal for salmon is established under a concept called “Maximum Sustainable Yield” (MSY). MSY is theoretically, the largest yield (or catch) that can be taken from a species' stock over an indefinite period (Wikipedia). Then, in Grays Harbor, the seasons set often exceed MSY and the over harvesting of salmon reduces the run size too less than the escapement goal. The solution offered by the QIN for failing to reach escapement goals for Chehalis River Chinook was not to cut back on its harvest. Rather, the QIN chose to successfully petition federal and state regulators to lower the escapement goal so the rate of harvest could be continued. As a result, fewer Chinook are expected to reach the spawning ground today than in the past.

Seldom do the co-managers allow adequate numbers of salmon to clear the lower stretches of the rivers to use the currently available habitat. Requiring non-tribal taxpayers to invest nearly $2 billion on culvert replacement will do very little, if any, in recovering salmon runs unless the harvest that is co-managed by the QIN is set at a level that allows adequate numbers of salmon to actually reach the reopened portions of the streams.

As for the 50/50 ruling in Boldt, the state Fish & Wildlife Commission passed a policy for Grays Harbor that prioritized conservation over harvest. At that time, Ms. Sharp was critical of the action on the grounds no conservation issues existed in our area. As a result of the policy, Fish & Wildlife lead the way and curtailed state non-tribal seasons last fall. No retention of natural spawning Chinook (unclipped) was allowed in the Chehalis River in an attempt to get more salmon up to the spawning grounds. The Quinaults then moved to take advantage by setting a net season that captured 8,697 Chinook. Far in excess of its 50 percent share, many of those salmon that expired in a tribal net in the Chehalis from the Port of Grays Harbor to S. Montesano were from the non-treaty half that was “foregone” in an attempt to insure enough Chinook reached the spawning grounds. This was extremely frustrating to the non-tribal fishers like myself who were asked to hang up our poles only to see our fish end up on ice at the tribal dock on the Wishkah.

I agree with Ms. Sharp on the notion conservation is a standard that needs to be fostered by all the state’s citizens, tribal and non-tribal alike. Same with the harvest. As Judge Boldt stated the “fishing in common” language of the treaty means 50/50. My great grandchildren have the same right to catch a fish with a pole as a Quinault child does with a net. Boldt did not say that the non-tribal citizens (taxpayers) get 100% of the bill and tribal citizens get all the fish.

I agree with Ms. Sharp that we are at a crossroad of historical importance. Not just for our children who would fish, but those who don’t as well. Most my age who’ve lived in Grays Harbor remember the loss of jobs and extremely negative economic impacts of the “spotted owl” when it hit the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act. Numerous salmon and steelhead runs in Puget Sound and the Columbia River that are co-managed with tribes have already reached that designation. The first step in that process is a notice of “over-harvest”. Last year, the feds so flagged the Chehalis Chinook. The coastal economy simply can’t risk seeing those salmon runs to decline due to the rate of harvest to the point where we have another spotted owl disaster.

Ms. Sharp proudly presented the importance tribal citizens place on preserving fishing and restoring habitat. Many in the Quinault Indian Nation deserve that recognition. However, the fall salmon season is approaching and once again the state is asking the non-tribal side to step aside and allow the necessary numbers of salmon reach the spawning grounds. Hopefully, the Quinault Indian Nation will “practice what it preaches” and not take advantage once again by exceeding its right to catch half the fish available for harvest.

Mary Ann Schweitzer

Fawn Sharps OP-ED: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yYVJNeUFZY2p2NEE/view
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/27/16 02:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Fawn Sharp who is President of the QIN recently wrote a op-ed bit for the Aberdeen World newspaper. Good article but dear lord it was about as self serving ( for the QIN ) as one can get. So this was published in the World and was written by the wife of a lifelong East County resident, oh and she fishes.






"As for the 50/50 ruling in Boldt, the state Fish & Wildlife Commission passed a policy for Grays Harbor that prioritized conservation over harvest. At that time, Ms. Sharp was critical of the action on the grounds no conservation issues existed in our area. The Quinaults then moved to take advantage by setting a net season that captured 8,697 Chinook. Far in excess of its 50 percent share, many of those salmon that expired in a tribal net in the Chehalis from the Port of Grays Harbor to S. Montesano were from the non-treaty half that was “foregone” in an attempt to insure enough Chinook reached the spawning grounds.
Ms. Sharp proudly presented the importance tribal citizens place on preserving fishing and restoring habitat. Many in the Quinault Indian Nation deserve that recognition. However, the fall salmon season is approaching and once again the state is asking the non-tribal side to step aside and allow the necessary numbers of salmon reach the spawning grounds. Hopefully, the Quinault Indian Nation will “practice what it preaches” and not take advantage once again by exceeding its right to catch half the fish available for harvest.

Mary Ann Schweitzer

Fawn Sharps OP-ED: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yYVJNeUFZY2p2NEE/view


If the Quinault do not see "conservation issues" and have not taken steps to work in a realistic manner with co-managers what makes you think they will not take our fish again? I still think that the state is doing the right thing, let the Quinaut talk to the Creator when they have to atone for sins against the planet. You know, if they want to destroy the fish runs for their decendants there is not much we can do about it other then try and do the right thing for the future of the salmon. Let them explain it "upstairs".Bob R
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/27/16 02:10 PM

One of the questions asked by WDF in Fish Bio interviews in the late 70s/early 80s was along the lines of "If you know a stock needs protection and you know that the next manager in line will not be properly protecting it, what kind of fisheries should you schedule?"

The desired answer was that you would not fish on a stock needing protection even if the later-in-line managers overfished.

Should be noted that the test questions were (at that time) designed by the bios and not by the politician/managers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/16 10:13 AM

Two more updates, well sorta. DW has stayed with the Wynoochee Mitigation issue and the 25 YEARS of failure of WDF&W to meet the legal requirements for mitigation fish. E mails to the Director and Commission almost monthly and I am sure all will be shocked and appalled to know that now nobody will respond to the simple question. What progress is staff making on the issue ? Dead silence again. You got to love these guys! The Director even told the Commission at a hearing he would report back for all to know MONTHS ago. F minus here Mr. Unsworth.

The other issue is not a barn burner but the USGS is doing some Spring Chinook Radio tracking and a report is supposed to be out and about some place. So I asked R-6 staff and they helped chase it down. This was forwarded to me.

The report went through the internal USGS review process and is now being finalized. I expect the final report to be available the beginning of August.[i][/i]

So we wait on this also but at least it appears to be crawling its way down the road.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/16 01:44 PM

Can anyone verify that the Wynoochee Mitigation fund still exists? The way they tap dance around that issue sure makes it seem likely the money was spent, possibly long ago, on something else.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/16 01:47 PM

Given the mindset of at least some WDFW bean counters you're probably right that the WM money is long gone.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/16 02:17 PM

Put in a dedicated account at signing by TCL and has been drawing interest since. 2 million plus now if I recall correctly.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/16 03:11 PM

its gone along time ago!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/16 05:23 PM


Nope that was the first dam mit monies that have been used up which are another story all together. These funds are the second which was about the modification for power generation. Two different monies.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/16 10:09 PM

Rivrguy is correct in regards to the Wynoochee mitigation money. Deposited in a bank in Aberdeen by Tacoma Power for WDFW and the fish committee to decide what to do with. There was a plan about 4 years ago approved by the committee excepting QIN, who apparently controls WDFW on this matter. However, legally it's up to the committee to make a recommendation to FERC for approval. It does not have to be unanimous, but WDFW won't move on it without the consent of QIN. Makes a person wonder.

Sg
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/16 06:30 AM

Not really Salmo. The Tribes own WDFW. It's like the Tribes are the Mariners and WDFW is the Bellingham Baby M's.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/16 06:57 AM


Ah yes the Fish Committee, SG your correct as it is a element of the process seldom seen or known about really. That said read the agreement and it is stated flat out it is the signators City of Aberdeen QIN, WDF&W ( used to be both Game and Fisheries ), Chehalis Tribe, TCL have to sign off on any changes in the mitigation. The Fish Technical Committee has never really been involved SG just basically window dressing to rubber stamp things and cover the agencies ass.

Now for the record here CM and I sat through meetings at Bristol for many years and have the minutes. In fact it was in that process that two plans came together including the one previously mentioned. To be blunt it was Ron Warren who screwed up the first shot and Jim Scott the second but former Regional Director Sue Patnude's effort to hijack the money to do habitat restoration and call it mitigation is my all time favorite.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/16 08:20 AM

Rivrguy,

Are you saying that any one of the parties (QIN in this case) can veto a plan that has been approved by all the other parties? FERC typically does not require unanimous agreement, recognizing that there may be an outlier in any mulit-stakeholder group. Since this agreement falls under the umbrella of Tacoma's FERC license, that usually makes FERC the final voice of approval.

I'm just trying to understand why WDFW won't act when all parties except QIN have signed off, unless unanimous approval is necessary, or QIN (and tribes in general) own WDFW as Carcassman suggests.

Sg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/16 08:56 AM


SG here it is and forgive typos as I had to convert it off a old PDF. Keep in mind that the mitigation numbers of fish produced has never been a issue other than the agencies around Coho which nobody knows what they were.



October a, 1992

To: Jim Harp, Quinault Tribe
From:Dave Gufler, Wildlife --••••
Re: Attached Letter to Corps

As you recall we signed a mitigation agreement (attached) this winter with the Cities of Al:)erdeen and Tacoma for fish losses at wynoochee Dam . oue to circumstances beyond our control the "hatchery" oonoept has been modified to accommodate concerns by several groups (i.e.Wild Trout Alliance). They have opposed the hatchery alternative and maintained other mitigation alternatives must be addressed in the NEPA document which will be rewritten by the Corps.

The Cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma have requested the Corps seprate Title Transfer and Rule curve Change from Mitigation Alternatives in the revised NEPA document. We supported this concept to expedite the process. The attached letter to the Corps is needed to clarify the original intent of the mitigation agreement and allow the Corps to correctly address the agreement in their NEPA analysis.

Harry Hosey, consultant for Tacoma will be contacting you to explain the need for the letter and request your signature.
If you have questions feel free to contact Bill Freymond or
myself.


DG/dg
cc: Jim Deshazo
Bill Freymond

APR 03'03 10:54AM WDFW MONTESANO P.3



AGREEMENT FOR
MITIGATION AHD ENHANCEMENT
AT WYNOOCHEE DAM


THIS AGREEMENT i s made and entered into by and between the Cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma, herei n referred to as the Cities, and the Washington State Departments of Wi ldl ife and Fi sheries, the U.S.Fish and Wil dl i fe Service, the U .S.Forest Service , the Quinaul t Indian Nation, and the Confederated Chehal is Tri beJ herei n referred ta as the Agenci es.
WHEREAS, the Cities desi re to mi tigate for impacts associated with impl ementation of a new higher reservoir rul e curve (Exhi bit A); and
WHEREAS, the Cities desi re to vol untarily pursue resol ution of past mi tigation issues on the Wynoochee Project; and
WHEREAS, the Citi es desire to vol untar11y •enhance fisheri es and
wi ldl ife resources; and
WHEREAS. the Corps of Engineer previ ously mitigated for lost spawning areas withi n the enti re reservcir perimeter; and
WHEREAS, the Ci ties are pursui ng transfer of titl e from the Corps of Engi neers to the City of Aberdeen; and
WHEREAS, the Agencies desire to protect, preserve, and enhance fi sheries and wi ldl i fe resources.

NOW THER£FOREJ the parties hereto agree as foll ows :•

1. MITIGATION OF NEW RESERVOIR RULE CURVE
The Cities agree to repl ace in val ue, by payment of $6,000 to the U.S. Forest Service, the elk forage planted in the Wynoochee Reservoir.
The U .S.Forest Service shall be responsible for usi ng this money•to create additional el k forage . •

2. RESOLUTION OF PAST MITIGATION ISSUES ON THE WYNOOCHEE PROJECT The Cities agree to pursue through the ongoing title transfer
legislation, funds to construct and operate a hatchery as descri bed in
Exhi bit B. Should the titl e transfer effort fail or Congress not approve the method of fundi ng the hatchery, the Agencies wi l l pursue resol ut;on of past mitigation with the owner of Wynoochee Dam .



Page l of 4

APR 03 103 10:55AM WDFl,J MONTESANO P.4



The goal of the hatchery is to annual ly produce the fol l owing: 1) a total of 1209 adul t Coho Salmon, whi ch may requi re an annual rel ease of approxi mately 55,700 Coho Salmon yearl i ng smolts weighi ng 16 fish/pound; and 2)a total of 254 adul t steel head, whi ch may equi re an annual rel ease of approxi mately 25,000 steel head yearl ings wei ghi ng 5 to 6 fi sh/pound.
The Ci ties further agree to design and construct said hatchery wi th said funds since construction may be signi ficantly less expensi ve as a part cf the major contract for constructi on of the hydroel ectri c project. A separate opti onal bid wil l be incl uded 1n the contract to . permi t the Departments of Fi sheri es and Wi l dl ife the option to proceed wi th or be paid the avai l abl e funds and proceed on thei r own. It i s understood that when the bids are recei ved, there Wi l l only be a very shart time peri od ta make a decisi on and to enter i nto an agreement to impl ement an opti on .

3. ENHANCEMENT OF FISHERIES RESOURCES
The Cities agree to commence studi es withi n six months of title transfer to determi ne i f the spring refi l l ing fl ood control rule curve may be mod1f1 ed to al l ow earl i er refi l l i ng, thus maki ng more water avail abl e to improve passage condi tions through the Wynoochee Reservoir for out-mi grati ng fish duri ng the peri od of Apri l 15 to
June 30 of each year . Thi s action wi l l requi re approval of the Corps of Engi neers and they have i ndi cated studi es may take e1ght months and . envi ronmental eval uation another year . The Ci ties agree to pursue the issue as expediti ously as al lowed.
The Citi es agree to enter into a Water Rel ease Agreement wi th the Washi ngton State Departments of Wil dl ife and Fi sheries to improve passage conditions through the Wynoochee Reservoi r for•out-migrati ng fish duri ng the peri od of Apri l 15 to June 30 of each year (see Agreement for Water Rel ease at Wynoochee Dam). The initi al agreement shall be executed concurrently wi th thi s agreement and future
modifi cati ons are subject to condi tions as specifi ed in that agreement.

4. AGENCIES AGREEMENT
The Agenci es agree to support the establ i shment of a new reservoi r rule curve shown in Exhi bi t A (see.attached copy) and agree that no further studies or mi tigati on for the new rul e curve i s necessary based on the measures contai ned i n thi s agreement.
The Agenci es agree that. the future study for a refi l l f l ood control
•rule curve modifi eati on •wil l merely permi t enhancement of fi sheries and the resu1 ts of that study are not needed for proceeding with the hydroel ectric devel opment or fee titl e transfer .



Page 2 of 4

APR 03 '03 10:55AM WDFW MONTESANO P.5




The Agencies agree that the successful impl ementation of the elements identified in thi s agreement resolve all mitigation cl aims for past damages on the Wynoochee Project . The•agenci es may request addit1 onal mitigati on and/or enhancement when the Project is rel icensed with the Federal Energy Regul atory Commission (FERC).
The Agenci es agree that i f the total funding as specified in Exhi bit B
{see attached copy) is received by the Washi ngton State Departments of Fisheri es and Wi l dl ife, said amounts are sufficient to construct the desired hatchery and operate the hatchery through the licensed period
{September 9, 2037). The facil ity shal l be owned, operated, and mai ntai ned by the Washi ngton State Departments of Fisheries and Wi l dl ife until the end of the l icensed period . Therefore, the Agenci es hereby rel ease the Cities from al1 further obl igations rel ated to the fish hatchery, or its annua1 . juveni1 e producti on, or annual adult returns, as proposed, unti l the end of the l icensed period (September 9, 2037).

5. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
Any di spute among the Parties concerni ng compl i ance with this Settl ement Agreement shal 1 first be referred to the Wynoochee Fi s.hery Advisory Committee (WFAC )for consideration . The WFAC shall be composed of one representative from the City of Tacoma, the Ci ty of Aberdeen, the Washi ngton Department of Fi sheries, the Washington Department of Wildl ife, the Quinaul t Indian Nati on, and the Confederated Chehal is Tribe. The WFAC shall convene as soon as pract 1'cab1e fol1 owing a written request by any Party. All decisians of the WFAC must be by consensus of al l WFAC representatives. In the event the Comm1ttee cannot resolve the di spute withi n ninety (90)days after its first meeti ng on said dispute, the WFAC wil l give notice of
. its fail ure to resol ve the dispute to al l Parties. Upon receipt of such notice, the chief executive officer (CEO)for each party hereto shall meet and attempt to resolve the d1spute . If the CEOs cannot resolve the dispute within 30 days after their initial meeti ng, the isue i n dispute may be referred ta the FERC for resolution pursuant to the FERC 's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Upcn request by any Party, any dispute not resolved by consensus of the WFAC shall , prior to referral to.the FERC, be submitted to a mutually agreeabl e third party for decision, pursuant to procedures establ ished by the Parties. The arbitrator shall devel op a written record of the proceedings, including all submi ssions by the parties. The decision of the arbitrator shal l be nonbindi ng and subject to de novo FERC revi ew. The record of the arbitrati on proceedi ngs may be submitted to FERC by any Party u•n1 ess otherwise agreed. . •





Page :3 of 4







APR 03 '03 10:56AM WDFW MONTESANO P.6



Thi s agreement shall not be construed to supplant conditi ons of the FERC l icense, l imi t agenci es review of constructi on pl ans and mi ti gati on for constructi on i ssues, or l imi t revi ew and condi tions subsequent to ongoi ng surveys for the Spotted Owl and Bal d Eagl es.
Thi s agreement shal l have no effect on the exi sting col l ecti on and transportati on of fi sh in the watershed, management of el k miti gation l ands, or any exi sting operati ons prescri bed by the Corps of Engi neers .
Th i s agreement shal l be bi ndi ng on hei rs, successors, or assi gns.





STATE OF WASHINGTON
.DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE



NAME DATE '

STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES






•CONFEDERATED CHEHALIS TRIBE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION








•cITY OF ABERDEEN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF TACOMA .
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
LIGHT DIVISION .









......
WYN•OOC HEE- RESERVOlR
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/16 01:05 PM

What I remember about that process is that in the late 80s early 90s WDF had a plan for some rearing and release facility. Probably included egg-take too as I designed a constructed wetland for treatment of rearing wastewater. All I knew is we had a complete design and then NO GO.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/01/16 11:36 AM


Well here is NOAA on over fishing stocks. Washington coast in red. Not sure we wanted to be on this particular list.


NOAA Fisheries is pleased to present the 2015 Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries as managed under the science-based framework established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). 2016 marks the 40th anniversary of the MSA and the federal, state, and stakeholder partnership it established through eight fishery management councils to sustainably manage our nation’s marine fisheries. In 2015, two previously overfished stocks were rebuilt, and the number of stocks on the overfishing and overfished lists remains near all-time lows. Several stocks were assessed for the first time in 2015, which resulted in new information about the status of these stocks. Continuous monitoring and improvement of our knowledge about the status of these stocks is key under the MSA process for managing our fisheries to be sustainable.

Status Listings

Overfishing & Overfished Lists
Overfishing: 313 stocks with known status:

Overfished: 233 stocks with known status:

The Year in Review
At the end of 2015, 28 stocks were on the overfishing list and 38 stocks were on the overfished list. The number of stocks rebuilt since 2000 increased to 39. NOAA Fisheries tracks 473 stocks and stock complexes in 46 fishery management plans, or FMPs. Each year, assessments of various fish stocks and stock complexes are conducted to determine their status. These assessments include stocks of both known status and previously unknown status. Based on assessments conducted by the end of 2015, eight stocks were removed from the overfishing list and ten were added. Two stocks came off the
overfished list, and three were added. As required by the MSA management framework, all stocks added to the overfishing and overfished lists have management measures being implemented to end overfishing and rebuild. Specific changes to the status of stocks in 2015 include:

2015

Hogfish - Eastern Gulf of Mexico Puerto Rico Scups & Porgies Complex Puerto Rico Wrasses Complex
Thorny skate - Gulf of Maine Winter skate - Georges Bank/
Southern New England Windowpane - Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Greater amberjack - Gulf of Mexico
Gray triggerfish - Gulf of Mexico

Hogfish - Southeast Florida1
Chinook salmon - Columbia River Basin:
Upper River Summer Chinook salmon - Washington Coast:
Willapa Bay Fall Natural Chinook salmon - Washington Coast:
Grays Harbor Fall Coho salmon - Washington Coast: Hoh


Eastern Pacific2
Summer flounder
Yellowtail flounder - Southern New England/
Mid-Atlantic Winter flounder - Georges Bank Bigeye tuna - Atlantic

Blueline tilefish - South Atlantic Canary rockfish - Pacific Coast3

Hogfish - Southeast Florida1
Yellowtail Flounder - Southern New England/
Mid-Atlantic Winter Flounder - Georges Bank

Canary rockfish - Pacific Coast3 Petrale sole - Pacific Coast

1. Stock status was formerly listed as unknown
2. This stock was previously listed as a Pacific-wide stock, but was reported for the first time as separate Eastern Pacific and Western and Central North Pacific stocks.
3. This stock was removed from the overfished list and is now rebuilt.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/02/16 10:16 AM

QIN and WDFW need to hurry up and lower more goals.

Back in the 70s WDF published a small report, for the public, demonstrating that Puget Sound salmon management really was working. A number of streams, like the Green, were not achieving the goal because to do so would create huge hatchery surpluses (politically a VERY BAD thing). This was way before mass marking. The solution? Lower the goals to something the could hit. And they did. And called it successful management.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/08/16 06:21 PM

On another note, but still Chehalis related.

This is a rebuttal to QIN President Fawn Sharps editorial on the recently well publicized culvert case.

http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/letters...nd-conservation
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/16 09:48 AM

This was sent to me read and weep and here's the latest brochure on over fishing. It includes a listing for Willapa Chinook. If you don't add the Columbia, it looks like Region 6 has half the stocks designated overfished in the Pacific region. If you include canary rockfish, surf perch, and the Columbia where they effect those fisheries, it 100% of all. Attached and the link is below.



http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_e...cks_updated.pdf
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/16 12:56 PM

With 75% of the exploitation (overfishing) taking place BEFORE a single chinook swims past Westport or Tokeland, it's clear to me that our WDFW, WFWC, and PSC delegation need to seriously address northern intercepts of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay chinook BEFORE the next treaty is signed at PSC.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/12/16 04:19 PM

BC and Ak can argue that their harvests are incidental while harvests in WA are directed.

I agree with Doc that the marine fisheries to the north need reduction but it will be hard to argue that closing a fishery for a piddly amount of WA fish makes sense will be a hard sell. Especially since WA uses "its an incidental fishery" all the time to justify overharvest.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/16 10:06 AM


Having trouble with the word incidental I am. If I remember correctly Alaska's ocean Chinook harvest is around 95 to 97% BC or the three west coast states origin. Wait your right CM Alaska origin fish could be called incidental as they get mainly OTHERS fish. My bad.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/16 11:30 AM

All the AK fish stay in or are accessible only to AK. Which is why they can say **ck you to the rest of the coast because nobody can get their fish.

I doubt that the catch of Willapa Bay Natural Chinook dominates the catch. So, it is incidental to all the other harvestable stocks. A directed fishery on harvestable Chinook.

You are more familiar with the WB and GH numbers than I. IF there was no fishery in WA would the escapement goals be met? IF the fisheries were "properly" managed in season would the goals be met? If so, then both AK and BC could be justified in saying that the problem is with us down here; we can't manage the fishery.

Now, if goals are not being met and the only harvest is up north then we can argue with them. Just a bit of being Devil's Advocate here.....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/16 12:09 PM


GH Chinook make escapement normally prior WA st fisheries if you call 75% of harvestable taken first in AK & BC being OK. Willapa NOR ah not so much it is down a very small % left for local fisheries. NOAA somehow can estimate the total impact of fisheries and the total for the coast Chinook is above 80% prior to the fish entering into WA ST waters when all moralities are calculated in. WDF&W only talks about data from CWT's. Rather inconvenient to tell the average Joe or Jill the whole truth. They really do cherry pick to cover their asses !
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/16 04:53 PM

NOAA does the same thing. They will set "recovery" harvest rates with or without BC/AK depending on the optics of the harvest up there. Few folks care about much more than when it is open for them. Throw them a bone and they're quiet, if not happy.
Posted by: rojoband

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/16 06:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
NOAA does the same thing. They will set "recovery" harvest rates with or without BC/AK depending on the optics of the harvest up there. Few folks care about much more than when it is open for them. Throw them a bone and they're quiet, if not happy.


Explain what you mean? As far as I can tell this is exactly wrong...
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/16 07:04 PM

They set recovery rates for all harvests of South of BC, so they can ignore BC/AK.
Posted by: rojoband

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/16 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
They set recovery rates for all harvests of South of BC, so they can ignore BC/AK.


No they don't. The rates they set are for all fisheries. Example, LCR Chinook, LCR coho, Snake River Fall Chinook....these are rates that all (meaning AK, BC, WA, OR, and freshwater have to adhere to...)

Want to give an example of something you are describing? Reason I'm questioning your interpretation of the situation is RiverGuy was simply posting information about how they are analyzing things and you seem to want to say they are doing something that is only dealing with things south of the border....and that is incorrect, especially when it comes to stocks that are being caught off the coast, which are the stocks RiverGuy is bringing up here.

While you are often Puget Sound focused Carcassman, that may be what you're referring to, but blanket statements that are wrong, are well that, wrong.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/16 07:49 PM

I know some of the PS stocks were "recovered" with only southern fisheries considered. I forget specifically which ones but is probably some of the southern PS stocks. They (NOAA) were also allowing total harvests on some PS stocks (Nisqually, Puyallup I think) where the recovery rate exceeded calculated MSY, as has been discussed here before.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/17/16 11:30 AM

This CCA flyer came in so I thought I would post for you guys inland


WDFW will be hosting a meeting next Tuesday, August 23, from 5:30-7:00PM in Room 110 of the Walton Science Center at the Centralia College campus.

This will be an opportunity to share your views on WDFW’s 2017-2019 budget and proposed license fee increase. As currently proposed, the fee increase would result in a doubling of fees for most salmon and steelhead anglers. We are encouraging the angling public to weigh in on the proposal and provide specific feedback to WDFW regarding opportunities to improve sport fisheries and key fishery management policies.

CCA supports funding for our fisheries and hatcheries but we must also ensure that any fee increase is equitable and that WDFW’s policies and management decisions are consistent with the conservation and economic benefits of recreational fisheries. Earlier this week CCA sent a letter to WDFW Director Jim Unsworth outlining our concerns and making recommendations for modifying the proposal.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/27/16 11:30 AM

The link is to a WDF&W presentation on the cost and potential for mayhem in the Willapa Hatchery Complex. Interesting read and as I do not have the verbal that went with it it helps to know a little about the issues surrounding them. That said remember the Commission adopted the resolution that the user pays as in Rec covers their part of the pie but ( that but thing ) now look at the future cost and ask yourself how does WDF&W plan on doing that?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2016/08/aug0516_05_presentation.pdf
Posted by: OncyT

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/27/16 12:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
I know some of the PS stocks were "recovered" with only southern fisheries considered. I forget specifically which ones but is probably some of the southern PS stocks. They (NOAA) were also allowing total harvests on some PS stocks (Nisqually, Puyallup I think) where the recovery rate exceeded calculated MSY, as has been discussed here before.

Initially the Co-managers proposed exploitation rates for some populations that only considered Southern US (SUS) fisheries. (See the "Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook, Harvest Management Component, written by Puget Sound Indian Tribes and WDFW.) Those populations included Mid-Hood Canal, Skokomish, Green R., and Lake Washington. There may have been others, but these definitely only considered SUS fisheries. Initially I believe that NOAA accepted the Co-managers' approach, but I'm pretty sure that there are now Recovery (or Rebuilding, depending whose terminology you use) exploitation rates that include all harvesters for every population.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/01/16 12:15 PM


Well crap just when you thought it was safe to go in the pool. Made the paper but then national got it and oh looky but it must be something in the water. Kids don't fly!

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/09/01/mom-cheers-young-boy-tossed-railroad-bridge-river
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/01/16 03:18 PM

Just a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. Plus, remember that the adults (?) will be voting in November.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/16 08:47 PM

Anyone know how the nets are doing?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/16 06:19 AM


Very poorly. Nobody is sure why but the river literally has stunk a bit lately especially after that little rain we had and water temp in tidewater was 70 for a bit but is down to 66 now. So we wait to see what happens.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/07/16 02:05 PM

Well it is that time, you know the crystal ball thing. So what I see so far on GH Rec fisheries. The Summer Chinook are late and likely no shows as forecast. The Summers are really strange as they just do not perform as the Falls do and so far not much but we have ugly water right now with the summer crud getting in with the showers and water temp was at 70 but is down to 65 here in tidewater so hard to tell. That said just with what I know and have seen before I say Chinook run will be at or above escapement prior to commercial impacts but it will ramp up late. Also the Chinook jacks have been head down running hard right through tidewater.

Coho jacks the same all sea liced up and no hanging in tidewater either but moving right up also. Other places have Coho in good condition not starved so that part is good. So it is hard to get a feel for it but I have seen this pattern before and usually the run ramps up differently than normal.

So first bet is the Summer Chinook will under perform a lot, as will the falls but not as badly so runsize before harvest somewhat above escapement. Coho I think will out perform expectations and be in good condition but as to numbers I do not want throw that much BS out yet.

QIN are doing poorly but 8 1/8 mesh pretty much passes smaller fish. Also some Coho in cooler water if you know where to look and they are small. That is good as at 5 or 6 lbs this early it is about right as they came in 4 to 6 weeks early and lack the 4 to 5 lbs they would have picked up had they stayed put in the ocean.

One last thing for whatever the reason the weather skipped September and went right to October so when one looks outside it says fishing time. Ah nope. The fish could care less unless it rains so don't let your eyes rule your brain or you will loose. It is simply a early fall and things on the fish side are late / or / or / ...............
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/13/16 10:28 AM


Lost track of the thread that was about license fees but a spread sheet with 09 to 2015 the WDF&W revenue generated was sent to me. If anyone would like it just PM me.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/16 05:46 PM

As always questions are out and about on this falls season. This time up we have wild retention in 2-2 with a weak forecast. So I asked the question which got this response:

Morning Dave,

The reason for the Oct 1 opener and not Sept 16 was the lengthy conversation about the one-and-done concept. Although we aren’t enforcing “one-and-done” the idea was that with the higher release mortality in marine waters verses freshwater, allowing the retention of a wild Coho would possibly reduce the encounter rate of those fish, not having to sort through several to get to a hatchery fish. I remember the conversation about this in freshwater also, but there was importance in the longer season to access the later returning Coho.

Does this help?

Now inriver we are full blown catch and release on unclipped Chinook & Coho. Why? Because in order to insure the November & December Coho fisheries we had to stretch our impacts out. If not likely no November or December which are rather important Rec months inriver. The GHMP 3/5 prevented a Chinook fishery which as it worked out was OK as the QIN took em on paper and came up with a goose egg. So inriver we will accept the hooking mortality just as in Steelhead to insure the late salmon season is not taken away ...... again as in last year.



Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/16 06:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
The GHMP 3/5 prevented a Chinook fishery which as it worked out was OK as the QIN took em on paper and came up with a goose egg.



Not quite but pretty DAM close.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

Wk 36: Three days, 31 kings
Wk 37: Five days, 13 kings 4 coho
Wk 38: Two days, nothing reported to date

While I wouldn't doubt those harvest numbers might bump up a bit as they finalize fish tickets from the buyer, the preliminary catch numbers bode POORLY for the chinook run.

Another year in the penalty box.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/16 09:24 PM

Rain's a comin'... we can hope.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/16 07:11 AM


This came in last night and it is a question to WDF&W from a Rec.


Washington Sport Fishing Rules…….Confusion…..Page 26 under Chehalis River…..SALMON Sept. 16 to Jan. 31 Daily limit 6 Only 1 adult may be retained. Release wild CHINOOK and wild COHO.

During the September 16th fishery, the “Daily limit 6 Only, RELEASE WILD CHINOOK AND WILD COHO, was mentioned by sportfishermen…….many Coho and Chinook jacks were released because the fish were not clipped.

Was the intent “of the printed regulation, to release unclipped jack salmon, both Coho and Chinook?????????”

This confusion needs to be corrected, quickly, as there is an active jack fishery going on.


Answer to the question is no you do not have to release jacks within the 6 fish limit. The words " release wild Chinook and wild Coho" is the normal identification for adults. Jacks are a subset in salmon referred to differently and it would say release all unclipped salmon and jacks if you could not retain. Oh correcting the confusion with another press release that most do not read would do little.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/16 08:49 AM



LH buzzed my e mail with this bit below.

I was reading your message on Piscatorial Pursuits this morning about retaining jacks. For the Satsop, the pamphlet says for salmon "Daily limit 6. Only 1 adult may be retained. Release wild ADULT Chinook and Wild coho". I interpret this to mean (On the Satsop) that you can keep wild jack Chinook. But for coho, You cannot keep any wild coho whether they are adults or jacks. It says release "wild coho". Not "wild adult coho". That is how I read it. It would be nice to get a clarification from WDFW. Thanks.

My response: Mike is out until the 29th. Now you got me but unless it was a outlier year I have not seen release jacks. In all the conversation on seasons NEVER did release jacks come up in the discussion that I recall. I think we are all reading things in.

Now with all that I guess I am warming to the conclusion it was not written clearly for all. For me it is easy but I was at all the meeting which makes a big difference to be sure. Bottom line it was all modeled for the traditional jack fishery in East County. Springers were the main concern so the start backed up a bit and was was built around getting the Springers up past. That's all I got folks!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/16 07:34 PM

Doesn't take a rocket science person to write a clear, easy to understand statement...

Salmon Sept. 16 - Jan. 31. Daily limit 6. Only 1 adult may be retained. Release "adult" unmarked/wild Chinook and Coho.

Anyone not understand that???????

Email has been sent to WDFW and the replacement/cover people while Mike Scharpf is on vacation.

Happy fishing!!!!

Oh.....the QIN will be Netting Sunday noon(9/18) - Tuesday noon(9/20)

Hope some fish get by the nets....
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/16 08:24 PM

I've never understood how the reg pamphlet can be sent to print with the wording over something simple being so convoluted that the user can't understand the rule. How much are we paying these people???
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/16 08:39 PM

You want me to send you the link to all public salaries in Washington State???????

You might need a case of toilet paper, when you see what some of the salaries are.......
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/18/16 09:21 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
The GHMP 3/5 prevented a Chinook fishery which as it worked out was OK as the QIN took em on paper and came up with a goose egg.



Not quite but pretty DAM close.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

Wk 36: Three days, 31 kings
Wk 37: Five days, 13 kings 4 coho
Wk 38: Two days, nothing reported to date

While I wouldn't doubt those harvest numbers might bump up a bit as they finalize fish tickets from the buyer, the preliminary catch numbers bode POORLY for the chinook run.

Another year in the penalty box.


OOPS!

Looks like I screwed up reading the spreadsheet and got that harvest data wrong.

What I cited above is only for 2C (Hump Estuary)

There were more taken in 2A/2D (Chehalis Estuary):
Wk 36: Three days, 135 kings 16 coho
Wk 37: Five days, 90 kings 29 coho
Wk 38: Two days, nothing reported to date (still)
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/19/16 07:24 AM


Judging by what DW and I have been seeing watching the nets you should not see much change other than a small bump up on reported numbers. The current set with the rain and cooler water should help but the crest of a 200 cfs is at Porter today and the lower trib bounce was not much. Couple this with the 8 1/2 mesh size the QIN by regs are running Chinook gear and is more or less a tangle net for Coho. So .............. I am out of ideas but in the past the QIN have insisted ( and got it signed by both parties in the season agreement ) no in-season adjustments to preseason forecast. Had the Chinook performed as forecast Ed would have looked like a genius conserving Coho and picking up the unused state share. The Chinook did not so he has the other end of the stick so to speak but it will be interesting to be sure to watch play out.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/16 06:19 PM

Im not sure if it was asked yet, but what impact will the QIN not being in from September 28th-October 30th have on the sports fishery? Even if the fish show, if they aren't fishing, does that shut us down?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/16 07:42 PM

id say yes

but it might not happen until after the state boys have there shot at netting..
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/16 07:06 AM

Grrrrrrrr

I see that the WDFW web site, has/is posting the weekly tribal and NT catches 2 weeks behind again this year.

The weekly totals for both bays, were posted in a timely manner, during the first few weeks, August - September.....

See below:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

I do not understand, why you would leave 2015/2016 catch figures in this August 2016+ data report.......makes NO sense to me !!!!!!!!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/16 05:00 PM

Looks like weeks 38 and 39 are there now DW.

Methinks the bay guys missed a golden opportunity in the south channel last week!

Oh well....
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/16 06:38 AM

With the Chinook run and tribal harvest nearly complete it is becoming clear that we are seeing an epic failure from any perspective.

The harvest data says that the run size was way over estimated. Each year a harvest model is developed starting with a run size estimate. After removing the escapement goal, any remaining fish are harvestable. Then allocation is applied before crafting a season based on historical harvest rates. When actual harvest data is available one can “run the model backward” to estimate the actual run size. Some adjustments need to be made because the model calculates impact rather than fish in the boat.

After completing four of five weeks, the tribal Chinook harvest in 2A/2D (Chehalis Chinook) of 1,052 fish amounts to 18% of the expected harvest!!! This implies that the Chehalis Chinook run size is 18% of the forecast. If the wild Chehalis Chinook come in at 18% of the estimated run size of 19,500 it would amount to 3,510 fish compared to an escapement goal of 13,500.

If one makes the same calculation for the Humptulips Chinook, it results in a harvest of 40% of the model and a similar reduction in the run size estimate. The coho run is in the early stages but four weeks of tribal data indicate that the harvest is 23% of what the model predicted in both areas. An unusually small run was predicted but results to date suggest that both Chinook and coho runs are significantly less than the prediction. There is some chance that that the harvest could have been higher but it was so poor that a number of fishermen just gave up and did not fish.

If you are an optimist, Grays Harbor looks great compared to Willapa. The commercial harvest for week 37 (the only data on the web site) indicates a run size of 11% of the forecast. If you are a pessimist, next year should be even worse based on ocean conditions when fish smolted the past two seasons.

This harvest data should be creating absolute panic at PFMC and WDFW.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/16 07:09 AM

Ouch. Does a lot to explain what I saw yesterday, fishing both Willapa Bay and the Chehalis. Willapa was weird. Marked fish all over the place, but we only got one lousy bite that didn't stick. Others we talked to hadn't even gotten a bite. Mind you, this was after about 4 days with no nets in 2T, during what should be prime time for coho. Possibly just a "no bite" day, but likely, the runs are coming in well below even the poor prediction.

As for the Chehalis, I think a lot of kings got above the net zones before the Tribe started fishing. I don't think there are anything close to 19K, but there might be more than 3500 between Fuller and S. Monte right now (not that they're biting well, but there seem to be a lot kicking around). As for coho, I've heard several shoulda been here last week reports from the bankies, but I haven't seen any in the few trips I've taken so far. I'm starting to agree that it looks bad, and I wouldn't be surprised if we got shut down after the tribal tally is complete next week.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/16 07:13 AM

Let us add this to the mix. Two things are really present and they are that the QIN regs require a 8 1/2 mesh which will pass a lot of Coho and smaller fish which was the purpose. The QIN effort ( number of fishers ) is way way down and they could not go full in the South Channel which really effected the harvest numbers. The early start date targeted the Summers and they really were a no show but getting a feel for it is difficult as the fish are not staging. So SF nailed the run forecast being off on Chinook but how much will play out but I have seen this pattern before so I will land on depending on harvest impacts the run looks to be in the small end near escapement.

Coho are different. As last year they are coming through the bay and right up the river. The numbers look similar to last year ( after harvest above the nets ) and the vast majority of fish I have seen are robust and in good shape liced up. The jacks have been present in good numbers and many are larger and fatter than normal which is a good sign. Now the down side, this move right up the river bit is similar to a rain movement as they are moving right up the river with tight lips. You can see them in places as they go by and see some jumping but mostly they are just moving through ignoring things unless you in the right spot. Makes catching a bitch for many especially in the tidewater. Oh and the seals came back in numbers several days ago chasing fish which is a positive .............. sorta?

Also this. By week the QIN were 135 - 3 days / 113 - 5 days / 45 - 2 days / 759 - 2 days. Notice the drop the third week which is normal, the drop that is. We have summers at the front that creates a wave in the graph line so the wave is there but the fish are missing in numbers and keep in mind the effort. The 759 with as little effort as the QIN fishers put in but is still not good except that was two days with few fishers. Normally when the summers tank the back of the run picks up and out performs the front but seldom makes up the reduced loss to the overall number.

Last but not least the modeled Coho for the weeks posted was 366 and actual is 305 which considering the low pressure by the QIN ( they are modeled based on past performance with many more fishers ) says so far the Coho are at or above preseason forecast.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/16 09:15 AM

Quote:
and I wouldn't be surprised if we got shut down after the tribal tally is complete next week.


The thing is the NT Nets have scheduled time and in order to put in a emergency WAC the agency has to have justification or they will get their lips sued off. Simply put proof the the need exist to make a emergency rule. Not what I or you think, feel, or read in the tea leaves but hard data which does not exist at the moment. What we have at the minute is simply low QIN harvest of Chinook but also few fishers but increasing Chinook numbers well below expectations.
Posted by: eyeFISH

WE GOT THE JACK BACK! - 09/27/16 03:35 PM

Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free


Yeah, baby.... folks are FREE to keep wild jacks!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: WE GOT THE JACK BACK! - 09/27/16 03:37 PM

And just so no one thinks I've been "recreating"....

Good Afternoon Grays Harbor Advisors,

We’ve received comments about confusion with the wild Chinook and wild coho jack regulation in the Chehalis and Satsop. In past years the regulations regarding retention of wild jacks has been variable relative to runsize information. During the 2016 North of Falcon negotiations the resulting package retained some wild jack opportunity, except for in the Chehalis after September 16th. The current regulations were intended to reflect that package. We are able to consider a revision to those regulations consistent with past years and have passed an emergency regulation to that effect. Feel free to call me with questions 360-249-1205.

I want to thank you all for taking the time to communicate with us.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: WE GOT THE JACK BACK! - 09/27/16 03:43 PM


Been a bit of a dance but staff got it fixed. Sure going to make the light tackle guys happy!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/16 07:50 PM

Not yet on the website, but it's official.

.
.
.


WDFW FISHING RULE CHANGE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov

September 27, 2016

Anglers can retain wild jack salmon on Chehalis River

Action: Open Chehalis River to the retention of wild chinook jack (a chinook jack is less than 24 inches) and wild coho jack salmon (a coho jack is less than 20 inches).

Effective dates: 12:01 a.m. Sept. 28 through 11:59 p.m. Dec. 31, 2016.

Location: Chehalis River, from the mouth (Hwy 101 Bridge) to the Hwy 6 Bridge near the town of Adna, Grays Harbor/Thurston/Lewis counties.

Reason for action: The projected return of chinook and coho are sufficient to allow for the retention of wild chinook jack and wild coho jack salmon. Anglers currently can retain hatchery jack salmon.

Other Information: Minimum size 12 inches, daily limit of six. Only one adult may be retained. Release wild adult chinook and wild adult coho salmon. Trout and gamefish fisheries remain as provided in the 2016/2017 Fishing regulation pamphlet.

Information Contact: Mike Scharpf, Region 6 (360) 249-1205.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/16 06:12 AM

Its on the WDFW web site now, 9/28/2016......Not only the Chehalis River but also the Satsop River.

100's of jacks were released, under the wording in "Washington Sport Fishing Rules". My observation is many of the jack releases were Coho jacks but there were also some Chinook jacks.

It is a good move on Region 6 personnel to get this done in a timely manner. Jack fishing for a portion of the fishing public is a fun pastime and "they smoke up great and off the bar b que can be very tasty.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/16 10:29 AM

Now for something that sucks. Week 40 QIN catch has not been posted. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html Now the end of things no but if one is trying to understand what is going on it is important. In another thread folks are crossing all over run timing and fish solely on weather / flows and it does not work all that well as the biological drivers ( egg development / spawning window ) are always in play. When looking look at the weeks fished and you will notice that wk 39 had a jump up on Chinook but wk 40 is not up. Couple that with the two days on the storm rise Chinook poured out of the bay and up river one could feel better about things, maybe.

Folks the agency for years has always been a target rich environment and frankly many of us know just enough to be loud and complaining is the norm. That said it is pure 100% USDA BS that one the QIN did not provide the numbers or two the agency staff did not bother to post them. The public can not and will not be able to support or even have a little faith in the process when the co managers conduct themselves in this manner. Be it QIN or WDF&W being the culprit here someone needs a ass kicking but it is more likely to get a award for service.


Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/16 11:38 AM

Are we concerned that overfishing may have occurred, or is it mostly the lack of transparency that concerns us here?

EIther way, I'm starting to get the sense that one reason the NOF process is what it is because it hides accountability when controversy arises. It's not WDFW's fault, nor is it the Tribe's. It's those Co-Manager people who need to be taken to task... but just who are they? Two parties, equally accountable and self-managed, is essentially an absence of true accountability.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/16 11:50 AM

My bad. It is not over fishing but rather if first the Chinook failure to show is enough to blow escapement and if the Coho run is on track which will determine the quality of the Nov & Dec Coho fisheries. Then you have the simple fact that this supposed to be a transparent process which it is not as it stands now. The gentleman's name for the QIN is Ed Johnstone & Annette Hoffman has WDF&W Region 6 since Steve left due to a illness. Mike Scharpf has Grays Harbor ( Chehalis Basin ) for WDF&W District 17.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/16 12:50 PM

Thanks. I know the names, and I know who represents each stakeholder, but I still don't know who is accountable for "Co-management decisions" gone wrong. My sense (right or wrong) is that's by design. This way, when mistakes are made (or when rules are "bent"), they can say, "We screwed up." None of those individuals answers to the name "We," so none is held accountable, and all are free to proceed to the next season's dog and pony prediction show, without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/16 04:24 PM

The problem is that there is not a public forum where the Co-Managers (WDFW and QIN) need to sit in front of the public and openly explain what happened and why.

What would really help the whole process, I believe, is if prior to the commencement of the next year's NOF the actual leaders had to sit in front of the Public and answer questions. State and Tribal. Open meeting. Moderator keeps asking the question until they answer. If they know they have to publicly defend and explain maybe they have a more open process.

Or not.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/16 05:06 PM

Quote:
Thanks. I know the names, and I know who represents each stakeholder, but I still don't know who is accountable for "Co-management decisions" gone wrong. My sense (right or wrong) is that's by design. This way, when mistakes are made (or when rules are "bent"), they can say, "We screwed up." None of those individuals answers to the name "We," so none is held accountable, and all are free to proceed to the next season's dog and pony prediction show, without so much as a slap on the wrist.


I think you got it. You know government agencies staff meet constantly to discus " things " and then form the group consensus on what to do. Now the meetings accomplish little but this, the meetings provide cover to the individual who has the responsibility for the decision. Just find a issue in Grays Harbor that went sideways and ask who and the hell made that decision. Every now and then the folks in mid level ( outside Oly ) will answer as long as your not talking to enforcement but not often. Olympia runs 24 / 7 with the WE bit and frankly I doubt any of them have the stones to be forthright as that is a requirement to be in Oly, keeping your trap shut that is. You walk the company line and keep your trap shut or no advancement. It is never good for someone outside the concrete palace in Oly to tell them something they do not want to hear.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/16 08:52 PM

Whos nets did I see in aberdeen today? QIN or Cowboy?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/16 08:58 PM

Cowboys.

Chum-directed for THREE 12 hr openers on the Chehalis, then it's GAME OVER

Retain any chum, coho, or hatch kings

....

Tribe comes in behind them for a few days chum-directed.... they keep everything.

....

You and I MUST sort thru all the wilds to take a hatch only.... unless you wanna eat chum
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/16 08:59 PM

Oh, Ok. Thanks. Was Confused.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/16 05:13 AM


I watched the NT guys yesterday and I could count 6 boats but more could have been there. It was first four hours and they did not appear to be getting many Chum. Saw one dark Chinook and Coho with a few that could have been Chum. So we wait and this is why posting up harvest is important as many think because the rains shotgunned the fish to the hatchery that we have a huge run. It does not appear to be the case at all but we will see. Oh almost forgot by the following morning of a day fished the fisher has his numbers reported and staff know them. QIN report by week also so why not 10 minutes to advise and let folks know what is going on? When you figure it out let me know but it is a piss poor way to run things.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/16 08:31 AM

Was out fishing a bit yesterday afternoon. Still lots of water, and from what I've seen, still some fresh fish coming, but not a ton. Some chums in the mix, but not as many as I expected. Considering that there have been no nets in the water since it started raining, I'm thinking the runs were, after all, pretty close to the forecast, and that big push of fish we saw move through was the bulk of it.

I've had an absolute crap year. Only salmon I caught went back. With all the rain in the forecast, I'm thinking it's time to send my waders in for patching/replacement and ride out the rest of this season doing other stuff.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/16 03:24 PM

The final Grays Harbor model predicted the non tribal net harvest for week 44 (this week) would be 588 coho and 2,540 chum in the boat. It looked a lot slower than that to me. When week 44 is posted, I would not be surprised if the total will be less than 10% of the model.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/16 06:12 AM

6 a.m., Thursday, 10/27/2016......No post of NT catch numbers for 2A and 2D.....at this time.

Let's see how long it takes to actually get the "catch totals" posted to the following web site??????

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

Shouldn't take very long.............but sometimes there seems to be a lot of foot dragging....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/16 07:45 AM

Depends on WDFW's priority. They had the Makah troll data (back when there was the huge overage) but there were other data entry priorities.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/16 11:51 AM


These are the preseason Chehalis forecast numbers. Little jumbled but Bingham and the Springs have 10K on paper so far which is around half of the RS expectation so far. Keep in mind that the 600k smolt of the lates production are yet to come. RS appears to be in the paramiters of the forecast as the natural % survival mirror the hatchery so that is good.

Chinook Coho
Natural Hatchery Total Natural Hatchery Total
19,500 4,410 23,910 31,028 12,319 43,347
9,753 578 10,331 28,506 1,500 30,006
9,747 3,832 13,579 2,522 10,819 13,341
4,874 1,916 6,790 1,261 5,410 6,671

Now the bad. The Chinook forecast was way off judging by tribal harvest but a bunch jetted on the high water so hopefully enough showed. With AK harvesting on prediction it gets dicey in a collapse this large. The Chum are scarce and that is not good. They are the bulk of the nutrients in the bottom half the watershed and that will impact the Coho fry survival which will effect the Steelhead.

Few of anything are moving through tidewater today. Hell I had six seals trailing me around and I never seen a fish taken by anybody fur or no fur. Going to be a long three weeks until the Nov guys show.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/16 08:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Depends on WDFW's priority. They had the Makah troll data (back when there was the huge overage) but there were other data entry priorities.


Kinda knew that someone would stick up for WDFW not doing the job in a "timely manner".

Monday and Tuesday, not many NT fishermen.......come on now, number reporting could be done by any WDFW secretary.....cc's to all people that have need to know, posting done by "whoever" in Olympia....all done, in a very few minutes.

I'd like to see a breakdown in hatchery and wild, that could be even more meaningful than total numbers. The breakdown might be getting done but sure not shared with the general public.

Funny how sportsmen have to record, H and W, on the punch card and that information is not useable for "at least a year, but sometimes longer".
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/16 09:08 AM

I doubt that commercial catch is reported HW. If there was intensive sampling it could be estimated. But, again, budget priorities.

And I am not defending WDFW. Just explaining the choices they make.
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/16 10:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Depends on WDFW's priority. They had the Makah troll data (back when there was the huge overage) but there were other data entry priorities.


Ignorance is bliss until you are caught (conveniently) looking the other way.

And we got payback for that gross over harvest when?? Nah, never happened!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/16 04:49 PM

But WDFW publically said that the NI would not bear the cost of the Makah overage. That is, until NOF the next year.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/16 11:04 AM

Makah over fishing was a long time ago, see article below:


http://old.seattletimes.com/html/sports/2002190756_makah26.html


What should have been used, as an example, was the Willapa "2012 over catch" by the NT netters on Chum.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/files/2012_landings_archive.pdf

Anyone that reads PP would have to know that the Week of 10-8-2012 catch far exceeded what they were allow to catch......I remember Ron Warren saying that "we made a mistake".......sure didn't help the Chum run in Willapa.

This was an example of why WDFW should post the commercial catch numbers "faster" so overages might be stopped......
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/16 11:41 AM

I agree that Makah was a while ago. But the mindset and commitment to the resource are the same now as then.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/16 06:11 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA



What should have been used, as an example, was the Willapa "2012 over catch" by the NT netters on Chum.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/files/2012_landings_archive.pdf

Anyone that reads PP would have to know that the Week of 10-8-2012 catch far exceeded what they were allow to catch......I remember Ron Warren saying that "we made a mistake".......sure didn't help the Chum run in Willapa.





To WDFW's credit, the new Region 6 fish manager CLOSED the 2016 WB commercial fishery y'day to avoid a significant overage in its chum impact. Thank you, Annette, for swift and decisive action to uphold the WB Policy and advance the cause of conservation in this basin!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/16 07:47 AM


Formal notification that went out.

Good afternoon,

As you are aware, commercial fishing in Willapa Bay began at 12:01am November 1st after being closed for the last half of October
for Chum conservation. The predicted season total Chum impact was 4,424 fish based on a predicted run size of ~47,000, which equates
to a 9.9% impact rate. The fishery was predicted to have 1,074 Chum impacts in statistical week 45 (Oct. 30th - Nov. 5th), however
the Chum catch thru Wednesday, November 2nd was 4,192 fish. With the 505 Chum impacts that were accrued in statistical weeks 37
through 42, our season total impact on Chum salmon has been 4,719 fish and this figure is expected to increase with impacts accrued
on Thursday. This situation developed quickly and given that information, the Department enacted an emergency closure of the
commercial fishery on 11:59pm Thursday, November 3rd until further notice.

Regards,
Annette Hoffmann
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/16 07:55 AM

That's how it's done. The blowback will be if a really strong chum run materializes and there was no ISU. But, it was nice to see WDFW actually play the hand it was dealt.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/16 12:14 PM

I received and responded to this e mail as a GH Adviser and was going to wait a while before saying anything but as I received it from another asking what this was about I figured the jig is up.

That all said I for one appreciate Mike reaching out for input as he did not have to reach out. THX Mike.


From Region 6:

Subject: though to adjust Chehalis Basin hatchery Coho bag limit

Hi all,

I’m writing to you to know that WDFW is discussing the possibility of increasing the hatchery Coho bag limit in recreational fisheries on the Chehalis, Satsop, and Skookumchuck rivers to two fish. We are considering this change in response to the number of hatchery Coho returning to our facilities this fall. As you are aware, the forecast for wild Coho didn’t leave much room for harvest opportunity and agreed to fisheries during NOF took this information into account. We would like to hear what you, the advisors, think.

Thanks for your time.


Subject: RE: though to adjust Chehalis Basin hatchery Coho bag limit

Morning,

After a little thought my response is no for the following reasons. First it is my understanding that this would require to legally redo the preseason forecast which the QIN would have to agree to. Although WDF&W does not circulate the QIN / WDF&W agreement for the year ( and has not this year ) past agreements contained a clause to not alter the preseason forecast. As the QIN & state have both muddled through this far with all sharing the pain it is rather illegitimate for the Rec fisher to now not have the same standards applied. Before Steve's illness he passed on that the QIN were not that pleased with altering the forecast last year by shutting down fisheries rather than utilize the preseason forecast for the entire season. I cannot imagine expanding a state fishery ( basically a preseason forecast redo ) would be all that well received.

Second item is after looking at the numbers provided by WDF&W we do not have harvest numbers be it QIN or state posted on the agency website after week 39 so for anyone to get a feel for the runsize is not possible. On the hatchery side Bingham has the bulk 5000 number up which was off one posting and the Springs is just shy of 6000. With the QIN preseason forecast of 12,319 hatchery returning adults that was used adding in Mayr and Aberdeen Lake we are likely at that benchmark. This thing where up to date harvest and hatchery rack counts not being made available is a very poor practice that only adds to folks perceptions which may or may not be valid.

That said the vast majority of the normal timed Coho are already in the hatchery and spawning reaches or soon will be. From this point in time on we will fish on the back end of the native Coho run of what is known as the T day fish and Late Coho. This portion of our Coho run traditionally under performs the normal timed portion and takes a real hit in the QIN Steelhead fishery starting December 1. While we have both the Bingham and Skookumchuck Mitigation hatchery origin Late Coho coming but the production and adult returns are rather small. Increased bag limits will result in increased harvest pressure and increased mortalities on the NOR Coho. As it is the NOR Coho that is the limiting factor not the abundance of hatchery origin adults it would be rather reckless to throw conservation standards into the dumpster to appease a few Rec fishers. Add to the mix this thought many may feel that if there are enough impacts for expanded Rec catch why not additional time for QIN & NT Nets? Many may feel that the level playing field concept for all just got trampled.

In years such as last year when the run fails restrictions usually get applied to the fisheries remaining which is the inriver Rec and rather unfair. It would be reasonable tool that in years that the runsize exceeds expectation and solid data is available to expand the inriver Rec catch. I have no problem with this concept but it needs to be discussed with all parties that wish to participate and a complete vetting of the concept based upon the historical catch patterns and run reconstruction. Parameters of just when & how this tool could be utilized established and known to all fishers be it Rec / NT / or QIN.

So again my response is no as it would be a rather reckless move to expand Rec Coho bag limits for the reasons outlined previously.

Dave

Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/16 12:51 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Depends on WDFW's priority. They had the Makah troll data (back when there was the huge overage) but there were other data entry priorities.


Kinda knew that someone would stick up for WDFW not doing the job in a "timely manner".

Monday and Tuesday, not many NT fishermen.......come on now, number reporting could be done by any WDFW secretary.....cc's to all people that have need to know, posting done by "whoever" in Olympia....all done, in a very few minutes.

I'd like to see a breakdown in hatchery and wild, that could be even more meaningful than total numbers. The breakdown might be getting done but sure not shared with the general public.




Two weeks plus since those gillnet openers... still NOTHING reported on the webpage.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/16 01:41 PM

You were expecting different?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/16 04:24 PM

Thanks, Rivrguy. I completely agree with your thoughts. There are few hatchery fish left by this point of the season, so trying to get 2 would probably result in a lot of unnecessary NOR encounters. Let's all just be glad the numbers ended up better than the forecast, because that likely means a brighter future, with bigger bag limits, sooner than we might have thought.
Posted by: Canyon Man

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/16 10:35 PM

Just got the new numbers (still NOT web-posted)

State nets took only 204 coho in stat week 44
QIN took only 701 coho in stat week 45

Chum predominate the catch by a factor of 4 to 5 : 1
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/16 05:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Canyon Man
Just got the new numbers (still NOT web-posted)

State nets took only 204 coho in stat week 44
QIN took only 701 coho in stat week 45

Chum predominate the catch by a factor of 4 to 5 : 1
Originally Posted By: Canyon Man
Just got the new numbers (still NOT web-posted)

State nets took only 204 coho in stat week 44
QIN took only 701 coho in stat week 45

Chum predominate the catch by a factor of 4 to 5 : 1



Whew.......way to long to get this information.

Now if the following is available, I'd like to see it......hatchery vs. wild. Makes NO SENSE to me, to have sportsmen mark H or W on their "punch cards", and to not get a accounting from the commercial sector. The information from the commercial netting, would be FAR MORE useable than punch cards data 2+ years old. TIME TO REQUIRE A CHANGE !!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/16 06:04 AM

CM did you get wk 40? That is the killer as it will tell everything about the Chinook run collapse.

Modeled the QIN were to get 2684 Coho & 2470 Chum. The NT's were modeled at 590 Coho & 2470 Chum. Chinook look just as bad but without the WK 40 QIN numbers it is impossible to know as the first three weeks were a disaster but went to over 700 in wk 39 and without 40 you can not know if the trend continued up. Bottom line is why and the hell Region 6 struggles with something as simple as just forwarding numbers to Olympia is beyond me.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/16 08:11 AM

Sorry to report no steam behind the stat week 39 chinook number

QIN only caught 71 kings stat wk 40 frown

Btw sorry I accidentally posted from your acct earlier, CanyonMan . Didn't notice you were still logged on until AFTER I hit submit
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/16 08:49 AM

From 700 plus in wk 39 plus to 71 wk 40 now that number verifies what was seen on the river.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/16 04:29 PM

Soft bite worked the numbers backward thru the harvest model for me and came up with some sobering results.

With actual gillnet CPUE coming in at only 1/2 of expected for Chehalis coho, it does not bode well for meeting the escapement goal.

It looks even worse for Chehalis chinook as the actual gillnet CPUE was less than 1/6 of expected.

This is looking at the aggregate catches for BOTH the state and QIN catches.

...

While they're a ways off from completion, it will be interesting to see how the GH spawning surveys turn out this year.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/16 04:58 PM

Hopefully a new dam can solve all of this.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/16 05:51 AM


Thought I would put this up for folks. This is mostly about NOF and how WDF&W dodges public scrutiny.

Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855 THFWA@comcast.net

November 14, 2016 via email

Director Jim Unsworth Chairman Lorraine Loomis
WDFW Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
1111 Washington St SE 6730 Martin Way East
Olympia, WA 98501 Olympia, WA 9850

Dear Chairman Loomis and Director Unsworth:

The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy is a nonprofit corporation duly filed in the state of Washington. The stated purpose of the Advocacy is 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.”1

Over the last five years, the members of the Advocacy have extensively researched the issues surrounding fisheries management in Washington state. Advocacy members played a significant role in adoption by the Commission of the management policies in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. At the same time, we have researched management practices in Puget Sound and the Columbia that closely resemble those used on the Coast. In doing so, we have adhered to the practice of providing commentary that is respectful and at the same time, lays out our position in as clear and precise fashion as possible.

We have come to the conclusion the controversies that plague the Department and the tribal co-mangers during the North of Falcon season setting process are rooted in two areas of harvest management. First, the “prior intercept” from Alaska south of salmon destined for Washington streams often results in over 85% of the harvest related mortalities occurring north of the Canadian border. As a result, the small percentage of fish remaining available for harvest is making it nearly impossible for the co-managers to adopt tribal and non-tribal seasons that satisfy in-state fishers without undermining the escapement needed for natural spawning populations. The efforts of co-managers to provide reasonable instate fishing opportunities are further complicated by declining habitat and poor ocean productivity. Then comes the significant restraints occurring when runs decline to the point we cross over the ESA thresholds as found in Puget Sound and the Columbia.

Earlier this year, the members of the Advocacy traveled out of state to address the Pacific Salmon Commission which effectively controls the prior intercept under the international treaty between Canada and the United States. We expressed our concern that the prior intercept was unfair to WA tribal and non-tribal fishers. More importantly, we raised the issue repeatedly that the prior intercept was interfering with our ability to manage fish runs to meet conservation standards. The tribal co- managers have raised the northern intercept issue for decades.2 We are now looking forward to the Department’s upcoming presentation to the Fish & Wildlife Commission regarding the northern intercept. We believe Washington taxpayers who have invested heavily into salmon production and natural spawning restoration are entitled to understand where and by whom the salmon produced in WA hatcheries and streams are being harvested and marketed.

1 Article 2 Purpose, Bylaws of the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy 2 See U.S. v- Washington

Page 2, THFWA November 14. 2016
The second major challenge faced by the co-managers is the allocation of the fish available for harvest that actually make it back to WA waters. Recent disagreement between the co- managers has resulted in a threat to seasons, especially for the non-tribal fishers in Puget Sound. For many citizens, tribal and non-tribal, the NOF process seems mired down wherein co-management on harvest seasons appears to have evolved to “dual-management” wherein each side tries to manage in its own way. At this point, the Advocacy with those who have come to the conclusion the NOF season setting process is failing all the citizens, including those who don’t fish. The co-management cooperation envisioned by the courts in the rulings in U.S. v- Washington has deteriorated to the point NOF is deserving of the label “threatened” if not “endangered”.

While the Advocacy members are often approached by tribal fishers who are also trying to figure out why the fishing opportunities continue to decline, the frustration has reached the “boiling point” for many of those fishers utilizing licenses issued by WDFW. The relationship between the Department and its stakeholders can aptly be described as “in the toilet”. The Advocacy is not attempting to blame either co-managers or any of the staff involved in the process. Rather, we believe both co-managers need to recognize that the NOF process as currently utilized will no longer will pass scrutiny with most non-tribal and many tribal fishers.

The blanket of secrecy surrounding harvest discussions between the two co-managers has resulted in a mirage of public perceptions. We recognize perceptions are often off-base or completely inaccurate. However, perceptions become facts in many minds when accountability and verification is missing from the equation.

Examples of perceptions that the members of Advocacy hear regularly include:

• The tribal fishers want to exceed the 50/50 formula set forth in the Boldt decision;
• The Department is unwilling or unable to negotiate in a manner that its stakeholders can be assured their rights to half the fish will be honored
• The federal government (NOAA/BIA) is pressuring the Department to agree to the tribal seasons proposed by threatening to deny permits for state sponsored fisheries
• The Office of Governor and/or Legislators are likewise pressuring the Department to agree to tribal season proposals that disadvantage the non-tribal fishers

It is appropriate to recognize that tribal members are less likely to be disappointed in NOF than state stakeholders. As sovereign governments holding treaty rights to fishing, the tribal fishers can interact with its tribal leadership in ways non-tribal citizens can not. As a result, tribal members may feel comfortable with their representation in the process.

The non-tribal stakeholders are another matter. State stakeholders can only turn to the Department when seeking assurance their interests are being adequately represented. In the state culture, the citizens rely upon government transparency laws to participate and educate themselves. Unfortunately, the co-management harvest meetings between the co-managers are closed to the public. The speculation by many is the secrecy is supported either by the tribal co-managers, WDFW staff, or both. Regardless, the blanket of secrecy is a major impediment to the Department’s ability to maintain the confidence of its stakeholders. The closed process

Page 3, THFWA November 14. 2016
also results in the non-tribal sector becoming frustrated with tribal fishing due to the growing perception of unfairness.

The Advocacy fully recognizes tribal sovereignty and corresponding treaty rights. Since none of the members of the Advocacy are members of a tribe, we can only respectfully submit a request for consideration. In that spirit, we ask that the tribal co-managers consider allowing the tribal and non- tribal citizens an opportunity to observe (without participation) during co-management meetings wherein the discussion includes proposals for an upcoming harvest season(s). As clarification, the request does not extend to technical staff meetings wherein a harvest season is not on the agenda.

The Advocacy does not believe acceptance of our request would create an undue burden on tribal governments or infringe upon tribal sovereignty. Representatives of the tribes regularly participate in public meetings at the federal, state, and local government levels including fisheries co-management processes of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the Pacific Salmon Commission. To our knowledge, the only time the door closes is when representatives of the tribes meet with the staff of WDFW to discuss upcoming seasons within WA waters.

The Advocacy also extends the request for open meetings onto the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Simply put, the Advocacy members are asking all the co-managers to recognize and respect the sovereign rights of the tribal and non-tribal citizens of the state of Washington under state law.

RCW 42.30.010
Legislative declaration.
The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Clearly, NOF violates at least the intent of the Open Meeting Act (OMA)3 quoted above. The Advocacy also believes NOF is contrary to the expressed sections of the act requiring decision makers with delegated authority to conduct its affairs in open meetings in a transparent fashion. Unlike times prior to the establishment of the Commission, the delegation of the rule authority from the Legislature to the Fish & Wildlife Commission brings the OMA downward to the Commission. Likewise, the delegation by the Commission to a group within the Department brings the OMA down to staff determining state sponsored seasons.4

Further, NOF results in agreed upon fishing season (s) negotiated behind closed doors. Said season is subsequently adopted into a WAC rule carrying the effect of law. The meetings held with the public are of little consequence to the decision earning NOF the common title of a “Dog and Pony Show”. The Advocacy believes NOF currently results in the Department operating contrary to the intention and expressed conditions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)5.
3 Chapter 42.30 RCW: OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT
4 http://www.atg.wa.gov/Open-Government-Resource-Manual/Chapter-3 5 Chapter 34.05 RCW: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Page 4, THFWA November 14. 2016
While legal advisors to both co-managers may disagree, we believe the two state statutes referenced are applicable to WDFW staff during NOF. Further, compliance with these statutes can be fulfilled by the Department under its own will. While the tribes can choose to not allow the public to attend a meeting of tribal representatives, the Advocacy finds no statement within court rulings such as U.S. v- WA that grants the tribe the power to take the position “my way or the highway” while exercising its treaty rights of co-management. To the contrary, the state Supreme Court ruled state transparency law was applicable to the state entity when interacting with tribal governments.6

The application of the OMA is not stood down by the location where the meeting is held. The Department can not hold its meeting in Oregon and avoid application of the OMA. The same holds true for a NOF meeting held in a tribal office building located on a reservation.

Again, recognizing the sovereignty of the tribal governments, the Advocacy can only assert its rights with WDFW. We do point out that members of a tribe are also citizens of the state. As such, tribal members residing in Washington are likewise entitled to insist that WDFW honor their state citizen rights under state law.

We would prefer to avoid seeking a court ruling. Such a litigation would once again “pit the Advocacy member’s wallets against the state treasury”. Also, court proceedings can be lengthy and often leave uncertainty on how to proceed into the future.

As stated at the beginning of this letter, we are fully committed to assisting the public in management of natural resources for the benefit of future generations. The option that is unacceptable to the members of the Advocacy is to simply turn our heads and walk away. We also subscribe to the time tested philosophy of “more of the same will get you more of the same”. A simple and effective solution is to simply open the door and turn on the light so all can see. Transparency has proven time and again to be an effective tool for finding solutions to difficult challenges that are negatively impacting the relationship between governmental entities and their respective stakeholders.

We await your decision. NOF for 2017 is approaching rapidly and the Department will shortly file a CR101 onto the state register to notify the public. We respectfully suggest that time is of essence.

Sincerely,



Tim Hamilton Art Holman Ron Schweitzer
President Vice-President Secretary-Treasurer

cc: The Honorable Members of the Fish and Wildlife Commission Governor Jay Inslee (via J.T. Austin)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (via Bob Turner & Kathryn Sullivan) The United States Department of Commerce (via Steve Haro)
The US Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (via Amy Dutschke) Individual staff within the NWIFC and WDFW
Representative Brian Blake, Chair, House Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee Senator Kirk Pearson, Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee


6 135 Wn.2d 734, CONFEDERATED TRIBES v. JOHNSON
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/16 06:44 AM


Had to go look but Chehalis side hatchery Coho were forecast at 12319 and at the minute we have a Coho rack count for the combined facilities of 14010 and we go to Dec 1 so the number will bounce up some more. Normally the natural population mirrors the hatchery % on returns as we are wild stock driven. All that said the low harvest both Rec / QIN / NT Nets and that number for a rack count minus the predicted harvest does say we are not out of the woods as we still have the late Coho to come through.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/16 08:24 AM

I suggest the season, as set, continue.

2017 NOF is just around the corner, QIN and WDFW models need to work with the same set of data.

Whatever problems exist between the co-managers NEED to be worked out. WDFW Commission is well aware of these problems, upper WDFW fish personnel is also aware of the problems. 2017 is the time to have the co-managers work together, for the resource.

I like "open meetings", public should be allow to attend any/all fish talks.

Coho part of Wynoochee mitigation needs to be addressed, 25 years to way to long....not just addressed but get it done!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/15/16 08:56 AM


So we have the WK 45 numbers modeled and actual it was this:
Chinook 85 actual 27
Coho 484 actual was 781
Chum 2334 actual was 4110

So the pattern changed some and then not all at the same time. Chinook appear to have tanked but remember the nearly four weeks of no commercial in Oct to protect Coho so and it rained so it will redd count time as Doc said. Now the hatchery returns are saying the same with it looking like some over escapement. The Qin forecast was lower than the states but all went with the QIN's numbers but it looks like the higher number the state produced was closer and maybe under estimated. Chum with darn near double the harvest for the week it is still in mysteryville but we did not have double the 37,5000 forecast which is why doing harvest only to track runs sucks. Nothing for week 44 is posted up.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/15/16 11:27 AM

Looks like the predictions were as good as can fairly be expected (which is to say wrong enough to be dangerous, as usual, but sort of okay). Sometimes, the QIN get closer, and sometimes it's the State. As long as we can't get away from forecasts, seems using the average of the two forecasts should get us closer most years, and averages seem to be a good, fair way to exercise true co-management, as well as placing the accountability on the process as a whole, as opposed to on one party or the other.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/16 10:53 AM


This is a heads up to all concerning the Willapa commercial fisheries. As I do not have all the information needed ( some do that hang out on PP ) that is about all I am willing to put forth now other than it looks like the nets are going back into Willapa Bay. I apologize to all for not putting more information out but I waited ( manners require it ) for Mr. Herring to follow through on his promise to not to withhold information from the public. Well that did not do that well so I have again asked and if the information is not provided to myself and the public in general I will drop a PDR on them and make it public. Best I can do folks.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/16 11:27 AM


Following up here and Chad forwarded the e mail on to me.

Hello Advisors:

Back on November 3rd, the Department closed the commercial fishery in Willapa Bay to preserve impacts on chum. This was based on pre-season forecast information. To date we have collected spawning ground data that points toward a larger than forecasted escapement and along with harvest estimates yields a larger runsize. Based on this newer information, the Department is considering re-opening the commercial fishery directed at coho. The impact rate on chum would remain below 10%.

Estimated Index Escapement (56% of Total Basin) 33,325
Estimated Total Basin Escapement 59,509
Hatchery Escapement to Date 2,250
Fishery Mortalities to Date 5,858

2016 Estimated Runsize 67,617
10% of Runsize 6,762

Remaining Allowable Harvest 904
Projected Harvest in Remaining Commercial Fishery 110
Projected Harvest in Remaining Recreational Fishery 120

Projected Final Impact Rate on Chum 9%

We would like to offer a conference call this afternoon at 4PM for those who can make it and are interested in talking through the details. We are sorry for the short notice.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/07/16 08:22 AM


This is a e mail thread that came in and I found interesting. C&R has gotten to be a tool used but the consequences have not been vetted completely. For us in GH it has been a issue as the mortality numbers have been ah .. working .. ah oh hell pretty much made up by WDF&W or another way to say it is best guess. Staff twice in meetings stated right out the QIN called BS. Add to that the NT Commercials use of ( or lack of ) recovery boxes is just pure BS when calculating moralities. The year that WDF&W put in a C&R NT Commercial on Coho in Willapa comes to mind which literally had dead salmon floating all over the place.

So as things are a bit slow I thought I would throw this up with NOF ( or something ) not that far off.

Thread bottom up:

I've been following all your posts with interest but I obviously haven't chimed in to date. Your message below has prompted me to pass along that I've been doing a bit of work lately to try and acquaint a few of the loud voices up our way with real information rather than mythology. Have a look at a couple of the posts at steelheadvoices.com. The back to back pieces on October 9 and 22 speak to several of your points.

My bottom line is we've oversold catch and release as an angling panacea. For BC's remaining wild steelhead fisheries we're now catching too many fish too often for there not to be consequences. Days ahead are going to see much debate about limits on the number of fish that can and should be caught per angler per unit time. I can hardly wait!

As for the ocean fisheries, C&R is a colossal problem still not adequately recognized. I've seen far too much of the mishandling of ocean caught chinook and coho to accept there isn't a major problem with post release performance and/or mortality. Those original studies by DFO sport fishing "professionals" up on the Queen Charlotte Islands hardly mimicked what goes on in other times and places. I knew all the people involved in those studies very well and I spoke with them at the time about the optics of doing their work as guests of the biggest commercial sport fishing operator in the world (that was Bob Wright at the time) and how inappropriate it was to be applying the results of highly controlled experiments conducted by fish handling experts to the general angling community. You can appreciate how far any caution around the business interests of Mr. Wright travelled.

Anyway, "onward" we go. All the best.


Subject: Re: "Catch and release" and charterboat xxxxxx lobby

There are (at least) two aspects to C&R and the second gets very little research because of the difficulty in actually doing it. It is easy to measure short-term survival. As noted, release into a pen or watch the fish swim away isn't "really" testing C&R but it is what we have. And, as is often discussed, most studies are conducted using anglers who are either highly skilled or highly supporting of having the fish survive. Short air exposure, etc.

There was a really good summary article in AFS's Fisheries about a year ago. What caught my eye was that some work on Atlantic Salmon showed lowered smolt production for fish that had been C&R'd. This is the key to C&R. How is long term survival and productivity changed. Take steelhead, for example. If a female is C&R'd, successfully spawns, and kelts all is good, right? No. If she spawned lower in the watershed due to loss of energy she will seed less stream and produce fewer smolts. If she spawns shallower in the gravel due to the same energy concerns the eggs are subject to scour at lower flows; fewer fry produced. If she kelts out but is so weakened that she does not actually survive the transition to salt we lose the repeat spawner that is critical to production. This resorption of eggs post release is considered a problem in sturgeon.

We have to look at the affect on the individual as a whole, not a one or two day window in its life. The problem is how to test. A fish can't be caught or not caught. Therefore, we don't know how C&R affected the individual.

All that said, we know that C&R does work for fish; many species are flourishing under it. We know that it works for salmonids; again many populations are doing well under it. I would add, though, that the most successful C&R fisheries for salmonids (generally trout, some of which are C&R'd in marine waters but most in fresh) occur on post-spawning fish. Summer fisheries on spring spawners. Even the summer fisheries on fall spawners allow the fish a chance to eat and recover. C&R on fish close to spawning (steelhead, FW salmon) probably directly reduces spawning success. This may not be bad if the fishery access, say 10% of the whole run. But as access rises, population gets hurt.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/14/16 09:11 PM


I am on the Willapa mailing list and this on Willapa from Chad so I thought you Willapa fishers might be interested.

Hello Everybody,

As we come to the end of 2016, just wanted to send out some information on a couple of fronts. First, stock assessment field activities for Chinook and Chum have been wrapped up. We are just reaching peak spawning for Coho on the northern end of the bay. Peak spawning for Coho will progress from North to South with the southern end of the bay peaking just after the first of the year, historically. We have had some requests for Chinook and Chum escapement data already so wanted to let everybody know where we are at in that process. While all the field activities as it pertains to stock assessment data collection are finished there is still a lot of work that needs to be completed before we will have preliminary escapement numbers for those species. First, all the data must go through our QA/QC process to make sure everything has been recorded and entered correctly. Scale and genetic samples collected during the 2016 season have been sent to their respective labs and we have just started receiving results from those samples. Our timeframe for having preliminary escapement numbers for Chinook and Chum is the end of January. Secondly, on the NOF front, regional staff will soon be sending out a call for proposals to commercial fishers for ideas for alternative gear to try during the 2017 season. Proposals will be due to our office by COB of January 20th. Only those proposals that meet the alternative gear requirements set forth in the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C-3622) will be considered. Lastly, there is a table below that has a tentative schedule for our upcoming Willapa Bay advisory/public meetings for North of Falcon 2017. Please keep in mind that this schedule is tentative and subject to change depending on staff availability at these and other meetings held throughout the state. The schedule is meant to give you an idea of how many meetings we will have, when and where. It is not a finalized schedule. As always, please feel free to call our send me an e-mail if you have any questions, concerns or need additional information.

Date Time Location Meeting Type Topic
Feb, 22nd 2017 6pm – 8pm Raymond HS Library Public 2017 forecasts and 2016 post season
March 14th 2017 6pm – 8pm Raymond HS Library Advisory Management issues, fisheries constraints and fisheries modeling
March 23rd 2017 6pm – 8pm Raymond Elks Lodge Public Management issues, fisheries constraints and fisheries modeling
March 30th 2017 6pm – 8pm Raymond HS Library Advisory Fisheries modeling continued
April 20th 2017 6pm – 8pm Raymond Elks Lodge Public If necessary


Chad Herring
Willapa Bay Policy Implementation Biologist
Montesano District Office
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
Office#:(360)249-1299
Cell #:(360)470-3410
Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/10/17 10:18 AM

Kim sent this out a bit ago so I thought I would get it out for folks.




Grays Harbor Advisory Members,

Welcome to the 2017 NOF planning process. Please review the lists below pertaining to the 2017 NOF meetings.

Listed below are meeting dates pertaining to Grays Harbor:


Meeting Date Location/Time
GH & WB Forecasting 2/22/2017 Montesano City Hall 6 pm to 8 pm

GH Advisory 3/9/2017 Region 6 Office 6 pm to 8 pm

GH NOF Public Mtg. 3/28/2017 Montesano City Hall 6 pm to 8 pm

GH Advisory 4/14/2017 Region 6 Office 5:30 pm to 7 pm



List below are meeting dates pertaining to NOF and PFMC:


Meeting Dates Location
PFMC Salmon #1 3/8 to 3/13/2017 Hilton Vancouver Washington
301 W. Sixth Street
Vancouver, WA 98660

NOF #1 3/20 to 3/21/2017 Lacey Community Center and NWIFC?

NOF #2 4/3 to 4/5/2017 Lynnwood Embassy Suites
20610 44th Ave W
Lynnwood, WA 98036

PFMC Salmon #2 4/7 to 4/12/2017 Double Tree by Hilton Sacramento
2001 Point West Way
Sacramento, CA 95815



You will be updated if any meeting dates/locations or times should change.

Sincerely,

Kim Figlar-Barnes
Fish Biologist
WDFW Fish Program – Region 6
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
360-249-4628 ex 235

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/10/17 11:54 AM

Well if your brain does not explode then your safe but frankly this is disturbing and scroll down to the fish part. Why? Because it says we are screwed / no solution but that is MY opinion you draw your own.


http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2017/01/jan1317_07_presentation.pdf
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/11/17 03:37 PM


Some questions on Steve being gone and now it is official.


From: Cunningham, Kelly J (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:38 PM
To: DFW DL Fish Program Personnel
Cc: DFW DL EMT
Subject: Announcement: Region 6 Fish Program Manager

All:

I am happy to announce that we have selected Annette Hoffmann as the “new” Regional Fish Program Manager (RPM) for Region 6. Annette Brings with her a solid fisheries management base derived from her previous experiences, most recently as the Region 4 RPM. Annette’s ability to identify multiple solutions to problems, her commitment to the resource, and her support of staff will serve her well in the region. Her collaborative, data driven approach to the work coupled with her commitment to team and ability to consider issues from multiple perspectives will be put to the test in one of our most challenging regions. I have no doubt she will rise to the occasion just as she has done throughout her career.

Please join me in congratulating Dr. Hoffmann and wishing her well in her new position.

Kelly
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/17 09:09 AM

Here is a change again. This is a e mail I received not my thoughts.

This is much better than Michelle Culver. I know, that bar was buried underground.........
He used to work for me. This one came out of the left field stands, third deck. But, Larry is/was a pretty good guy. He does fish a lot. Ocean (just bought a big boat), bay, river, lake, stream. He also hunts, or at least did. Has a lifetime license in Idaho.



________________________________________
FYI

From: Stohr, Joseph S (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:35 PM
To: DFW DL WDFW Staff
Subject: New Region 6 Director

Hello:

I’m writing to let you know that after a very competitive hiring process we have selected Larry Phillips as our new Director for Region 6. Larry has been with the agency since 2000 holding fish management positions on both sides of the Cascades. His strong communication skills, natural resource knowledge and ability to connect with our stakeholders will serve the agency well. Please congratulate and welcome Larry into his new role.

Joe
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/17 11:21 AM

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2017/02/agenda_feb1017.html

This is the Commission Agenda and you might want to remember that the do a GH & Willapa Policy reviews so one might want to keep a eye on this.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/17 11:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Here is a change again. This is a e mail I received not my thoughts.

This is much better than Michelle Culver. I know, that bar was buried underground.........
He used to work for me. This one came out of the left field stands, third deck. But, Larry is/was a pretty good guy. He does fish a lot. Ocean (just bought a big boat), bay, river, lake, stream. He also hunts, or at least did. Has a lifetime license in Idaho.



________________________________________
FYI

From: Stohr, Joseph S (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:35 PM
To: DFW DL WDFW Staff
Subject: New Region 6 Director

Hello:

I’m writing to let you know that after a very competitive hiring process we have selected Larry Phillips as our new Director for Region 6. Larry has been with the agency since 2000 holding fish management positions on both sides of the Cascades. His strong communication skills, natural resource knowledge and ability to connect with our stakeholders will serve the agency well. Please congratulate and welcome Larry into his new role.

Joe

We've known Larry for years, he IS one of us despite what some may think. This is good news, he has always been receptive to issues and thoughts we may have concerning numerous fisheries. Bob and Melanie
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/17 12:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2017/02/agenda_feb1017.html

This is the Commission Agenda and you might want to remember that the do a GH & Willapa Policy reviews so one might want to keep a eye on this.

Saturday Feb 11... GH and WB mangement plan reviews scheduled to take up the entire morning agenda.

That makes 3 monthly commission meetings in a row addressing my nearest/dearest fisheries.

The mad scramble leading into NOF begins.

Forecasts for GH and WB are due out in about 3 weeks
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/17 06:30 AM

Here is a change for Grays Harbor on the NOF bit and nope I do not spend a lot of time trying to get information out of R 6. It is not to far off and frankly I was never one to try to get a jump on others through contacts as some do. So I can not help you guys with the waiting NOF will come around soon enough.



Hello Grays Harbor Advisors,

Please note the Grays Harbor Advisory Group meeting scheduled for Thursday March 9, 2017 has been changed to Tuesday March 7, 2017. The meeting location will be the Region 6 Office in Montesano from 6-8 pm.

Sorry for any inconveniences this may cause, the meeting date changed due to conflicts with the PFMC meetings in Vancouver WA.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kim Figlar-Barnes
Fish Biologist
WDFW Fish Program – Region 6
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
360-249-4628 ex 235
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/17 04:53 AM


This link is to the presentation for this Saturday's Commission time on the Grays Harbor Management Policy. Last years run performance is part of it and more so take a peak. My final bit on the runsizes I got the Chinook & Coho thing but lord I did not see 70K of Chum but that rain ... ugg!

New year new game but same players but it is game time again.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2017/02/feb1017_14_presentation.pdf

For those who did not get here is the Willapa presentation for Saturday also.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2017/02/feb1017_15_presentation.pdf
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/17 10:03 AM


Just a reminder for folks on the up coming NOF meetings for GH & Willapa. To the question on the preseason forecast I do not know and to be honest have not even tried to find out as it matters little as they do not have agreement with the QIN yet. The QIN usually give them their data in the latter part of March along with their proposed seasons. So this folks is about the states numbers only and nothing is set in concrete.


Meeting Date Location/Time
GH & WB Forecasting 2/22/2017 Montesano City Hall 6 pm to 8 pm

GH Advisory 3/9/2017 Region 6 Office 6 pm to 8 pm

GH NOF Public Mtg. 3/28/2017 Montesano City Hall 6 pm to 8 pm

GH Advisory 4/14/2017 Region 6 Office 5:30 pm to 7 pm
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/17 07:23 AM

This is a C&P of a article from the Aberdeen Daily World regarding the last Commission meeting.



The possibility of an Endangered Species Act designation for salmon in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay is a major driving force behind modern salmon management and was part of the discussion at the Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting in Olympia a week ago.

It is the potential conflict between hatchery-produced salmon and wild salmon that has federal fish managers pushing for a management plan for Willapa Bay salmon that favors naturally occurring salmon over their hatchery counterparts, despite recent DNA testing that has shown there is no distinction genetically between the two.

“We had no genetic separation between hatchery and natural origin Chinook in the bay or any of the sub basins,” said Fish and Wildlife biologist Chad Herring. “That is the goal, to not have a distinction.”

Fisheries managers generally try to manage fish to protect the weakest stocks of salmon in a particular river system and most biologists believe that hatchery salmon present a competitive threat to the wild fish.

In the case of Willapa Bay, the conflict between hatchery and natural origin fish and the attached threat of listing led the state to radically drop Chinook hatchery production from the Forks Creek Hatchery near Holcomb on the Willapa River from 3.3 million fish to 350,000 last year. Since the Willapa River has been designated a “primary river,” the majority of the effort in the Willapa Bay system is focused on its Chinook salmon. “Some runs of each species will be considered primary runs, the most important runs in that geographic region, and those runs will be taken care of more carefully and aggressively than other runs designated less important for that species,” said Commissioner Miranda Wecker, who resides in Naselle. “We designated the Willapa a primary river for natural origin Chinook.”

Careful study of data collected from this primary run led state fish managers to conclude the number of hatchery fish returning to the spawning grounds used by natural origin Chinook was too high, prompting the cut in hatchery production.

“What you want to do is keep natural origin fish in the purest form of natural selection,” said Wecker. “Hatchery fish that make it into the spawning grounds degrades the productivity of the natural origin fish.” She said the natural origin fish that spawn, go out to the ocean, compete for resources and return are more fit than hatchery fish, and will continue to get even more fit if the number of hatchery fish supplying their genetics is cut down.

Herring says biologists have a tool called the all-age analyzer that, when fed with current data, including harvest, hatchery production and habitat, can produce a model of what those factors might do to a species of fish out to 100 years. The model that produced the best results for naturally occurring Chinook on the Willapa River was one where only 350,000 hatchery fish were released.

“We have something called the ‘pHOS,’ the proportion of hatchery fish on spawning grounds allowed,” said Herring. The state’s management policy for primary systems like the Willapa River and contributing systems like the Naselle River, “the pHOS needs to be 30 percent or lower,” he said. “Right now we have a pHOS in the Willapa in the high 70s, and the low 80s in the Naselle. Because of that we had to reduce the hatchery program at Forks Creek. The modeling showed that if we reduced hatchery Chinook to 350,000, when the fish return in 2019 the model shows we would be more likely to meet the pHOS. The policy is there hopefully to deal with situations before we get into the critical area where an Endangered Species Act designation is imminent.”

Grays Harbor biologist Mike Scharpf provided his annual fisheries management review, the highlight of which was a much larger than expected run of chum salmon and more coho than predicted.

“We had chum escapement nearly double the forecast,” said Scharpf. He added that the non-tribal commercial impact on the run was “pretty low” because the run came in after the three-day non-tribal commercial season.


Early data from the 2016 season suggests non-hatchery escapement goals will be met for Humptulips Chinook, Chehalis coho and Grays Harbor chum, but not for Humptulips coho or Chehalis Chinook. Preliminary information also showed that all fisheries impact limits were obtained in 2016.

Scharpf noted that 2017 could be another difficult season. Chehalis River Chinook natural stocks are expected to be below goal, as are Humptulips River natural origin coho. He added the Grays Harbor Control Zone could be closed if the final escapement estimate for Chehalis River non-hatchery Chinook is less than the objective set forth in the plan.

Management challenges were discussed. Commissioner Bob Kehoe asked Scharpf about the apparent inflexibility when it came to in-season adjustments for commercial take commenting, “The policy seems to be so constraining it doesn’t let the Department of Fish and Wildlife make adjustments” to seasons when the returns are higher than expected or when the return arrives at a time outside of the very short commercial season. “Why do we not take advantage of active management? Why not let them fish?” asked Kehoe.

Scharpf replied, “The effort was lower than it has been historically, so we didn’t have the data we usually have to calculate the impact of the fishery.” He noted the only successful week was the week after the commercial fishery ended, and that the salmon didn’t return when expected, adding “There are no reliable in-season updates to make in-season changes to the seasons.”

Commercial and recreational anglers were given a chance to talk about Grays Harbor salmon management. Several complained about being shut out of talks about the seasons.

“Welcome to the food fight,” said Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy President Tim Hamilton. When it comes to fish management, “The dilemma is, fish will trick you.” He says the uncertainty of nature and salmon runs in general require more boots on the ground data gathering. He added the importance of a policy for Grays Harbor salmon that takes in federally required guidelines of naturally spawning fish versus hatchery fish can keep Grays Harbor salmon stocks off the federal Endangered Species List. “I lived through the spotted owl, and I don’t want my people to have to go through anything like that now.”

Willapa Bay fall Chinook numbers were lower than predicted in 2016, both natural stock and hatchery. Likewise for the coho run. Goals for Chinook spawner escapements were not met anywhere in the system; the best performance was 69 percent of the goal on the Nemah. Coho on the other hand nearly doubled expectations for escapement, and chum performed even better.

“I spoke to a manager at the wildlife refuge and she said you could literally walk across the bay on the backs of chum,” said Herring. “She said she saw chum where she had never seen them before.”

As with Grays Harbor, the difficulty of data gathering was listed as an issue when it came to management. Data collection was difficult here because of an emphasis on alternative catch means for commercial fishermen, including the use of tangle nets instead of gillnets, led to lower than usual fisheries participation.

Looking ahead to the 2017 season, stocks that are expected to perform poorly are Willapa River fall Chinook, Naselle River fall Chinook and Willapa Bay chum. Herring says new tools for better in season fisheries updates are being developed and refined to give managers better tools to work with.

As for alternative gear, floating fish traps were something Herring said he was in talks about. These traps are movable and designed to catch and hold fish, allowing for less net mortality and more selective harvest targeting hatchery fish. One public commenter was quick to point out he had experimented with a floating trap on the Columbia. “We couldn’t catch two fish in a floating trap. The seals ate every fish that went into the trap. I’m just afraid you’re going to spend a lot of money on something that does not work, even during the large runs.”


Commissioner Kim Thorburn from Spokane asked Herring about the importance of harvesting larger numbers of hatchery fish to favor the survival of wild spawning fish. Herring said the harvest of hatchery fish is important to that goal, but adjusting seasons to target hatchery fish over non-hatchery fish is difficult at best, and very hard to do when data collection during the season is so spotty.

This was just one of many meetings leading up to the April 7-12 final meeting of the Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting in Sacramento, Calif. There the 2017-18 ocean fisheries regulations and state-tribal fishing plans are finalized for all inside area commercial and sport salmon fisheries. A list of these meetings can be found on the WDFW website.






Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 07:43 AM

Well the NOF first meeting for GH & Willapa is done and how does it look? In a few words terrible in GH but not as bad in Willapa. I managed to lose the Willapa numbers but it is the natural Chinook that are hard down but not worse than other years. The big item rattling around here is the fact that the Commercials keep going over there % of runsize in harvest. It is a Section 7 thing which is the adjustment clause in the Willapa policy and can/will involve the Commission, maybe.

Now GH is different and is up in the air. So Chum we have agreement with the QIN and the numbers is 32,300 which puts 11k and change up for harvest. Coho is interesting or something as no preseason forecast yet. The state and QIN forecast are VERY different. 29k from one and 109k from the other. Now that is one hell of a gap and simply put we wait for the differences to be worked out. Remember we are limited to 5% impact if the forecast is below 110% of escapement.

Fall Chinook are going to be down, way down from the past couple of years. The one number we got was 8k which is below the 9753 escapement goal but I do not have the other number but 8k is the low one. Because of the 3/5 GHMP rule which is the limiter on harvest if you fail to make escapement three out of five years no matter what our impact will be 5% of the runsize period.

Spring Chinook are way down also at around half of escapement which will pretty much end conversation on that except to 5% again as with the Fall Chinook.

So first step done and Mike will send me the models he has so I can get them out next week. More to come.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 08:30 AM

On coho, what are PSF's based on? A long time ago, WDFW had a forecast (low) based on smolt numbers and QIN had a higher one based on escapement in brood year. Biologically, a PSF based on smolts should be closer to the truth as you have incubation and rearing thrown in before the ocean.

I suspect, though, that the argument will be around the statistical "robustness" and we will somehow magically end up with a forecast that allows some fishing. It will be large enough to allow a QIN fishery and a reasonably matching rec fishery in the ocean.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 09:12 AM



Rivrguy did a good job of posting the general concept of the meeting.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 01:19 PM

The disparity between forecasts would be alarming were the numbers 200K and 270K. With the numbers being what they are, these forecasts more or less prove that this business of forecasting returns to set seasons ranks high among the factors directly responsible for the ongoing decline.

At 29K, nobody's fishing. At 129K, everyone's fishing... until the numbers don't materialize, the sporties get shut down again, and the fish take another deadly blow.

Bad, bad, bad.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 03:12 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA


Rivrguy did a good job of posting the general concept of the meeting.





Indeed...

We're in the penalty box for wild Chehalis kings and wild Hump coho for 2017... 5% impact cap for both stocks.

Depending on where we land on the forecasts for wild Chehalis coho and wild Hump kings, a directed fishery on either stock is still uncertain.

If the PSF's come up short, the best we can hope for is a one fish bag on hatch kings and hatch coho constrained by a 5% wild impact.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 04:26 PM

So...one fish limit on the Satsop again this year? Even with how large the 99% hatchery early run (September-october) was?

I called the local WDFW office, spoke with wardens and "Biologists" this last year. I have been fishing the satsop since I was 4 years old for coho on the Satsop. I told them that I have never seen an early run like I had this last year. Even some of the old timers agreed. With the one fish and done limit, I found myself handing my rod off a lot. Bringing friends who are new to fishing, just to punch more fish. Its a waste of time, money and energy when a guy can show up, chuck a bait of eggs one or two times and leave. At least with a two or three fish limit it makes worth my time. I live close, but still.

Is there any real reason why they wont come out to some of the bank spots and/or wait at the launches to see simply "how good the fishin' is". I mean they have a bunch of fish counters, use them. They could have raised the limit to two fish from September-October and probably barely made a difference in escapement. I handed my rod off one day about 15 times. Most of those fish went home. I feel no remorse whatsoever. As I shouldn't.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
So...one fish limit on the Satsop again this year? Even with how large the 99% hatchery early run (September-october) was?

I called the local WDFW office, spoke with wardens and "Biologists" this last year. I have been fishing the satsop since I was 4 years old for coho on the Satsop. I told them that I have never seen an early run like I had this last year. Even some of the old timers agreed. With the one fish and done limit, I found myself handing my rod off a lot. Bringing friends who are new to fishing, just to punch more fish. Its a waste of time, money and energy when a guy can show up, chuck a bait of eggs one or two times and leave. At least with a two or three fish limit it makes worth my time. I live close, but still.

Is there any real reason why they wont come out to some of the bank spots and/or wait at the launches to see simply "how good the fishin' is". I mean they have a bunch of fish counters, use them. They could have raised the limit to two fish from September-October and probably barely made a difference in escapement. I handed my rod off one day about 15 times. Most of those fish went home. I feel no remorse whatsoever. As I shouldn't.


Were you at the meeting Wednesday night????? This is the time for you to be heard......you got something to say, rise your hand...get on the call list....then when your name is called, say what you got to say.

NOF is where its at, not in September or October....and for sure phone calls during those periods of time....probably go in "one ear and out the other". Might make you feel good but NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN, until NOF 2018.

Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 08:09 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Yes, its a tragedy that the supposed "CO"managers do not cooperatively manage out of the same playbook. Without mutually agreed-upon objectives, the resource is ultimately made to suffer.


The way the co-managers spend paper fish is like a financially dysfunctional couple sharing the same checking account. Without a mutually accepted budget plan, one spouse's irresponsible spending can't be kept in check by the other..... and the account is chronically overdrawn.


The GHMP is the state's conservation-minded blueprint to ensure our stocks are NOT overfished during times of reduced productivity... just like what the ocean is serving up right now. The tenets of the GHMP are biologically sound from a conservation perspective, and WDFW has demonstrated its commitment since implementation to keeping itself accountable to the document.

However, the GHMP only applies to state-managed fisheries, and there's been no buy-in to the plan as far as QIN is concerned. Whereas the constraints imposed by the GHMP to conserve a depleted stock leave state fishers unable to fully access otherwise harvestable surpluses of other more plentiful stocks, the QIN does not hold itself accountable to the same constraints. Nor are they legally bound to do so.

The two co-managers continue to have different ideas about how to forecast run-sizes, and widely disparate fishery objectives. The Region 6 management team made that very clear last night.

It's like a symphony with TWO conductors each reading from a different sheet of music. Half the musicians follow the lead of one conductor, while the other musicians follow the lead of the other. Each night when the curtain comes up, it's anybody's guess how well the concert will be performed. More often than not, it's horribly painful to listen to.

Just like our annual fishing seasons and the chronic inability to meet our escapement objectives.

Just makes you wonder how long folks are gonna keep buying tickets to the show?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 08:44 PM

One could have more faith in WDFW's ability to manage if WB was a salmonid paradise with all the fish the habitat can produce. They don't have Co-Managers there; just them. Some could say that WB represents the best WDFW can do.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/17 09:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Some could say that WB represents the best WDFW can do.


And some most certainly have.

I have a little more faith in the current team given its demonstrated ability to hold itself accountable to the policy in Grays Harbor.

They still need to SHOW US in Willapa Bay.

The harvest models in GH are a much truer sign of reality since Scharpf took over data processing. WB has some catching up to do. The harvest models are chronically understating the true fishing power of the fleet by 25-30%.

When we used to shoot for a 30% harvest rate pre-season, we consistently ended up at 36-38% post-season. Now that we shoot for 20%, we end up at 25-26% post-season. The correlation is so consistent that the fix is stupid easy to figure out.

Set the seasons with impact caps 25% lower than the policy allows and they'll end up right where they need to be!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/17 08:29 AM

JG hit on something that was 1000 % correct & 100% wrong at the same time. What happened last year was simple the Coho pulsed through no staging low but rather mid range and the Chum came through on the brown out and better than half the coho with them in SEVEN days. So you could at any given moment half few to fish everywhere dependent on what week your in.

So JG go to the WDF&W website and pull down the escapement report and look at it by week. The hatchery run came in at about WDF&W forecast ( some above QIN forecast ) with LITTLE harvest. The limiter is wild production always not hatchery availability for harvest. Considering the numbers and everything hell you were lucky you were on the water let alone increasing the bag limit which increases pressure which increases wild mortality. I am not so sure we will be so lucky this year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/17 12:59 PM


Formatting is screwed but here are the GH Chinook & Coho forecast.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Wendy Beeghley, Angelika Hagen-Breaux, Aaron Default, Marlene Bellman

FROM: Mike Scharpf and Tyler Jurasin

Date: March 3, 2017

SUBJECT: 2016 Grays Harbor Pre-Season Forecasts

Grays Harbor Spring Chinook: 1,277 terminal runsize
Recruit ages 3, 4, 5, and 6 are predicted using a five-year average recruits per spawners.
All are unmarked.

Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012 6 yo – 2011 Total
Chehalis 305 720 248 4 1,277



Grays Harbor Natural Coho: 50,043 Ocean Age three recruits (Chehalis River = 41,305 and Humptulips River =6,862), South Bay Tribs = 1,876
The forecast of Chehalis wild Coho was developed using the model Ocean Recruits ~ PDO and maximum one-day September upwelling index . Final Model: Log Recruits ~ bo + b1* mean (mean(PDO i = 3, j = Mar-Jul) + b2*Upwelling i = 3, Max one day September, 125W 48N. The Humptulips and South Bay tributary forecasts are based on recruit densities scaled from Clearwater and Chehalis basins, respectively.

Grays Harbor Hatchery Coho: 36,355 Ocean Age three recruits (Chehalis River = 25,964 and Humptulips River = 9,179, Grays Harbor Net Pens = 1,212

Forecasts were based on recent 10 year average return/smolt rates (excluding 2 highest return rates) expanded to ocean age 3 recruits.

Total Marked Total Unmarked
Chehalis 19,860 6,104
Humptulips 9,075 104
GH net pen 1,178 34


Grays Harbor Fall Natural Chinook: 16,192 terminal runsize (Chehalis River = 10,351 and Humptulips River = 5,841)

Based on a ten-year average recruits per spawn for age 3 and age class relationships determined from log linear regressions for 4 year olds on 2 and 3 year olds, and 5 year olds on 2, 3, and 4 year olds for all stocks, and 6 year olds on 5 year olds for Chehalis and Humptulips.

Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012 6 yo – 2011 Total
Chehalis 1,141 4,130 4,988 92 10,351

Humptulips 439 1,861 3,403 138 5,841



Grays Harbor Fall Hatchery Chinook: 5,631 terminal runsize (Chehalis River = 2,425 and Humptulips River =3,207)
Based on a ten-year average recruits per spawn for age 3 and age class relationships determined from log linear regressions for 4 year olds on 2 and 3 year olds, and 5 year olds on 2, 3, and 4 year olds for all stocks, and 6 year olds on 5 year olds for Chehalis and Humptulips.

Chinook Marked / Unmarked Information

Chehalis River
Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012 6 yo – 2011 Total
2016 Forecast 310 815 1,247 53 2,425

Mark Rate 99.01% 99.96% 99.46% 98.66%
Marked 307 815 1,240 52 2,414

Unmarked 3 0 7 1 11



Humptulips River
Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012 6 yo – 2011 Total
2016 Forecast 287 816 2,041 63 3,207

Mark Rate 99.12% 99.26% 98.87% 98.19%
Marked 284 810 2,018 62 3,174

Unmarked 3 6 23 1 33


Grays Harbor Chum: 31,300 terminal run size (Naturals 30,100, hatchery origin 1,200)
Based on a five-year average recruits per spawners.

Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012
Grays Harbor 3,619 16,382 11,380
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/17 01:50 PM

hello hello hello

Some numbers we can all look forward to crafting some meaningful seasons.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/17 04:35 PM

Now, I don't want to poo-poo the appearance that we may have some semblance of opportunity, but I would be interested to see/hear an account of how they arrived at the "final" co-manager forecasts. This is not (supposed to be) a game of give and take at the whims of the managers, so what happens in a meeting like that? One more reason the State and Tribal meetings need transparency that doesn't get mentioned as often as our abundance or lack of opportunity is the welfare of the fish. The fish and I want to know: how did this go down?

Was it the QIN guy realizing he forgot to carry a zero somewhere? Biological negotiation? Completely unfounded, and both sides just wanted to keep license sales/fish production going strong? Were horses traded?
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/17 07:41 PM

Looking at the forecast that Rivrguy posted I would estimate that we will have about the same rec and commercial seasons as last year with a couple of tweeks. The Humptulips chinook harvest needs to come down 23% and the Chehalis coho harvest could be tripled. That could at least get back to a two fish bag. It also looks like a couple more net days for chum if the tribe allows it to happen.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/17 06:24 AM

Quote:

Was it the QIN guy realizing he forgot to carry a zero somewhere? Biological negotiation? Completely unfounded, and both sides just wanted to keep license sales/fish production going strong? Were horses traded?


The simplest way to explain it is that the QIN model is weighted toward the PDO / ocean conditions and the state is weighted toward the fresh water survival. Both consider both but the emphasis on two different portions of the fishes life cycle will and does give you two different results that have to be reconciled.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/06/17 07:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Quote:

Was it the QIN guy realizing he forgot to carry a zero somewhere? Biological negotiation? Completely unfounded, and both sides just wanted to keep license sales/fish production going strong? Were horses traded?


The simplest way to explain it is that the QIN model is weighted toward the PDO / ocean conditions and the state is weighted toward the fresh water survival. Both consider both but the emphasis on two different portions of the fishes life cycle will and does give you two different results that have to be reconciled.


I suspected as much. Maybe they ought to compare predicted vs. actual over time for each side, make a decision about whose prediction model has been more accurate, and use it. That sounds to me like the sort of co-management we need; not competing plans, but learning-based plans that incorporate the agreed-upon, best available science, as determined by model performance data.
Under the current paradigm, since both estimates are only educated guesses at best, wouldn't reconciliation leave us with a co-crafted, WAG?

The PDO driver for the QIN does explain their initial pessimism, considering the overall trend in PDO in recent years. On that note, it looks like El Nino is dominating the weather pattern predictions for the year so far. Let's hope that changes by the summer (which I'm reading does sometimes happen). Seems like El Nino equals low PDO, generally speaking.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/06/17 07:31 AM


Last year staff said the QIN has a history of being more accurate in the sense it is closer to the actual returns. Does not mean it is better at being not to high or to low but rather closer to the final numbers. That is why with the mess last year WDF&W opted to run with the QIN number which was lower in the preseason BUT the run came in closer to the WDF&W numbers. So pick your poison.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/06/17 11:21 AM

That's what in-season updates are for. When we looked back at the performance of PS updates for about 20 species/stocks the updates were more accurate almost all the time. I can recall only one (South Sound coho) where the update did not get closer than the the forecast.

I know they argue that they "can't" do updates. Well, they manage the fisheries based on harvest rates, right? HR=C/RS. My weakness is that I learned my math in California and according to what I learned, RS=C/HR if the harvest rate calculation is true. Either both are true, in which case you have an update or both are false in which case management is based on a false assumption.

You choose.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/17 09:17 AM

Quick update on the GH Advisers meeting. The QIN seasons have not been inputted to the model so it is a guessing game but we can get a view of the 2017 seasons.

1. The Chinook forecast is has us in a 5% impact rate as the QIN but they can move around with the aggregate of both Hump and Chehalis so it is not all they easy to predict exactly what will be. The good Coho & Chum returns forecasted pretty much make them the target species for everyone. That said the low Chinook return will likely move the QIN seasons to middle to latter part of October to avoid large numbers of Chinook. Also Springers tanked so that will mess with them also in the summer.

2.The available Chehalis natural origin Coho ( wild ) after ocean harvest should be around 40k so along with the hatchery returns our seasons look OK. Hump is limited to 5% on Coho impact also by the GHMP Staff is looking at options and input from the public also at the next NOF meeting in Monte but our season timeline should look somewhat like last years with some changes again for Springer protections. It appears the Rec bag limit will be something like two adults a day release wild Chinook. ( six jacks also )

3. The meeting schedule for both Willapa and GH has been jumping around the calendar due to staff guidance being a bit different than in the past, I think. It was my bad that I did not send out a final shout out for last night's meeting but will I try to do better.

4. The NT Commercials are looking at options with staff including B in the bay but later in the season to avoid Chinook which is a change.
So forward the process goes but at the moment things look OK unless something weird happens.


Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/17 10:54 PM

Don't know how many of you realize it, but this is the most viewed thread in the history of this board.... 1.14 million and counting.

Next closest topic is just shy of 58K views.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/17 11:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Eric
Nicely put together and easy to navigate. thumbs

Should generate some passionate discussions. I hope it helps produce a positive outcome for all sport fishers in the Chehalis and Willapa basins at the end of NOF.


Echoing my comments on the Kenai thread regarding fish management being all about patience, and taking SMALL incremental bites over LONG periods of time....

FishingThe Chehalis.net was really the catalyst that put decades of local effort into hyperdrive. The passion generated by this 4 yr old thread combined with the efforts of the Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy, Coastal Conservation Association, and the longtime local stewards of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay have accomplished great things for the conservation of coastal fish stocks.

We now have SOUND science-based conservation plans approved in official Policies by the WA Fish and Wildlife Commission overseeing the management of both coastal estuaries and the rivers feeding them. It's only been a few years, but so far they have proven extremely valuable in keeping WDFW Region 6 actions within the conservation constraints spelled out in the Policy

This was no small task.

Folks really need to acknowledge how far we've come in these 4 years.

My hat's off to all who contributed to the effort. You know who you are.

beer
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/17 11:34 AM

A review of the QIN opportunity may demonstrate the penalties imposed for using non selective gill nets. The small Chinook and chum runs should limit tribal nets to about two days per week for 4-5 weeks in October (Plus the usual 5-10 days in Nov-Dec to destroy the late native coho run). Their 50% share of the harvestable coho run is 22,076 fish but the limited net time allows a harvest of about 7,400 fish. It will be important for the state to try to prevent the QIN from over harvesting their share of the Chinook and chum to access these fish. Interesting times ahead. Their entitlement to 3,776 Chinook will easily drive the total run size of natural origin Chehalis fish to well below the escapement goal.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/17 02:03 PM

Another aspect of GH, so far, ESA has not been involved. ESA has allowed NOAA to give the tribe's a greater share of listed stock impacts as past of their special relationship with the Treaty Tribes.

Without ESA, Boldt rules apply which means the fall-back is 50:50. In those situations, the inability/unwillingness to fish selectively means that the weakest stock limits your access to the more abundant stock. Unless the other manager decides to give you some fish. WDFW can always agree to modify 50:50 but it is at their discretion and choice.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/17 07:18 AM


I think I owe Doc a thank you but he is right you know. I simply have the institutional memory and a brother that knew the PDR process. That said those like myself know where to look and what is BS and can point it out. It was the rest who made meeting after meeting that made it possible. Guys like Soft Bite tearing the model apart, DW always on Wynoochee Mitigation, just everyone. Sometimes for some reason all the pieces come together in a manner that allows you to move forward. Lot of folks putting in effort and this time we pulled it off.

Oh a old saying is " never take silence for agreement " and frankly one should not take the Commercials silence as acceptance and go to sleep because those apposed to the GHMP have not given up.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/17 11:54 AM

On Willapa some are asking what the hell back to the Commission. Ah yes but it is not to undo, well kinda. You see Section 7 ( if I recall correctly ) addresses commercial over fishing. More or less if the NT's over fish then supposedly back to the Commission on how to pay back. Did not do that last year ( insert reason of choice here ) so this year staff must do so. Sounds OK but it could be a bit weird out. The Recs have been steadily using more of their share of NOR impacts and the NT's modeled at 20% the last two years but got 25% of Nor impacts. Logic would say except the error and simply do 15% to get 20% but that would be a bit of a buzz saw at the least. Even if they do that chances are the numbers are not going be correct which will compound the problem.

This is a issue seeking a solution.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/17 12:54 PM

Rivrguy -
Speaking of Willapa Bay something has been causing me some concern. Thought you might be able to shed some light/suggest.

The concern is as the returns from the Willapa river (forks hatchery) dry up; a couple years down the road how do you see the marine recreational fishers accessing the hatchery Chinook heading to the south bay?

I can see how the early fishing could still be good fishing the waters west of Tokeland; though more problematic for the small boat angler. However as the season moves to the later part of August/early September the historic peak I can help to think the numbers of fish in the protected waters east of Tokeland will be a mere shadow of itself. Accessing those fish building up will involve either making very long runs, using limited and poorly placed launches and more exposure to the weather and worst grass.

It appears to be what has been one of the premier small boat marine Chinook opportunity will be coming to an end in a couple years. Can you provide any hope for us small boaters or is it time to look for alternate fisheries? I thinking I have to be looking out of state (either BC or Montana for trout.

Curt
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/17 03:36 PM

Yup with forks cr down to 300k ( ? ) the numbers will be much less but so will the commercials also. H / W mix way backwards to net much other than maybe a tangle. Now the way HSRG drove things that is what came out but of mystery to me is how they plan to manage to harvest the returns off the huge releases on the Naselle that Rep Blake got funds for. Failing weir plus few NOR with a huge hatchery return, I mean that will be a interesting thing to watch how that plays out.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/17 04:10 PM

Indeed....


The Naselle piece is a bit of a bugaboo. Originally we were managing Naselle as a PRIMARY population but in the final WB Policy it was re-designated a CONTRIBUTING population.

The HSRG criteria for contributing:

For integrated populations, the proportion of natural-origin adults in the broodstock should exceed pHOS by at least a factor of one, corresponding to a PNI value of 0.50 or greater and pHOS should be less than 0.30.

We have a HUGE pHOS problem at Naselle... a product of large hatchery releases and a weir that is NOT fish-tight thru the duration of the chinook spawning migration. In other words TONS of hatch strays on the gravel.

Solving the pHOS problem at Naselle will be mission impossible without a dependable weir structure and a means to SELECTIVELY harvest the hatchery surpluses. Sounds a whole lot like the tule problem on the lower Columbia
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/17 04:11 PM

Blake's strategy seems to be to perennially overload Willapa Bay with hatchery fish so that more commercial fishing time is necessary to remove the "threat" to native stocks. Seems to me this is the biggest danger hatcheries pose to wild fish conservation (that we view unharvested hatchery fish as a waste of resources and a threat to wild fish).
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/17 04:49 PM

It's a double edged sword because big plants require big harvests and wild fish cannot sustain the same harvest rates as the hatch product... unless you have a reliable low-impact means of SELECTIVELY harvesting the hatchery fish.

Thus far, the industry has virtually ZERO desire to move in that direction.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/17 09:03 AM

Rivrguy,

Maybe you can shed some light on this. I'm not intimately familiar with all the Willapa Bay watersheds, but it seems like the intended management configuration is out of whack. I thought that the Naselle system is probably in the best habitat condition compared to all the other tributaries. And Dept. bios have mentioned that the Naselle hatchery is a piece of crap, as hatchery facilities go. If those two things are true, wouldn't it make more, most sense to designate the Naselle as a wild Chinook sanctuary of sorts, and stop raising hatchery Chinook at Naselle? The Willapa River is generally degraded, and doesn't seem like the best candidate to me for natural Chinook production. If that is true, it seems like Willapa's Forks Creek hatchery is the best candidate for hatchery Chinook production, and we take whatever the Willapa can naturally produce as "contributing" to overall Chinook productivity.

Historically Willapa Bay was primarily a coho and chum salmon factory, with comparatively little natural Chinook production. It seems like the salmon management plan is trying to make the river basins do something that is out of synch with their natural capabilities.

The Nemah River - a creek really - is naturally best suited to coho and chum salmon production. Is it even remotely logical to focus on producing hatchery Chinook there?

If there were a Willapa Bay Salmn Czar, would the present configuration of natural and hatchery salmon production and management even be on the table for consideration? Wouldn't it be a more responsible use of taxpayer funds to shut down Naselle and Nemah hatcheries, raise hatchery Chinook at Forks Creek, and focus on producing as many wild coho and chum salmon as the available habitat can support? I think, but am not certain, that arrangement would support a decent recreational fishery, some, but not a lot of commercial fishing, and do it at far less cost to Washington taxpayers.

Sg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/17 09:36 AM

Lot in that question SG so rather than try a part at a time this. The Willapa river & N. River became prime but not Naselle due to the fact that Forks Creek Chinook just plain stray all through the Willapa River system. Coho not so almost no straying out of Forks Cr for Coho. Chinook do not want to come out of the main river into small water so Forks Cr for Chinook was a terrible choice at that location. Again as in Naselle the thing is this. YOU GOTTA HAVE A WEIR THAT WORKS AND WATER TO ATTRACT RETURNING ADULTS INTO THE FACILITY and Forks Cr fails for different reasons just as Naselle does.

To be honest the situation is more about Phil Anderson's determination to maintain the Willapa's gillnet fisheries and ignore HSRG requirements as to siting hatchery production more than anything. This is a mess made by ignoring things until all hell breaks loose.

As to the Nemah it would be the facility of the least risk for Chinook ( genetics ) but has issues also. Gotta run to the dock but Salmo the gillnetters told WDF&W that switching to Chinook would not work and staff at the time felt different. Hell walk up to Ron's office and ask him he had a huge role in this mess.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/17 02:01 PM


Salmo to further challenge common sense the genetic testing done the last couple of years have all the Willapa Bay streams Chinook the same. This includes hatchery and wild all streams Willapa the same fish. Now no doubt this was accomplished by overharvest on NOR's pursuing hatchery fish and much straying. The fact is Willapa was managed as a hatchery kill zone in reality. So now the policy is charting a coarse to undo this but nobody wants to understand we ain't got enough NOR's to go around. Get a good down cycle and REC's flowing in it is doubtfull in a few years if the REC does not run out of impacts and as I said just as the boosted Naselle releases show. It will be interesting at the least.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/17 04:56 PM

There is, or was, another aspect of WB that may figure in. Koenings wanted to grow as many Chinook as possible in the WB hatcheries, mark them, and have BC fish selectively for them. That way, WDFW would feed the BC fisheries but if they went selective then our wilds would be protected some. I think DFO said no, but swarming BC with hatchery Chinook would provide some buffer.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/17 10:41 AM

Thanks Rivrguy. That point about fall Chinook not wanting to enter Forks Creek is significant. The Willapa just seems like the location best suited to raising hatchery Chinook without adversely affecting a wild population, even if what we really mean is restoring a wild population from the extant hatchery stock, given that all WB Chinook are the same genetic stock.

Functional weir or not, it seems like having a restored Naselle wild Chinook population and a significant hatchery population is working at cross purposes. If Chinook return well to Nemah, and the Nemah hatchery is in or could be made to be in good enough shape, maybe it would be the logical location for hatchery Chinook production. It's such a creek though, I figure it may contribute to a lot of Chinook straying.

Figuring out what to do obviously depends on the management objectives and what I like to describe as "the desired future condition." In my desired outcome, WDFW would quit pissing away tax dollars on 3 hatcheries for the primary purpose of enhancing BC ocean fishing, WA coast mixed stock ocean fishing, and the welfare gillnet commercial fishery in WB. Next, I would like to see WB used to maximize its natural salmon production potential, which mainly means coho and chum, with NOR Chinook as relatively incidental, if we let Mother Nature tell her story. My inclinations are not a very good fit with the preferences of WDFW and the welfare gillnetters.

Sg
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/17 11:46 AM


Yeah on the Satsop same is true unless you get a high water. Harry said for the fish it was like leaving Bev Hills ( main river ) for a slum ( hatchery ) and they do not like that plus small water, all done.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/17 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Thanks Rivrguy. That point about fall Chinook not wanting to enter Forks Creek is significant. The Willapa just seems like the location best suited to raising hatchery Chinook without adversely affecting a wild population, even if what we really mean is restoring a wild population from the extant hatchery stock, given that all WB Chinook are the same genetic stock.

Functional weir or not, it seems like having a restored Naselle wild Chinook population and a significant hatchery population is working at cross purposes. If Chinook return well to Nemah, and the Nemah hatchery is in or could be made to be in good enough shape, maybe it would be the logical location for hatchery Chinook production. It's such a creek though, I figure it may contribute to a lot of Chinook straying.

Figuring out what to do obviously depends on the management objectives and what I like to describe as "the desired future condition." In my desired outcome, WDFW would quit pissing away tax dollars on 3 hatcheries for the primary purpose of enhancing BC ocean fishing, WA coast mixed stock ocean fishing, and the welfare gillnet commercial fishery in WB. Next, I would like to see WB used to maximize its natural salmon production potential, which mainly means coho and chum, with NOR Chinook as relatively incidental, if we let Mother Nature tell her story. My inclinations are not a very good fit with the preferences of WDFW and the welfare gillnetters.

Sg


In considering the most appropriate stream to designate PRIMARY, it was argued that WB could be schematically/geographically seen as outer, middle, and inner bay.... being fed respectively by Willapa, Nemah, and Naselle.

With Naselle being at the veritable "end of the line", the minds of the day felt it neither wise nor appropriate to expect those Naselle fish to traverse the full gauntlet of nets at the far end of the bay if conservation of wild Naselle fish was the ultimate goal.

It was thought that we might be more successful at getting wild fish past the fishery if a more proximal stream were selected for wild priority (namely Willapa) as it would be easier for managers to reduce the exploitation of those fish in the bay.

The plan parsed the bay into north and south sectors, prioritized for rec and commercial respectively. With rec dominating in the north bay, the more compatible and selective fishery was placed on the Primary population. By placing the nets in the south of the bay, it would help to minimize encounters with Willapa River origin wilds.

Hope this helps you guys to better understand the rationale for these designations.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/17 04:36 PM

As for how the available NOR impacts are to be spent...

The impact rate on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin fall Chinook in Willapa Bay fisheries shall not exceed 20%. Within this impact rate cap, the priority shall be to maintain a full season of recreational fisheries for Chinook salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/17 01:01 AM

Moreover....

4. Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:

a) Achieve spawner goals for the North, Naselle, and Willapa stocks of natural-origin Chinook and hatchery reform broodstock objectives through the two phase rebuilding program described above.

b) Provide for an enhanced recreational fishing season. The impact rate of the recreational fishery is anticipated to be ~3.2% during the initial years of the policy, but may increase in subsequent years to provide for an enhanced recreational season as described below:

~ Manage Chinook salmon for an enhanced recreational fishing season to increase participation and/or catch including consideration of increased daily limits, earlier openings, multiple rods, and other measures.

~ Conservation actions, as necessary, shall be shared equally between marine and freshwater fisheries.

c) Provide opportunities for commercial fisheries within the remaining available fishery impacts.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/17 06:39 AM

That is why the Section 7 bit that was posted is important. Frankly within the impact rate allowed the Rec is steadily getting its fair share but not exceeding. Not so Commercials so the Commission has to decide give back the over harvest or not. In the end though the REC's can and likely will max out the Chinook NOR impacts leaving little if any for the nets and the returns on the expanded Naselle Chinook production should and will create a perfect storm for NOR limiter.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/17 11:47 AM

eyeFISH,

I think I understand the rationale. The rationale appears to be based on desired fishing. That is only logical if all parts of the natural environment are equally suited to the desired outcome. We know that they aren't. That's why I think the management plan is at cross purposes with what the respective WB tributaries can deliver. Case in point: North River NOR Chinook goals. If ever there was a river - a large creek actually - less suited to natural Chinook production, the North would be high on the list. Except that in WB, most streams are high on the list because they are not well suited to any significant amount of Chinook productivity.

As long as NOR Chinook are a WB priority, ultimately the NI gillnet fishery has to go. And if public funds were being expended responsibly, most WB hatchery Chinook production would have to stop.

Sg
Posted by: JustBecause

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/17 03:20 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Don't know how many of you realize it, but this is the most viewed thread in the history of this board.... 1.14 million and counting.

Next closest topic is just shy of 58K views.


Bold Prediction. The "Taking a Dump While Outdoors" thread will surpass this thread within the year! At least in responses.... doh
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/17 12:14 PM


CALLING FOR THE DOC MAN! It appears the Adviser meeting in Willapa went poorly. The jest was ( from my limited info ) that staff were busy trying to figure out how to redifine a Rec full season along with several other things. Someone that was there needs to shout out.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/25/17 10:28 AM

OK found some info on the license fee increase but I think is evolving as a issue.

OLYMPIA — The Senate budget proposal on March 21 “marks the beginning of a positive turnaround of the troubled Department of Fish and Wildlife, according to a press release from the Washington State Senate Majority Coalition Caucus, the mainly Republican-comprised group that controls that chamber of the Legislature.

The budget provides safeguards for crucial agency functions, such as hatcheries, while initiating the rebuilding of an agency in crisis, the coalition caucus said Tuesday.

Agency management recently revealed to legislative leaders a significant budget shortfall. Because of this, a major hunting and fishing license fee increase plan was proposed by WDFW to increase agency revenue.

“The agency wanted to correct this by initiating a hefty increase in hunting and fishing license fees without the promise for more opportunities,” said Sen. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee. Pearson solicited public comments on the license-fee plan, including from Chinook Observer readers. He said he received hundreds of letters in opposition to WDFW’s fee increase proposal from across the state. “The problem is not a money problem, it’s a leadership problem,” Pearson said.

The Senate budget provides $5 million from the general fund to protect hatcheries and core agency functions while bringing in outside performance and management support. “It’s important that we provide stability to the agency while we begin a much-needed overhaul that will help protect and grow the state’s hunting and fishing opportunities,” Pearson said. “This budget keeps the core of the agency in place while we correct the past problems that placed the agency in this situation and help them get on stronger footing.” The budget proposal also provides funding for an outside consultant to identify and fix management and organizational issues while running a zero-based budget exercise to address ongoing budget issues.

“This budget for WDFW reflects the needs of an agency in crisis,” Pearson said. “Dwindling fish populations, diseased and scattered wildlife and animal conflict problems have set back the WDFW’s mission over the past few years. By giving them the tools they need to be successful, we can protect and grow hunting and fishing opportunities both now and in the future.”
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/25/17 11:11 AM


And some more for thought.

Senate budget protects hatcheries, begins Fish and Wildlife turnaround
March 21, 2017
The release of the Senate budget proposal today marks the beginning of a positive turnaround of the troubled Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The budget provides safeguards for crucial agency functions, such as hatcheries, while initiating the rebuilding of an agency in crisis.

Agency management recently revealed to legislative leaders a significant budget shortfall. Because of this, a major hunting and fishing license fee increase plan was proposed by WDFW to increase agency revenue.

“The agency wanted to correct this by initiating a hefty increase in hunting and fishing license fees without the promise for more opportunities,” said Sen. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee.

Pearson received hundreds of letter in opposition to WDFW’s fee increase proposal from across the state.

“The problem is not a money problem, it’s a leadership problem,” said Pearson.

The Senate budget provides $5 million from the general fund to protect hatcheries and core agency functions while bringing in outside performance and management support.

“It’s important that we provide stability to the agency while we begin a much-needed overhaul that will help protect and grow the state’s hunting and fishing opportunities,” said Pearson. “This budget keeps the core of the agency in place while we correct the past problems that placed the agency in this situation and help them get on stronger footing.”

The budget proposal also provides funding for an outside consultant to identify and fix management and organizational issues while running a zero-based budget exercise to address ongoing budget issues.

“This budget for WDFW reflects the needs of an agency in crisis,” said Pearson. “Dwindling fish populations, diseased and scattered wildlife and animal conflict problems have set back the WDFW’s mission over the past few years. By giving them the tools they need to be successful, we can protect and grow hunting and fishing opportunities both now and in the future.”
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/25/17 11:22 AM

Willapa Bay hatcheries, fisheries potentially on state budget chopping block
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission eying coastal salmon cutbacks as governor and legislature grapple with how to find K-12 eduction funds
By Katie WilsonEO Media Group
Published on October 3, 2014 8:50AM



WILLAPA BAY, Wash. — With a projected $3 billion state general fund shortfall to navigate, the governor’s office asked the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife how it would eliminate close to $10 million from its proposed budget for the 2015-17 biennium.

The result was a report released on the WDFW website detailing a number of cuts — including options to reduce enforcement officer hours, close four hatcheries and eliminate managed fisheries in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

For the moment these are “what if” scenarios, said Bruce Botka, a spokesperson for WDFW — what state departments will look like if they have to cut 15 percent of their state general fund budgets.

“It’s really early in the process,” said Kelly Cunningham, deputy assistant director for WDFW’s fish program.

The cuts aren’t necessarily on the table — but, then, they aren’t off it either.

Right now it’s difficult to speculate about what may or may not happen, but, he said, if even some of the cuts do happen, they’re going to have an impact.

“We feel they’re all deep, they’re all significant cuts,” he said.


Situation likely to worsen


The reduction options are seeking to close a general fund shortfall that is, according to a Fish and Wildlife Commission presentation from August, “as bad as we’ve seen since the beginning of the ‘Great Recession.’”

According to this presentation, the primary drivers behind the projected shortfall include a requirement on the state to fully fund education under the Washington Supreme Court’s McCleary decision and the ever-increasing costs in delivering government services because of inflation.

The McClearys are Washington state parents who successfully sued to force the Legislature to comply with the state constitution’s mandate that K-12 schooling be fully funded. Up until now, nearly all districts in the state must also seek supplemental maintenance and operations levies from local taxpayers in order to make ends meet. Paying for all schooling via state appropriations will seriously curtail some other spending that is considered legally discretionary — including the fish and wildlife agency. State legislators are expected to grapple with the issue starting in January when they begin writing the budget for the next two-year cycle, called a biennium.

“The problem is projected to worsen in future biennia,” the wildlife commission presentation stated.

Many departments, not just WDFW, are anticipating a drop in available dollars as well.

The governor’s office won’t release its proposed operating and capital budgets until mid-December and the first legislative budget plans likely won’t appear until late February or early March. The biennium begins July 1.

A lot could happen in the meantime, before WDFW’s budget exercise could become proposed cuts. New taxes and borrowing could generate more revenue, for example.

“We have a long way to go before any decisions are made,” said Randy Aho, Region 6 hatchery reform and operations manager with WDFW.


Hatchery closure option


At the Naselle Hatchery, rain has brought the salmon up the river. A glance straight down from the fish ladder and into the stream below doesn’t reveal much at first. A salmon may flash out of the water suddenly, struggling to get up the ladder. Here and there, a salmon’s gleaming back cuts a sinuous line through the foam below. The water is dark, reflecting only the overhanging trees.

But walk down the stream toward the river: The water is mainly dark because it is packed with salmon. They jostle shoulder to shoulder, belly to back. They wait in a long, weaving line for their turn to throw themselves against the current and up the fish ladder, through the black rushing water and into the holding pens above.

The Naselle Hatchery produces 800,000 juvenile fall chinook and more than 1 million juvenile coho as well as thousands of chum, rainbow trout and winter steelhead. All these fish are released into the Naselle River and go on to feed other wildlife and commercial and recreational fisheries along the Washington Coast and in Willapa Bay.

“Those fish and those fisheries are really important to local economies right now,” Cunningham said.

Closing the hatchery would save the department an estimated $824,000 in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, according to WDFW’s reduction report submitted to the governor’s office.

“It’s come up before,” Aho said.

Several years ago, the department was asked to go through a similar exercise, said Botka, and closing the hatchery in Naselle and relocating or laying off its three employees was an option then too.

What else could be affected

Among the reduction options that affect Pacific County directly is the option to eliminate management and sampling of commercial fisheries in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

If that field work were cut away, infrastructure and support costs would also be reduced, according to the WDFW report to the governor’s office. The commercial and recreational fisheries would have to close.

There would be an estimated loss of over $2.3 million per year of personal income and an annual loss of $1 million of income to commercial fishermen.

The report predicts that many of these fishermen, their licenses now useless for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, would move to the Columbia River, “further exacerbating recreational-commercial conflicts.”

Another bit to read but it is Willapa.


An option to cut back on enforcement time would save the state $2.3 million but also reduce Fish and Wildlife police coverage in eight counties including Klickitat, Grays Harbor, Whatcom and King counties.

An option to close the Nemah Hatchery in Willapa Bay is also in the report. The hatchery produces 3 million fall chinook every year as well as 300,000 chum. The chinook from Nemah contribute to 43 percent of the fall chinook salmon production in the Willapa Bay area.

‘We have a long way to go before any decisions are made.’

— Randy Aho

Region 6 hatchery reform and operations manager with WDFW.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/27/17 08:01 AM

Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion

6 p.m. to 8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 N Main St., Montesano.
Public discussion of management objectives and preliminary options for Grays Harbor. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2017 are discussed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/17 08:49 AM


Here are the staff notes from the last Public meeting for GH NOF. This link http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/season_setting.html will get to the GH NOF page and the suggested seasons for Recs are in it.


2017 GRAYS HARBOR NORTH OF FALCON PUBLIC MEETING MARCH 28, 2017
MONTESANO CITY HALL 6-8 pm

WDFW Staff: Larry Phillips, Annette Hoffmann, Mike Scharpf, Kim Figlar-Barnes, Curt Holt Public: 19 individuals

• Will the public be able to call in and listen to PFMC if one can' t attend?

• Correct hatchery Chinook numbers for Chehalis & Humptulips in handouts

• Concerns with Chehalis tribe harvest impacts on spring Chinook

• Marine Area 2.2 Chinook fishery

o If catching too many Chinook - cut off just Chinook retention in 2.2 and do not close entire fishery

o Is there a reason to conserve Chinook jacks? Can there be a Chinook jack retention fishery?

o How many jacks are caught Aug 1 to Sept 15?


• Hatchery vs. Wild comparison of jack Chinook - Check hatchery jack returns

• Rate of harvest on Chinook low with WDFW

o Will WDFW discuss Chinook harvest impacts with Quinault tribe?

o Could Quinault harvest be affecting Chinook stock not meeting escapement?

o Ask Quinault tribe for net per landing information

• Humptulips Alternative

o Make mark select from Oct 16th to Nov 16th hatchery Coho & hatchery Chinook retention, release wild Chinook

• Commercial Fishery

o Meet with Quinault's ask not to fish more than 3 days when Commercials fish

o If Chum are available: Can Commercials fish further into Nov - WK 46?



• Recreational Sports Fishing: Would like to fish 7 days a week during the season

• Wynoochee River

o All Species rule Aug. 16th-Nov. 30 single barbless hooks required - Can that be changed to use barbed hooks later?

• Satsop River Snagging at S-Curves

o Do not allow fishing at S-Curves
o Open S-Curves Nov 1st
o Proposal Suggestion- Would like the upper Satsop to remain open (S-Curves)
• Use tackle restrictions like a 36 inch leader length under the float (used in Skokomish River fishery)
• Float and bait mandatory

• Fish friendly culvert replacement (habitat expansion): When will habitat expansion affect escapement numbers/goals?

• Check to see if GH Advisors phone numbers are on web page



Testimony: Members of the public were not interested in giving an " Individual 3 -minute public testimony"
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/17 01:15 PM

Bunch of yipping around Willapa and nope I do not know the whole story except that a Rec Adviser ( not from the area ) suggested cutting back Rec limits to allow for a expanded NT Commercial season. Best I can tell between my puter screen crying and flaming e mails that one started things up.

GH is moving along and we have a conference call so more later. Oh we are going to have to live with non retention for Chinook be it H or W as not enough fish. So scream if you like but it is tight and in order to have a season something had to give. Also the QIN numbers as to harvest look OK as they do not go into Oct 8th and only for 2 then 3 then two. State is looking to stack in the Nt's behind them but in compliance with the GHMP.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/17 08:22 AM

Anyone have a Willapa update? I stayed away this year so most of my information was second hand. With that said the model options presented revolved around NOR Chinook impacts which is correct by the policy. Then this jumped at me. The options for the Rec revolved around bag limits 2 / 4 / 6 ( might have missed one or so ) which is not odd either except this. Willapa's policy is rather new and with the wipe out commercial fisheries in the past absolutely no long term data sets as to the potential Rec impact of a proposal. Add to that marine Willapa is the boat rule for limit so be it 2 / 6 limit it matters little as two or three guys in a boat seldom limit the boat.

So how does the model change? Effort in other words bigger bag limit which means more fishers so more impacts. In river this can track true and usually does but marine? When pigs fly comes to mind. Then how do you model effort that had not existed until the past few years ? You don't to be honest other than WAG ( wild ass guess ) but I think District 17 has developed a new method! It is called the crystal ball method! Gaze into the clear glass ball woefully and the future will be shown. It is likely to be as accurate as what is going on now.

Why is this important? By reducing the Rec harvest ( crystal ball ) it frees up mystical impacts for the Commercial fleet. Now if you think any of the forecasted harvest numbers are correct please give me your " crystal ball " as mine cannot do it!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/17 05:23 AM

Read down a bit to the second CR bit. This is interesting in several ways but frankly it is that the agency is working on a trap / selective commercial fishing method that appears will truly be selective. That is new to say the least.

WDFW RULEMAKING UPDATE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
360-902-2403 | Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/



· Proposed Rules

·

· Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
It is necessary to make changes to language related to people with disabilities in order to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Moving WAC sections is required to better streamline and clarify ADA rules for the public.

o CR-101 - filed as WSR 17-09-096 on April 19, 2017
Invitation to discuss rules on this subject

o Public Comment Period: TBA

· Trial fishery in Willapa Bay
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is interested in designating a trial commercial fishery in Willapa Bay for the purpose of testing a new gear type and intends to issue a limited number of Trial Fishery Permits that set the permissible time, place, and manner of fishing using a newly designated gear type. The gear type being considered is a floating fish trap. This fish trap uses non-permanent spuds to hold the trap in place; no permanent structures will be installed or used. This fish trap passively funnels adult salmon from the "lead", a net positioned at an angle from the shore, into a series of compartments leading to the final compartment or spiller. Fish are able to swim freely the entire time. Hatchery fish are then removed from the spiller and the natural-origin fish are released untouched through a door at the back of the fish trap to continue their trip upstream to spawn.

o CR-101 - filed as WSR 17-09-085 on April 19, 2017
Invitation to discuss rules on this subject

o Public Comment Period: TBA

· General Information on the Rulemaking Process is available here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulation
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/17 06:41 AM

In the evaluation of the trap they need to look closely at the economics, especially how many participants are needed to install/operate. We have GN and troll, which are single operator and maybe one crew. Reef nest take a couple of folks to operate and purse seines are more crew-intensive. My point is that both state and tribal GN use the one-man one operation model with the idea that one hard-working person can "make it". I know some opposition to selective fishing with beach seines and such is the requirement for more people. On a declining resource, sharing income may not work.

I would supect that implementation, if it works, will have to closely look at replacing the GN with an option that is economically more viable in addition to being ecologically more viable.

Probably also need to look at release of other species (sturgeon) and how pinnipeds react/interact.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/03/17 07:50 AM


What we have here is a e mail from Mike at R-6 on finalizing the 2017 Chehalis & Hump seasons. Now I cannot post a link to this new model as it is not up but if you want it drop a PM to me. The concerns from some were the 4 days in 46 which is the week of Nov 12th and lates so read on through Mike's bit and I hoped in afterwords for a bit.

Mike Scharpf e mail:

Hi All,

I wanted to update you on the progress on the 2017 Grays Harbor salmon season setting process. We had a meeting with the Quinault Nation last week and came to an agreement on schedules. The recreational fishery is the same as was discussed during the April 14th Advisory Meeting, so NO Changes. There were a couple slight adjustments to the non-treaty commercial fishery. The schedule for 2A/D are 2 days in week 43, 2 days in week 44, no days in week 45, and 4 days in week 46. In 2C there are 1 day each in weeks 43 and 44 and 2 day in 45. The attached planning model represents these schedules. I don’t believe another meeting is necessary, but I’m available for conversation if you have questions.

What I need from the commercial sector are dates and times for the openings. All of the days are modeled for 12 hours so keep that in mind. Also, I’m assuming that the Quinault’s will fish Sunday noon through Tuesday noon in the Chehalis during week 43, so the only time available would be noon Tuesday to midnight, then pick the 12 hour period you want for Wednesday. I need dates and times as soon as possible so the process progresses. Thanks.

Thanks for all the patience and work you have provided this years.


Now immediately some did a double take and concerns for the late Coho came forward which they should. The Chehalis Coho run timing is a bit off from the natural one mostly due to harvest, rebuilding efforts, and labeling. The run timing we have now is not the natural one as the early part of the Coho run is larger than naturally due to the fact that old Simpson hatchery ( now Bingham ) used run compression of the natural side for the egg take. Compression is achieved by taking your eggs off the very front of the run and not much else. Add to it that no mass making so over years the wild side and the hatchery are absolutely the same fish. Which led us to use this stock to rebuild the run with plants & egg boxes in the 70's & 80's so the early part of our Coho run has the same timing but is larger % than was naturally. These are called normal timed.

Now the middle is much smaller than it was say in the 70's for the normal reasons and it shows in the middle November through the first part of Dec. This is where confusion arrives as many call these fish lates and NOPE they are not. This is the old natural run time and it used to be the peak. Not anymore as harvest knocked them back over the years so these fish are the remnants of the old native run. These fish on paper are also part of the normal timed run.

Now the late run timing has moved around on paper but mostly due to the hatchery needs not the fish. When I was a kid we started fishing for lates in the last two weeks of December and January with January being the hog month. Now it was old Dept of Game that used about every early Steelhead stock that they could find ( Chambers Cr preferred ) for plants in a misguided attempt to keep the QIN from netting native Steelhead. That sorta worked for Steelhead but just plain damn near wiped out the native late Coho. Just so it is known I ( being my rude self ) called BS and the Regional Director told me it was Dept of Fisheries problem.

Now they have late Coho at Bingham but open the trap on Dec 1 ( unless things have changed ) so in reality the hatchery late production is not a true late but rather a sorta highbred. CWT's over the years show that a % of normal timed Coho come back late as do a % of the lates come back early. So by moving the start date at the trap led many to believe that Nov is late timing and nope. The lates evolved mainly in the East Fork Satsop & tribs as they naturally do not reach flows and such ( many are summer dry bed creeks ) for spawning to past mid Nov so they evolved in a later timed and bigger fish. Those genes are pretty much gone from the hatchery production.

Hopes this answers some of the questions.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/12/17 02:05 PM


For those interested about Willapa this came in from the Advocacy. Now this is about 2015 but is still relevant.
May 12, 2017

To: Interested Parties

Re: Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association v. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

A hearing on the state's motion to dismiss the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association suit challenging the 2015 season is scheduled for Friday, May 19th at 1:30 PM before Thurston County Judge James Dixon. The Advocacy and the CCA have intervened on behalf of concerned citizens. Advocacy attorney Joe Frawley will be present representing the two co-intervenors. The majority of the effort will come from the Attorney General's Office who represents WDFW. For those who would like to attend, the address is 1100 Deschutes Pkwy SW, Olympia WA 98502. Mapquest directions are here. https://www.mapquest.com/latlng/47.0315,-122.91026

The primary argument by the WBGA is the season set during the North of Falcon process was influenced by the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy adopted by the Fish & Wildlife Commission and as a result, the economic value to the gillnet fleet of the season did not rise to an appropriate level. Another claim of the WBGA is no conservation concerns are in play in WB as all stocks are "healthy".

The judge may or may not issue a ruling from the bench that day. Granting the state's motion to dismiss would effectively stand down the suit subject to any appeal of that decision. A decision to not grant the motion would result in the case being scheduled for trial at a future date.

Respectfully,

Tim Hamilton
Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/13/17 08:16 AM


This bit below is from Barb at R-6 updating things for folks. Now for those that do not track things all the time the link to the website has all of the NOF GH & Willapa documents up ( I think ) to look at.


FROM BARB:

Hi Everyone, We wanted to send you the final version of the 2017 Willapa Bay Planning Model before we file the CR-102.

That Excel file is attached.

I’ve sent the model to Olympia to be posted on the same webpage we have used all season.
Here is the link in case you’ve lost it: Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor North of Falcon | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Just an fyi, the agency recently switched to Windows 10 so if you have a problem opening the attached file that might be the problem but I’m unaware of any reasons why that might happen.

We are planning on filing the CR-102’s on May 24th. Once that happens, I will send out information (date, time and location) regarding the Coastal Freshwater, Marine (Areas 1 – 4 including WB Marine Area 2.1 and GH Marine Area 2.2) and Commercial Public Hearings (they are separate).

You will be able to submit written comments to the Rules Coordinator at any time once we file the CR-102’s and attend the public hearing to provide comments if you choose.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/13/17 02:57 PM

https://www.adn.com/opinions/2017/01/24/pebble-is-still-the-wrong-mine-in-the-wrong-place/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/17/17 03:12 AM

Here is a update of sorts from the Daily World and this one is hard to get ones arms around.


Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor natural fall Chinook removed from NOAA overfishing list
Mon May 15th, 2017 7:00pmNEWS





Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor natural fall Chinook have been removed from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2016 annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries overfishing list. A second report details the economic impact of commercial fishing and the seafood business across the nation.

A stock is on the overfishing list when the catch rate is too high. A stock is on the overfished list when the population size of a stock is too low, whether because of fishing or other causes, such as environmental changes.

The report, released last week, includes two other Washington salmon runs removed from the overfishing list: Hoh River coho salmon and upper Columbia River Basin summer Chinook.

“These reports show that the U.S. is on the right track when it comes to sustainably managing our fisheries,” said Samuel Rauch, acting assistant administrator for NOAA Fisheries. “Rebuilding and keeping stocks at sustainable levels will help us address the growing challenge of increasing our nation’s seafood supply and keep us competitive in a global marketplace.”

Meanwhile, U.S. commercial and recreational fishing generated $208 billion in sales, contributed $97 billion to the gross domestic product and supported 1.6 million full- and part-time jobs in 2015 — above the five-year average — according to NOAA’s Fisheries Economics of the United States report also released. The report attributes $2.5 billion in sales to Washington state.

“U.S. fisheries are big business,” said Rauch. “Sustainable management of our nation’s fisheries, supported by sound science, opens up economic opportunities to Americans along the supply chain — from buying bait at a local marina to enjoying a seafood dinner.”

According to the report, the U.S commercial fishing and seafood industry — including imports — generated $144 billion in sales in 2015, a 6 percent decline from the previous year, and supported 1.2 million jobs, a 15 percent decline from 2014, although this is still above the five-year average. Factors such as the “warm blob,” marine toxins and El Nino affected the Pacific marine environment in 2015, and West Coast fishermen saw lower landings and revenue for several key commercial species.

Saltwater angling generated $63 billion in sales across the economy in 2015, up 5 percent from 2014. Job impacts in the marine recreational fishing industry remained steady from 2014 at 439,000 jobs. Mississippi, Connecticut, South Carolina, Washington and Alaska had the greatest recreational fishing sector job growth in 2015.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/20/17 04:45 AM

Update on WDF&W's effort to get a selective fishery up and running. It is interesting how little recognition of this effort which is pretty much a first around here. A true selective fishery that is.

Also got word from the Advocacy that the Gillnetters did poorly in court on the Willapa challenge on the 2015 seasons which was really a challenge to the Willapa Policy. More on this soon.




From Region 6:

The Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C-3622) seeks to achieve conservation and restoration of wild salmon in Willapa Bay and avoid ESA designation of any salmon species. While conservation of salmon species within Willapa Bay is the paramount objective of the policy, the policy also seeks to maintain the economic well-being and stability of both recreational and commercial fisheries within Willapa Bay. Under Guiding Principle #4, the Department is to investigate and promote the development and implementation of alternative selective gear to provide an opportunity to target fishery harvests on abundant hatchery fish stocks, reduce the number of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas, limit mortalities on non-target species and stocks, and provide commercial fishing opportunities.

The Department has sent out a call for proposals to commercial fishers for alternative selective gear to be considered. One proposal for using a floating pontoon fish trap will involve the development of a trial fishery. On April 19th, 2017, the Department filed a CR-101 in relation to the use of a fish trap in Willapa Bay in 2017 and will hold a series of meetings over the next few weeks to seek input as to the formulation of the rules and regulations around this trial fishery.

Meeting dates and times are as follows:

Willapa Bay Advisory Group Meeting
May 31st, 2017
2 p.m. to 4 p.m. at Montesano Regional Office

Willapa Bay Public Meeting
June 2nd, 2017
6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Montesano City Hall
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/23/17 02:38 PM


This is about the NT Net Commercial fishers challenge to the 2015 season which was really a challenge to the Willapa Policy. They loose.



From: Grossmann, Mike (ATG) [MikeG1@ATG.WA.GOV]
Received: May 19, 17:26
To: Unsworth, James W (DFW) [Jim.Unsworth@dfw.wa.gov]
CC: Scott, James B (DFW) [James.Scott@dfw.wa.gov]; Hoffmann, Annette (DFW) [Annette.Hoffmann@dfw.wa.gov]; Herring, Chad J (DFW) [Chad.Herring@dfw.wa.gov]; Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW) [Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov]; Mcclellan, Barbara A (DFW) [Barbara.Mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov]; Lininger, Tami L (DFW) [Tami.Lininger@dfw.wa.gov]; Frymire, Bill (ATG) [BillF@ATG.WA.GOV]; Shorin III, Joseph (ATG) [JosephS@ATG.WA.GOV]
Subject: WBGA v. WDFW - Judge Dixon rejects all claims and affirms WDFW's actions



Jim,

Just a quick heads up on the litigation brought by the Willapa Bay Gillnetters’ Assn. challenging the Willapa Bay Salmon management policy and the 2015 commercial fishery rules. Bill Frymire and I spent the afternoon in Judge Dixon’s courtroom arguing the merits of their legal challenge. Judge Dixon agreed with the State’s arguments and dismissed all their claims.

In summary:

1. The claims arguing the WB policy looks too much like a rule and is not flexible to accommodate new information that might be provided in rule-making were dismissed on alternate grounds – that we had already litigated this to success in Pacific County; and that, even if the merits of their arguments are considered anew, the Commission and WDFW were acting within their statutory authority to engage in policy and rule-making.

2. The claim WDFW failed to properly consider economic impacts was dismissed on the grounds that conservation trumps economic considerations; that the agency worked hard to consider economic issues where they could do so consistent with conservation; and that general concerns about ways to possibly conduct alternate economic analysis presented by their expert were not sufficient to displace the reasoned economic analysis undertaken by the Department.

3. The claim WDFW improperly reduced the harvest rate on Chinook was rejected on the basis that the Department’s analysis of conservation was thoroughly and well-reasoned, and thus cannot be characterized as arbitrary and capricious.

4. The claim WDFW improperly used emergency regulations to undertake in-season management was dismissed on the basis that WDFW’s actions were consistent with APA requirements on emergency rule-making, were well supported by in-season data collection and analysis, and were thus both lawful and well-reasoned.

Some of the gillnetters were pretty angry. I expect an appeal, but we will see. Judge Dixon was well-prepared and outlined his decision-making in a way that will make success on any appeal a heavy lift for the WB gillnetters.

As always, this was a great team effort. Jim Scott (!!), Chad Herring, and Steve Thiesfeld were huge amounts of help, and the work we/they did with the Commission and DFW staff to anticipate each and every possible argument – from the policy phase to rule formulation - made this case a compelling story of conservation and responsible agency action that considered all interests and made tough but well–reasoned decisions. The story was easy to tell and obviously persuasive to the court.

Tami, please pass along to members of the Commission.

Mike

Michael S. Grossmann
Assistant Attorney General
Fish, Wildlife and Parks Division
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia WA 98504-0100
(360) 586-3550
(360) 586-3454 fax
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.
·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/25/17 12:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Subject: WBGA v. WDFW - Judge Dixon rejects all claims and affirms WDFW's actions.

applause
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/25/17 01:09 PM

Given WDFW's track record about complying with rule-making laws we owe a lot of thanks to the Advocacy for forcing them closer to compliance as the Judge ruled that they did a good job.

If the gill netters had made their same arguments 10-15 years ago could the same be said?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/26/17 01:09 PM

Major props to Twin Harbors Fish/Wildlife Advocacy for being the original catalyst for major harvest and hatchery reform in Willapa Bay.

Thanks to THFWA and CCA for joining to intervene in the gillnetters' litigation against the WFWC policy which has been under relentless attack since its adoption.

This court decision is another affirmation of the validity of the Willapa Bay Policy and a victory for conservation.

applause

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3622.html
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/17 09:25 AM


OK what we have here is my request regarding the WDF&W effort in Willapa to get some trapping going. Now a lot of ... ah ..... crap (?) been flying around about this but mostly behind the scenes so read with that in mind.

Dave,
A lot of the things you are requesting have yet to be finalized but I can provide a few details that I do have.

Please remember the details below are still preliminary and could change depending on the comments we hear from the public and the final decisions from upper management.

1. Attached are the RFP documents that went out in December.
2. The trap needs to be floating fish trap that recruit Chinook passively. The trap needs to be able to pass natural, unmarked Chinook through without handling.
3. The trap will be limited to natural, unmarked Chinook impacts remaining but not exceed the 20% in the WB Planning model for Naselle River that gets finalized through the Rule Making process this year.
4. The trap will only fish three days/week, Monday – Wednesday starting mid-August through the end of September to fish through the run timing of Chinook.
5. Only 12 hours each day will be fished but those 12 hours will likely be broken up into two periods to be able to fish on the flood tide.
6. The numbers of fish that will be allowed to be retained will be limited to:
o 300 hatchery Chinook per week or the total natural, unmarked Chinook impacts, whichever comes first.
o 500 natural, unmarked coho for all weeks combined. Once the 500 natural coho have been retained, the release of natural unmarked coho will be required from that point forward.
o No chum retention will be allowed to be consistent with the proposed regulations for the commercial gillnet fishery this year.
7. The current site location that was proposed to the Dept. is roughly a half mile section of the Naselle River that is 2.5 miles upstream of the Hwy 101 Bridge.
8. Two live boxes would be required to be on-board the trap.
9. An HPA would be required to be obtained by the fisher through WDFW’s habitat program.

All other details have still not been finalized. There are still a lot of details that needs to be worked out.

Annette Hoffmann is the lead on the project so if you have questions or concerns please contact her to discuss those.

Thanks,
Barbara



Then we have the RFP that went out but only to NT nets permit holders which frankly is questionable as to legality.



December 15, 20I 6

To whom it may concern,

WDFW is interested in any alternative gear ideas or suggestions you would like to pursue in 2017 or in future years in Willapa Bay. This letter is intended to provide background, guidelines, and the procedure for the application process.

In the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy C-3622 under Guiding Principles #4 it states "Investigate and promote the development and implementation of alternative selective gear. The development of alternative selective gear may provide an opportunity to target fishery harvests on abundant hatchery fish stocks, reduce the number of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas, limit mortalities on non-target species and stocks, and provide commercial fishing opportunities". The policy also states under the section Fall Chinook Salmon #2b, "pursue implementation of additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear to enhance conservation and provide harvest opportunities. The Department shall provide to the Commission by January 2017 a status report and by January 2018 an assessment of options to implement additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear in Willapa Bay. The assessment shall identify the likely release mortality rates for each gear type, the benefits to
rebuilding naturally spawning populations, and the benefits and impacts to the commercial fishery".

With this in mind, the staff in Region 6 will initiate the process of investigating ideas for alternative gears that may have the potential to be successful in Willapa Bay. Legally, no other gear other than gillnet is allowed. However alternative gears would be designated as a trial or feasibility fishery.

There are some limiters that you need to be aware of:
I . The timeframe that any alterative gear that may be allowed to be pursued in 2017 would be required to stay within the dates provided in the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy C-3622. Any ideas for areas below Leadbetter Point (2M, 2N, and 2R) would not be allowed to begin until after Labor Day and any ideas for areas north of Leadbetter Point (2T and 2U) would not be allowed to begin prior to September 16th .
2. Alternative gear is defined in the WB Salmon Mgmt Policy as having a release mortality rate of less than 35%.
3. Any alternative gear ideas would be limited to a small number of natural, unmarked Chinook impacts that have been set aside in the planning model for Willapa Bay. The maximum number of natural, unmarked Chinook impacts would be shared by all of the alternative gears tested in 2017.

4. You would be allowed to keep hatchery Chinook and sell to whomever you choose. However the total number of hatchery Chinook would be limited to a number that has yet to be determined. This would probably depend on each alternative gear type being tested.
There are a few steps that we will need to follow. The first step would be to complete the application included in this packet and return to WDFW. WDFW would then approve or disapprove any ideas and issue permits for those approved. Those permits would include daily reporting requirements, handling procedures, and observer requirements. WDFW would notify the Fish and Wildlife Commission and legislature of upcoming trial fishery and justification as a courtesy. An emergency rule would then be used to open any trial or feasibility fishery to allow for the use of selected alternative gears in Willapa Bay in 2017.

If you are interested in pursuing any ideas regarding the possible use of alternative gear in Willapa Bay, please fill out the application included and return to WDFW by the close of business January 20, 2017. We will then follow up with you and get more details regarding your ideas or plans. This application will start the process for you.

Please take the time to consider this opportunity. Regional staff are open to all ideas and their possibilities for the future of commercial fishing in Willapa Bay.

Thank you,




Barbara McClellan WDFW - Region 6
#360.249.1213 office Barbara.Mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/17 08:02 AM


Now this is interesting on several levels but is about Willapa alternate gear commercial. Now read this from the bottom up as it is a e mail thread and I removed the e mail addresses as they number pushing a hundred and not nice to throw out. Be nice if staff got BCC down but oh well.

Thanks for your comments. However, with respect, NOAA is federal and the Department is acting under authorization of a state statute. Then, a special new license must be issued for an emergence fishery and the current commercial gillnet license in Willapa Bay/Columbia is not valid or applicable in an emergence fisheries.

Also, you'll see that the RCW you quote says a license has to issued in accordance with another Chapter RCW 77.65.400. Here it is and look to the emphasis I added where it says such an emergence fishery can not be used in any area where there is a limitation on commercial licenses which is exactly what is the case in Willapa.

Chapter RCW 77.65.400
(1) The director may by rule designate a fishery as an emerging commercial fishery. The director shall include in the designation whether the fishery is one that requires a vessel.
(2) "Emerging commercial fishery" means the commercial taking of a newly classified species of food fish or shellfish, the commercial taking of a classified species with gear not previously used for that species, or the commercial taking of a classified species in an area from which that species has not previously been commercially taken. Any species of food fish or shellfish commercially harvested in Washington state as of June 7, 1990, may be designated as a species in an emerging commercial fishery, except that no fishery subject to a license limitation program in chapter 77.70 RCW may be designated as an emerging commercial fishery.
(3) A person shall not take food fish or shellfish in a fishery designated as an emerging commercial fishery without an emerging commercial fishery license and a permit from the director. The director shall issue two types of permits to accompany emerging commercial fishery licenses: Trial fishery permits and experimental fishery permits. Trial fishery permits are governed by subsection (4) of this section. Experimental fishery permits are governed by RCW 77.70.160.
(4) The director shall issue trial fishery permits for a fishery designated as an emerging commercial fishery unless the director determines there is a need to limit the number of participants under RCW 77.70.160. A person who meets the qualifications of RCW 77.65.040 may hold a trial fishery permit. The holder of a trial fishery permit shall comply with the terms of the permit. Trial fishery permits are not transferable from the permit holder to any other person.

In other words, if it is limited to just commercial license holders in an area where licenses are limited, it can't be done at all. I'm not sure exactly where the Dept is headed as the last two routes they took were obviously contrary to state statute. That's why they are "rebooting" which was my recommendation during the public meetings.

Then, state statue sets out the Commission as the party in charge and it has adopted a Willapa Policy which states: Purpose: 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. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the commercial and recreational fishing industry in the state. You'll notice that industry is singular. Doesn't say rec and commercial industries which would be required to consider each one separately. A single fish industry comprised of a rec and comm sectors are common and consistent throughout state statutes.

Also, I'd point out that the Wild Fish Conservatory, which is a nonprofit same as the Advocacy, has been conducting a experimental trap program in the Columbia River since 2016.

Respectfully,

Tim Hamilton





On 6/13/17 4:45 PM, Chris Philips wrote:
With respect, NOAA Fisheries defines “fishing industry” as commercial, and the RCW mentioned below is directed at the commercial fishery.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.70.160

Those involved in the experimental fishery should be exclusively commercial fishermen, as directed by statute.

Regards,

--
Chris Philips
Managing Editor

Fishermen's News
2201 West Commodore Way
Seattle, WA 98199
206-284-8285
www.philipspublishing.com




From: Tim Hamilton <tim@autowa.org>

Subject: Re: Alternative Gear Update

Annette- Thanks for the update.

I have read your commentary shown below and do not find it changes the email I sent in earlier requesting the Advocacy be considered an interested party eligible for participation in applying for a permit. If the Department feels it can deny the Advocacy participation, please inform me and cite the statutory language that the Dept would rely upon to deny our participation.

Also, you reference that an advisory board will be appointed under RCW 77.70.160 selected from "the effected industry....." The statute actually says "the director shall appoint a five-person advisory board representative of the affected fishery industry." Fishing industry is an inclusive term identifying all those involved in fishing, including the recreational sector which could end up the most effected by a trap, especially one located in fresh water where current commercial license holders are forbid from fishing under a current commercial license. Therefore, the Advocacy strongly advises the Dept not appoint exclusively from the commercial license holders so the advisory group is reflective of fishing industry not just one sector.

Respectfully,

Tim Hamilton
Twin Harbor Fish & Wildlife Advocacy



On 6/13/17 1:45 PM, Hoffmann, Annette (DFW) wrote:
Hello All,

I want to thank everyone for all their input on the alternative gear considerations and provide you an update on where we are at in the process.

The Department has been pursuing the “implementation of additional mark-selective commercial fishing gear to enhance conservation and provide harvest opportunities” consistent with the guidance of the Willapa Bay Salmon Management policy (C-3622). Our specific objective for 2017 has been to determine if trap gear can effectively catch Chinook salmon with minimal immediate mortality to unmarked fish. In pursuit of that objective, the Department solicited public input on conducting a trial commercial fishery in Willapa Bay using fish trap gear upriver of the standard commercial fishing areas during timeframes of expected Chinook migration. Public comment was received through a series of stakeholder, advisor and public meetings. The comments resulted in mixed support for the concept of a trial fishery, with concerns raised over the unlimited entry associated with a trial fishery (RCW 77.65.400), the proposed testing of the gear throughout the entire return period of Chinook at locations upstream of the commercial fishing area boundary, and the ability of interested parties to participate given the amount of resources needed to build a fish trap. These informative public comments have resulted in a decision by the Department to pursue our 2017 objectives through an experimental fishery rather than a trial fishery, although maintaining the time/area considerations necessary to answer the key question. An experimental fishery uses an advisory board from the affected industry to set boundaries around the number and qualifications of participants (RCW 77.70.160) and will entail the use of special permit issued by the Director to ensure that the fishery is conducted in a controlled and scientifically defensible manner.

We will be rescinding the current CR101 for the trial fishery, filing a new CR101 for an experimental fishery, and convening the advisory board. We expect to be able to provide more details as they become available.

Annette
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/17 08:40 AM

Sir Walter Scott: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.”
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/17 09:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Larry B
Sir Walter Scott: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.”


Exactly Larry!

"commercial fishery in Willapa Bay using fish trap gear upriver of the standard commercial fishing areas during timeframes of expected Chinook migration."

This is a thinly veiled ploy by the Commercial fishing Industry and WDFW to introduce commercial fishing into upper fresh water.

Once started, never ending. Imagine, commercial fish traps on all our favorite rivers! Now imagine, sport fishing closures on those same rivers....
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/16/17 09:03 AM

Why imagine?


It's here.


All our rivers are closing one by one.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/17 01:50 PM


Mike sent this change to the 2017 season. Sorry on the formatting of the numbers but easy to figure.


Hi all,

During the spring NOF meeting, the regulation package for the Grays Harbor planning model that was provided to you had a treaty/non-treaty imbalance of Chinook harvest favoring the State. Although these imbalances have occurred before, the co-managers asked for both sides to make some fish management changes to both address this imbalance as well as make more progress toward spawner escapement objectives. We discussed ways to make changes that would minimize impacts on our fisheries and agreed to make the following changes: going mark selective for Chinook in the Humptulips River and North Bay Area 2-2 for the full recreational season. There is also a change in the non-treaty commercial schedule. Due to 3/4 conflicts, the four days originally scheduled during week 46 in Areas 2A/D will be rescheduled to Monday through Thursday in week 45 (see attached planning model). These modifications will change our terminal impact as follows (NOR = natural origin recruits (wild), HOR = hatchery origin recruits)) (these do not include our ocean fisheries impacts):

Impact differences Chinook Coho Chum
NOR HOR NOR HOR total
Original Model 1,558 1,861 5,406 5,617 4,755
Revised 797 1,862 5,477 5,666 4,998

These changes will require us to file a supplemental CR102. If you are interested, we can schedule an advisor meeting before filing the supplemental next Tuesday.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/17 07:17 AM


These comments were sent to me and from my seat in the nose bleed section do a good job of capturing this perspective.

Mike,

It was great that the co-managers decided to “make more progress toward spawner escapement objectives”. With the recreational fishermen giving up 766 Chinook we now almost meet the basin wide escapement goal for NOR Chinook. Unfortunately the new model shows that we made the basin wide escapement shortfall even worse for both coho and chum. All three species still fail to meet their basin wide escapement goals.

This would have been a great time to address the imbalance for chum in the original plan. The QIN originally intended to harvest 8,696 chum which is 3,546 fish more than their 50% share of the harvestable total and nearly equal to the predicted chum under escapement of 3,151 fish. So with chum facing significant under escapement the co-managers decide to increase harvest for both groups driving the under escapement to 3,556 fish. This model indicates that the QIN plan to boost their harvest to 8,858 chum or 3,708 fish over their share resulting in all of the escapement short fall. Overall I would suggest that the co-managers failed to make progress toward spawner escapement objectives while giving up significant recreational opportunity.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/17 07:34 AM

Thanks River for staying on top of "These Dirty Deals" and for your expertise in digging into these numbers and making the math make sense to the rest of us!

These back room deals are going on all over our watersheds, some we sniff out, others we don't. In the end, the results (which we, the sportsmen don't get included in) get rammed down our throats!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/17 10:24 AM

and anthers thoughts.

Saw XXXXX note on how sports just lost few Chinook impacts left in GH. Bottom line seems to be that after WA waters ocean harvest by commercial trollers, charter boats, etc. , there are only impacts left for tribes. This is a bay where FD (Fish Department) is managing for true escapement/conservation now. Nothing left for sports there.

This reminds me of the analogy I have been visualizing between tribes in GH and the threat of commercial traps in Willapa. As we know, the North Willapa Bay and river sport fishery is about to get its lump of coal when HORs quit coming back in a year or two. This leaves south bay and the looming gold rush for HORs in the south. This rush which I call a search for The Golden Fleece, is under a full court press from some soon to be ex Chinook netters and the FD. It is taking the form of a sudden yearning for conservation, as commercial traps in our fresh water. These would need enough fish to "pay their own way" plus profit after being bartered the fish by the government. As I have envisioned, this approach would have little or no room for recreational fishers in the bay or fresh water. Bay fishers would have to back off to let HORs through to pay WDFW and trappers bills plus profit. In effect Willapa's lack of tribal preemption can be replaced with trapper preemption. We now have less than escapement crossing our bar. We are headed for a 14% mortality rate in two years per our tattered policy. This was calculated to recover true NOS in twenty or so years. There is no room for both netting and sport fishing under this scenario. Enter the real world of ocean conditions which are far worse than the policy calcs assumed. 14% will be too much. If our Director and commercial only advisors install commercial traps which must pay their own way with recreational priority fish, there can be only enough left for our new tribes, in the form of commercial trappers. I will call them CTs. Tribes and commercials get much of our fish in the WA ocean, along with charters and sport boats. A way to bend the escapement curve and keep commercials on Chinook is to give them all impacts left under the guise of conservation and FD poor mouthing about budget. At the same time, as this year, with CT"testing" replacing effective weirs FD refuses to install or even repair before imminent failure, FD can plant huge amounts of HORs, now needed of course to feed CTs and itself. This is The Golden Fleece, because sports will continue to pay lion's share of harvester bills, just like now, and lose their priority while doing it. Sports would get fleeced worse than now, traps allocated in number and location by Director and his All CT team. Sports get to whine and argue about rules after the fact, just like now. Like sheep we get fleeced once per year. We would be standing between FD budget and CT profit and our Chinook. Bad place to be. This is the result of years of FD led meetings where we only argue about how much of sport priority goes to commercial each year. Commercial priority is just in their bag and not up for reallocation. It could soon approximate the situation in GH where there is now effectively no sport fishery for Chinook. CTs become our tribes, get whatever it takes to fund WDFW and commercial industry ex vessel value set behind closed doors. In below nominal ocean conditions, this CT share of returnees is now about to become well over half. Previously underfunded enforcement will flock to river banks to guard traps. All paid for by selling sportfisher wool.

Since Willapa Policy was adopted by the Commission, set asides for conservation have been openly ignored, along with requirements for payback for overharvest. Should we get CTs, and set asides for sports, what reason have we to believe our set asides would be honored any more than than they have already?

Fish traps have no place in our sport fishing holes, and FD has no business putting CTs on our backs. Two of the best surviving riverine sport fisheries in the state, Nemah for Chinook, and Naselle for Coho, are on the block. The best small boat sport fishery, North Bay and Willapa River, has its die cast and is gone in two years.

All should be aware, and all should speak up. It will be up to the Director of WDFW, the Commission, or our Governor and legislature to stop this Golden Fleecing. There is a simple solution. Honor the one recreational priority we the sheep have in Willapa, Coastal Fall Chinook. These bodies must have the will to honor our one recreational priority in Willapa. The Fish Department does not.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/23/17 12:55 PM


This is off the model and the Prior tab always had Coho but this time Chinook also. So scroll down to Chinook and sort out the numbers and you will see the problem. After AK & BC most of the damage is done then you have our fisheries and Southern fisheries. So by the time you get terminal it is pretty much done. So the concerns on sharing get a little distorted but bottom line the 21, 824 return to GH is all that is left from the nearly 48,000 ocean abundance prior to marine harvest. If you want the model PM.

Model Run : 1731

GRAYS HARBOR COHO
FISHERY Wild Hatchery Total
Projected Ocean Escapement 47,872 33,274 81,147
Spawning Escapement Objective 35,400
Projected Marine Exploitation Rate 4%
Projected Exploitation Rate (all fisheries) 29%
Exploitation in Southern U.S. Marine Fisheries 3%
- - -
CANADIAN 433 854 1,287
ALASKA 219 154 373
S. of Falcon Troll 40 29 69
S. of Falcon Sport 178 233 411
NORTH OF CAPE FALCON OCEAN: - -
Treaty Troll 516 364 880
NT Troll N. Leadbttr 97 151 248
NT Troll S. Leadbttr 89 100 189
Coastal terminal area "dip-ins" 288 196 484
Treaty dip-ins 102 67 169
Non-treaty dip-ins 186 129 315
Sport: Area 1 70 206 276
Buoy 10 14 40 54
Area 2 243 700 943
Area 3 10 28 38
Area 4 * 19 58 77
PUGET SOUND CATCHES: - -
Treaty Troll 1 0 1
Sport: Areas 5 19 78 97
Area 6 0 0 0
Areas 7-13 0 0 0
Nontreaty Net 4 2 6
Treaty Net 15 11 26

IN-RIVER:
Treaty Commercial 7,137 5,277 12,414
Non-treaty commercial 1,269 821 2,090
Non-treaty sport 4,137 4,797 8,933
Chehalis Tribe 554 1,403 1,956

Summary
Treaty 7,771 5,719 13,490
Non-treaty 7,580 9,782 17,362
US Non-treaty 7,147 8,928 16,075
WA Non-treaty 6,710 8,512 15,222



Model Run: 1417 (May-April, Age 2-5 AEQ Total Mortality)

GRAYS HARBOR CHINOOK
PRIORS WILD HATCHERY TOTAL
SEAK 7,232 2,929 10,162
CANADIAN 4,196 1,714 5,910
SUS NON-TREATY 275 112 387
SUS TREATY 72 28 100

IN-RIVER
TREATY 2,307 859 3,166
NON-TREATY 1,609 1,861 3,470

TOTAL TREATY 2,378 888 3,266
TOTAL U.S. NON-TREATY 9,116 4,903 14,018


SUMMARY
NORTHERN FISHERIES 11,428 4,644 16,072
SOUTHERN US (SUS) 4,262 2,861 7,123

SUS TREATY 2,378 888 3,266
SUS NON-TREATY 1,883 1,973 3,857
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/25/17 01:15 PM

Another "bend over and take it" year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/07/17 05:34 AM


OK this is a notice for a couple of meetings for the Willapa commercial trap that WDF&W is moving with. Kinda controversial for some folks.


July 5, 2017

The Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C- 36 22) seeks to achieve conservation and restoration of wild salmon in Willapa Bay and avoid ESA designation of any salmon species. While conservation of salmon species within Willa pa Bay is the paramount objective of the policy, the policy also seeks to maintain the economic well-being and stability of both recreational and commercial fisheries within Willapa Bay. Under Guiding Principle #4, the Department is to investigate and promote the development and implementation of alternative selective gear to provide an opportunity to target fishery harvests on abundant hatchery fish stocks, reduce the number of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas, limit mortalities on non-target species and stocks, and provide commercial fishing
opport unities .

The Department filed a CR-101 (WSR 17-13-047) through the Rule Making process for an experimental fishery in Willa pa Bay with the use of a floating fish trap in 2017.

The Department will hold two meetings (advisory and public) to discuss and solicit public input regarding the rules (CR-102) that will govern the experimental fishery through the Rule Making p rocess .

Meeting dates and times are as follows:

Willapa Bay Advisory Group Meeting
July 19, 2017
1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Montesano Regional Office

Willapa Bay Public Meeting
July 20, 2017
6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Montesano City Hall

If you have any questions, please contact Annette Hoffmann by phone #360.249.1201 or email Annette.Hoffmann@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/07/17 08:01 AM

Know if they have managed to get this project in the neighborhood of legal permit-wise?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/07/17 11:01 AM


CM it is the Bill Z answer, yes / no / what the hell? This something that Doc and others might want to do. Barbara.Mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov

Hi Everyone, The reason for my email is to find out if there is anyone that will be fishing the Willapa Bay marine area 2.1 in August and/or early September more than just one time.

I’m looking for volunteers (about 15 people) who would agree to take genetic samples (caudal fin clip) from unmarked Chinook (which are required to be released this fall) while fishing the Willapa Bay marine area 2.1in August and/or early September. I’m looking for volunteers who may go fishing in Willapa Bay a few times during this six week period.

We need more data on the recreational fishery that occurs in the Willapa Bay marine area and its stock composition during that time.

Safe handling rules would apply. The fish would not need to be taken fully out of the water in order to retrieve a caudal fin clip.

We do have a limited creel program sampling the marine fishery but since the unmarked Chinook are required to be released we won’t have access to those fish at the dock.

I will provide everything you will need. I’m just looking for volunteers to help.

If you are interested, please send me an email or contact me via my cell phone, #360.470.3459.
If you know anyone who might be interested and you feel they would make sure to follow the safe handing techniques, please give them my cell phone number and ask them to contact me.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Barbara
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/17 08:47 AM


This is for the bit where WDF&W is trying a commercial trap in Willapa for anyone interested. Lot going on and I am not that familiar with it enough to comment other than it has been a Keystone Cops exercise for the ages. Remember the Adviser meetings are public watch only.


July 5, 2017

The Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C- 36 22) seeks to achieve conservation and restoration of wild salmon in Willapa Bay and avoid ESA designation of any salmon species. While conservation of salmon species within Willa pa Bay is the paramount objective of the policy, the policy also seeks to maintain the economic well-being and stability of both recreational and commercial fisheries within Willapa Bay. Under Guiding Principle #4, the Department is to investigate and promote the development and implementation of alternative selective gear to provide an opportunity to target fishery harvests on abundant hatchery fish stocks, reduce the number of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas, limit mortalities on non-target species and stocks, and provide commercial fishing
opport unities .

The Department filed a CR-101 (WSR 17-13-047) through the Rule Making process for an experimental fishery in Willa pa Bay with the use of a floating fish trap in 2017.

The Department will hold two meetings (advisory and public) to discuss and solicit public input regarding the rules (CR-102) that will govern the experimental fishery through the Rule Making p rocess .

Meeting dates and times are as follows:

Willapa Bay Advisory Group Meeting
July 19, 2017
1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Montesano Regional Office

Willapa Bay Public Meeting
July 20, 2017
6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Montesano City Hall

If you have any questions, please contact Annette Hoffmann by phone #360.249.1201 or email Annette.Hoffmann@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/22/17 11:41 AM

I have procrastinated for sometime about trying to bring the issues surrounding Willapa salmon forward but I think it is time everyone has a general idea of what is going and the probable outcome of WDF&W's actions so here we go. Oh keep in mind this is my opinion and others have a different view. In the past few months WDF&W has been attempting to move a process forward to install a commercial trap for salmon in Willapa Harbor. The primary objective being to remove hatchery fish, primarily Chinook, from the Naselle. This is driven by the fact that WDF&W violated both the legislative mandate that the funding to increase Naselle Chinook obtained by Rep. Blake had the caveat that they must meet HSRG requirements which the Naselle Hatchery cannot due to a failing weir. Right here right now everyone get their arms around this fact. Ron Warren who heads fish management made the decision to release those smolt, with the approval of the Director I assume, and those two gentlemen own this mess and why will become apparent in a bit.

This process that was assigned to Region 6 staff who started forward and at this point I will say I cannot explain it. From starting with a request for alternative harvest methods in the bay it appears from statements that a trap concept in the bay was the preferred solution and participation was limited. Only one individual stepped forward with a acceptable plan but in short order that stumbled as it needed to be in small water to succeed so it is my understanding that Ron Warren authorized the move to fresh water. This is where I stop trying to even explain what happened and is still happening. From meetings that some call secret to changing protocols to benefit one person ( claimed by some ) to limiting input I mean folks this is ugly. The documentation for this can be viewed at http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html including tapes of the meetings under Trail Fishery Willapa Bay. Key here is the jump from marine to fresh water of commercial harvest and that is a big deal. To accomplish this the process gives the word strange a bad name. I am going to ask the Advocacy to put this process and time line on paper for you folks but to call the process strange is really an understatement of epic proportions.

So putting that aside for follow up let us go to just what this means for all of us commercial and Rec. So first up let us say that the trap concept evolves through trial and error and is successful. To keep our eyes on the football success is defined as " The removal of a very substantial portion of the hatchery return with a mortality rate of between 4 & 10% of the natural production adults released ". This would bring the Naselle into HSRG compliance on straying rates which would insure the Naselle Chinook program could continue. At this point one should come to grips with this fact. While the Rec and Commercial fishers in Willapa have benefitted from the Chinook production in Willapa its purpose was to feed the ocean pool to increase the availability of Chinook for harvest in targeted marine areas well North of Willapa. So it is important to WDF&W that they solve this issue on the terminal end but the solution of ending straying does not necessarily mean to the benefit of terminal fishers or local communities but rather WDF&W's ability to feed low cost Chinook production into the marine Chinook harvest.

So the trap concept is successful but that will come with a price as only so many NOR ( wild ) impacts are available. This first year it is 24 or so for the trap which is not many but now it is successful and to be successful you need to operate darn near 7 days a week. So where do those impacts come from? Well first up is the Commercial gillnets and I doubt if they will care for that much and the hit can, could and likely will rather large down to maybe restricting their Coho fishery depending on runsizes.

Now on the Rec side the Marine fishery should be the same but WDF&W would try to chip away at things like always and don't say not because a Zebra does not change its stripes anymore than WDF&W changes its ways. In river? This will dramatic as the Naselle fisheries have benefitted greatly from the straying so if you remove the vast majority of stays you are down to fishing in a river that has not made natural escapement with the straying. My crystal ball is not that good but one thing for certain is that the C&R mortality with the vastly reduced hatchery fish in the pool would require additional NOR mortalities. In this scenario the conflict between the marine Rec, NT Commercial, and freshwater Rec would be intense to say the least and my guess is inriver would not get the gold mine but rather the shaft.

So to the second part and what happens if the trap concept is a total failure and WDF&W continues production to feed the ocean pool. Failure is defined as " The failure to removal of a very substantial portion of the hatchery return with a mortality rate of between 4 & 10% of the natural production adults released ". To be honest with this scenario I doubt the marine Rec fisher would notice much change if any. The NT Commercial would see a lot of fish but the limiter is the NOR adults and frankly I do not see long term they pursue Chinook as a target fishery. Common sense says just drop this fight of the last few years and use their NOR Chinook impacts pursuing Coho. They darn near lose their shirt purchasing and maintaining the tangle nets and it is a losing proposition when you add the Willapa Policy which dictates reducing the Commercial NOR impacts. It is a no brainer to back up and use their NOR impacts where they get a bang for the buck and have a chance to survive. What about the freshwater REC? Well now this changes with failure as they will benefit from some to hugely. The straying will likely be similar or greater than at the present so dependent on the NOR returning adults being the limiter the NOR hooking mortality would be the only harvest side issue.

So now to the fish. The Willapa Chinook wild population is rather small in comparison to the hatchery returns. Additionally I have been told than genetic sampling has shown that Willapa Chinook as a whole are genetic similar be it hatchery or wild, in other words the same fish genetically. This came about over the years with harvest and hatchery programs during times when the view how to manage the resource were much different than the present. HSRG addresses this but in a big picture sense, think of it as fundamental guidelines or a road map out of the wilderness.

That is good folks it really is but as in all things this one size fits all usually does not work every time everywhere and you could make the case Willapa is one. If you forget the past and look only at the present and future one will have questions. If the Willapa Policy succeeds will the salmon be better off? Yes / no because WDF&W is trying create a new different Chinook Salmon that resembles the past and they will fail. The greatest damage to Willapa Chinook ( and Washington State as a whole ) are the marine intercept in Alaska and British Columbia. The vastly increased ocean impacts are the primary cause for decrease in size as you reduced 5 & 6 year fish genetic input and alter the gene pool. Now hatchery practices can do that but in my life it has been the terminal harvest after the marine intercepts that have had the greatest impact.

So with all the gyrations around HSRG and hatcheries, harvest, just plain us will the effort succeed maybe yes maybe no but the most likely outcome is not much change genetically for the Chinook as they are the same fish. The reality is you could maintain the Naselle Genetics with the hatchery staying by incorporating the wild in the eggtake as HSRG requires and simply maintain the Naselle Chinook both hatchery and wild being the same. Then sometime in the future when the Naselle Hatchery is no more control harvest and over 3 to 5 generations the fish will sort themselves. Never completely due to the marine impacts but the fish will move forward to achieving greater genetic diversity.

The obvious answer is to build a bloody weir that works but that seems to elude WDF&W and I am clueless as to why other than has a dollar sign with it and they do not want to spend the money. Then why are we pursuing this approach? The fish is not benefitting from HSRG as envisioned and the citizens of Willapa Harbor most certainly are not. Then again why are we doing this? A pragmatic approach would be recognize the impacts on the fish that we have had on the Willapa Chinook, manage for production that does not make it worse, take steps to insure Chinook genetics are protected, and plan for the day when the Naselle Hatchery is no longer in production. Accept the limitations that wild Chinook present but maximize the hatchery production with genetic stability your objective both wild and hatchery with both eyes to the future when the Naselle Hatchery is gone and the Chinook truly begin the journey to genetic diversity.

Everyone needs to draw their own conclusions on what exist and what WDF&W's efforts are intended to be and will be but from my seat in the nose bleed section this approach underway is the most ill conceived, poorly managed fiasco I have ever witnessed. I will hop up and take one in the snout for the R 6 staff here. They had little to no chance to get a functioning trap as originally envisioned in the marine area. When Mr. Warren inserted himself he created a absolute disaster playing out in slow motion out of the public's eyes. R6 staff did not do this but rather they did as instructed and will continue to do so. The guilty parties are Mr. Warren and Director Unsworth and they own it lock stock and barrel.

PS: mercy on typos as tight on time
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/22/17 12:12 PM

Those Willapa Hatchery Chinook are very important to ocean fisheries. At one time, I think it was Koenings who approached Canada with an offer to really bump up Willapa production for them if Canada would go mark selective on Chinook. That way, we would further buffer the wild fish. Apparently, the fish survive well and contribute plus they are not super expensive to rear. Especially if you don't put in functional wiers and such.

Anyway, I suspect that WDFW is looking at the Really Big Picture and if this trap idea is all that keeps it from working then I am sure they'll go for it. It would allow buffering for wild fish in BC, even of not mark selective as there would be more hatchery fish, it would allow for bigger WA Coastal fisheries. All that is "missing" is local, especially freshwater, fisheries. Those are probably small potatoes as far as economics.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/17 08:28 AM


Always wondered when WDF&W would head this way. Bottom line is they have struggled to comply with the Public Document Request as they did not set up a proper system with the funds the legislature provided to put a system in place. Now to be sure some citizens figured this out and many agencies did the same thing so the birth of a cottage industry. The other side is that the failure to govern openly and in a forthright manner fits WDF&W to a T which causes them grief, grief being defined as the inability to mislead the public. Anyhow the CR 101.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2017/wsr_17-15-048.pdf
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/17 02:10 PM



PDR....The legal way to get information from a Government agency, I know it has "snowballed" since it was passed.

Negative part....if cost is too much, then agencies can go back to doing things the old fashion way.....behind closed doors, keep the public "in the dark", until its been made law or a regulation.

I like PDR's......keeps "G" accountable to the public...

Money used for PDR's, was our Tax dollars, in the 1st place....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/17 03:40 PM

That's what WDFW is doing. making decisions behind closed doors, even with the ability to PDR.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/17 06:34 AM


Well this is a newspaper article from the Aberdeen Daily World. A post a bit back I outlined the potential impacts on Rec & Commercial but really stayed away from the process utilized. This I think a reasonable interview but it pretty much reflects WDF&W's stance AFTER being outed. As to the points made by WDF&W staff I think many would and are being hotly contested by many with the Advocacy leading the charge. Here is their contact page. http://thfwa.org/contact-us So read and draw your own conclusions.


DFW proposes a test commercial fishery using fish traps in Willapa Bay
• Dan Hammock
• Wed Aug 2nd, 2017 7:00pm
• News

Fish traps, banned in Washington in 1934 for being so effective they were singled out as the major cause of salmon declines at the time, are now being eyed by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and wild fish proponents as a tool to allow for commercial harvest of hatchery fish while decreasing the mortality of native salmon in Willapa Bay.

“We were thinking, what kind of alternative fishing method should we be thinking about with the commercials,” said Annette Hoffman, Region 6 fish program manager. “We sent out a reminder (to commercial fishing about getting their ideas) in December 2016, got a number of ideas and pursued all those that met the criteria, and only one person followed through with the process and that was the fish trap.”

A trap is designed to be just that; fish are funneled through a series of enclosures that get narrower until they are forced into a holding pen. The person monitoring the trap can then selectively pick out the fish meant to be targeted, usually hatchery fish, and safely release the other fish, in theory reducing the number of non-targeted fish injured or killed in the process. The department currently has an experimental fish trap on the lower Columbia River.

At first, the department considered filing for a research permit to test the trap, but soon found funding for that type of fishery couldn’t be identified. “So we went down the only other avenue we had, which was an emerging commercial fishing project, an experimental fishery with limited entries,” said Hoffman. So the department had to withdraw its application for a research permit and start the paperwork and public comment required to start an experimental fishery.

“At the time we were looking to keep all commercial gear in the commercial areas and during the commercial fishery,” said Hoffman. “Then at a (Fish and Wildlife) commission meeting we were given a presentation that a trap only works well if we put it in a place where the fish are moving at the time they are moving through there. That was outside the commercial season time frame.”

The public comment centered largely around the timing of the trap and the same arguments against the trap that led to its abolition more than 80 years ago.

“Through the public comment process we got a lot of input about the concern of the unlimited nature of this fishery, and we took that to heart,” said Hoffman. “We know it’s hard to regulate and manage unlimited fish traps.” There are other concerns as well. “A trap might not give us enough data. And we want to recruit Chinook. We know the trap recruits silvers, but can it work on Chinook?”
She said she also understands the concern of recreational anglers worried about the window of opportunity for the trap to be in use. For the trap to be effective for Chinook, it would have to be placed before the freshwater recreational salmon season. The thought of a fish trap in place before or during the recreational fishery has freshwater anglers concerned that it will stop the salmon from reaching the areas they fish.

The need to redefine the fishery as experimental and the withdrawal of the individual who initially had said he would take on the major effort and expense of installing the trap has pushed the project back.
“We followed the RCW (Revised Code of Washington) about the experimental fishery (RCW 77.65.410) and convened a board of advisers,” said Hoffman. “The RCW doesn’t talk about how many fish can be taken, just how many fishing permits can be issued for this experiment and what qualifications have to be met. The process is still underway.” She said she understood the concerns out there. Commercial fishermen are unhappy with the potential of a season that favors a fish trap over other methods, but Hoffman said timing is critical to determining the effectiveness of a trap. There has also been confusion over the placement of the trap. Will it be in fresh or saltwater? Hoffman said that decision has not been made. “I recognized that people are concerned that a fish trap will absorb everybody else’s fishery, but that’s not the intention at all,” she said. “The idea behind it is to help fisheries target the hatchery fish and minimize the impacts on wild fish.” Hoffman also said the trap proposal is not an attempt to replace other commercial fishing methods.

“We have no intention to have any type of alternative gear to take over. That is not what this is about.” Since federal regulators have placed a higher value on enhancing a more robust population of native salmon than adding to the overall population of salmon with hatchery fish, Hoffman said the trap is just one idea to help grow the number of native salmon while allowing sport and commercial anglers to harvest the hatchery fish.

“Initially all we are trying to do is figure out if this gear could be a useful tool in trying to manage for hatchery reform,” said Hoffman. “How the gear would be used going forward, how it would impact other fisheries has yet to be determined.” Hoffman added the importance of public input on the issue, saying she hopes to have “deeper, more thoughtful communication” with the various stakeholders. Meetings of stakeholders, the advisory group and a public comment forum were held in late July. For more information on the proposed trap, go towww.dfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/season_setting.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/17 07:51 AM


Some thoughts from others.

Not sure this is WDFW "stance" after being outed. Likely just their "spin" after being outed. Contains untrue statements. Example that it says it will not replace current commercial fishing. Not true, some commercial quota already set aside from nets for trap experiments. Implies not to take place of fresh water sport fishing, but clearly would be put in front of it. Were it to have a significant impact on pHOS, it would have to take for example Chinook out before exposure to sport fishery. Looks like an ad seeking trappers in fresh water and looking for more suckers to risk capital and help WDFW excuse itself for planting Chinook smolts far in excess of its inability to meet hatchery minimum standards. It belies Hoffman proposal listing exactly how many Chinook AND Coho a trap in lower Naselle can have, thousands of Coho, while claiming location has not been selected. We have seen an HPA permit, for an exact location. Truth may be that tangle nets are not working out as mandatory gillnet replacements for Chinook. Netters in public meetings say this. WDFW refuses to quantify piniped and drop out mortality for tangle nets, or admit major crab mortality. Plantation of 2.2 million Naselle Chinook smolts in excess of official Willapa Salmon Management policy, in face of court decision upholding conservation first, is blowing up in Fish Dept face.

And another.

Gillnets don't fish on "moving fish"? Does she have any sort of clue?

It needs to either above or below the point in the estuary where the Chinook are sensitive to handling. You guys have already shown that. As I said on PP, I think that of the goal is to maximize removal of HORs, minimize impact to NORs (the corollary here is you want to really get a jump in NORs on the grounds) then the trap is the only way to go. Every other method, even rec, kills some NORs. I don't think WDFW has the balls for that but they may be clueless enough to develop the fishery and then get sued into having to use it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/17 02:01 PM


Word came to me that WDF&W and the QIN have a tentative agreement on Wynoochee Mit that meets the additional Winter Steelhead numbers required and fish above the dam. All I have now but will get more out when I get it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/17 04:19 PM


And here is the proposal. Good of Annette to get back right away.


Annual production increase at Aberdeen Hatchery of 56,300 steelhead and 125,400 coho from here going forward to 2037.
$50,000.00
Re-build T Dock
$54,400.00
4 Netpens
$41,107.00
Trucking
$271,235.70
Steelhead Feed
$268,701.10
Coho Feed
$236,210.00
Mass Marking
$115,000.00
Good and Services
$280,000.00
Planting truck/tank
$200,000.00
Safety/efficiency improvements to benefit agency staff
$785,856.32
6 SM Tech Time
$369,772.00
Overhead 30%
$2,672,282.12
20 Year Total


Regards,

Annette
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/11/17 10:26 AM


Latest from R-6 on Willapa.



Update on Experimental Fishery –
 
Hello all,
 
As you all know, the Department has been following guidance in the Willapa Bay policy (C-3622) in developing alternative gear. The purpose has been to provide opportunity to target fishery harvests on abundant hatchery stocks, reduce the number of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas, limit mortalities on non-target stocks, and provide commercial fishing opportunities. In pursuit of this purpose, the Department has initiated a number of steps (outlined below) to develop an opportunity for a fish trap in the Naselle tidewaters. Over the course of the process thus far, there have been a number of concerns expressed from the public on the use of fish trap gear. Although there have been discussions with commercial stakeholders, advisors and the public, there needs to be more public dialogue regarding the purpose, risks and benefits. Therefore, rather than continue to pursue the process for implementation in 2017, the Department would like to take the opportunity to solicit more public engagement to shape a successful program in 2018.
 
Steps taken in 2016-17
·       In 2016, staff sent a letter to the commercial stakeholders (on May 18, 2016 and again on December 15, 2016) asking for alternative gear ideas. The Department received a number of ideas, but only the fish trap proponent followed through by providing staff more information to help evaluate its potential.
·       In March of 2017, a presentation was made to the Fish and Wildlife Commission by the fish trap proponents that described a desire to fish outside of the normal commercial area and in August in order to be able to intercept hatchery-origin chinook and help meet the intent of the Willapa Bay policy. At that meeting the FWC asked staff to look into ways for moving forward with fishing a trap.
·       Staff identified two pathways that could provide opportunity to test whether or not fish trap gear could be used to recruit hatchery chinook. The first pathway was as a research project, funded by WDFW. However the Department was unable to identify the funds necessary to follow this path. The second pathway was to pursue an emerging commercial fishery.
·       An emerging commercial fishery would allow for a fish trap to legally operate, and there are two types of an emerging commercial fishery: a trial fishery and an experimental fishery. A trial fishery would have unlimited entry, an experimental fishery would have limited entry and would require a process by which the limits would be defined.
·       The Department initially pursued the trial fishery option with unlimited entry and filed the CR101 (notice of intended rule-making) on April 19, 2017. Staff held three meetings at the end of May and beginning of June to solicit input on the trial fishery (commercial stakeholders, advisor, and public). The same information was presented at all three meetings. As public input in the Rule Making process and interest in the trial fishery was collected, it became apparent that the unlimited nature of the trial fishery would make it difficult to maintain an orderly fishery and impose necessary fishery controls. Therefore, we rescinded the CR101 on June 13, 2017 and filed a new CR101 for an experimental fishery on June 14, 2017 to pursue a revised rule proposal that limits entry to the fishery using traps. 
·       The Department has convened a five member advisory board to provide comment on proposed limits to the number and qualifications of experimental fishery participants. Those advisors, were sent an initial proposal on limits on July 7, 2017 for review and will be in place until the Rule Making process is complete. Among other limiters, the proposal includes a random drawing from among qualified participants if the number exceeds the number of allowable permits.
·       Staff held three meetings to solicit input on the experimental fishery (commercial stakeholders, advisor, and public).  The same information was presented at all three meetings. Public concerns were raised over the impact that such a fishery would have on the freshwater recreational fishery and the limited amount of time the recreational community had to become familiar with the proposal.
 
Next Steps
·        Solicit interested parties this fall to apply for a position on an enhanced advisory group. In addition to advising the Department on fishery rules, this group will examine the role, benefits and impacts of using a fish trap in an experimental fishery. Information on the application process will be forthcoming.
·        Maintain information on the development of the experimental fishery on the WDFW website (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/season_setting.html).
·        Convene a number of public advisory meetings and public workshops this fall and winter dedicated to examination of the utilization of fish trap gear.
·        Continue the Rule Making process for implementation in 2018.
 
Annette Hoffmann
Reg 6 Fish Program Manager
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/17 09:10 AM


This is a interesting bit. The verbiage below is from a document obtained in a PDR. That is the good part but then look to the highlighted line below. So what is this? Well they changed planting locations on the Nooch directed by Oly for reasons of straying. Problem? Ah yeah and why? The Summerrun plants are a segregated stock with no spawning time crossover and frankly cannot reproduce themselves naturally. So they changed things around to reduce straying of a segregated stock that cannot reproduce naturally. ( well maybe one here and there )

If that does not make you blink then try this. Notice below the line with " from reliable sources " and what in the hell is a reliable source? When questioned staff have refused to provide who and what " reliable sources " are and the so called data used. To be honest Summerrun come in and out of the Chehalis tribs as they move around so one would expect to catch some as they move around the estuary and tidewater.

DW has and is still going after the information and data with a PDR but you know this is a poster child for how not to do things.




4. Why the change?

Summer-runs:
In 2012 as directed by Fish Management, we began planting 15,000 summer-run smolts at the wynoochee trap operated by Tacoma city Light. In 2013, we suspended planting summer-runs at our Black Creek planting site. Our decision to stop planting summer-runs at black creek concerned stray rates of hatchery steelhead. Based on sport harvest of clipped summer-run steelhead on the E. Hoquiam, the Satsop river, and the Wishkah, from reliable sources, we felt that the planting site was too low in the river for good imprinting of steelhead smolts on Wynoochee river water. The black creek planting site is _3__river mile below the City of Aberdeen’s intake, which is where water is drawn for commercial water supplied to Lake Aberdeen and the Lake Aberdeen hatchery. Moving our lowest river planting site up to the ‘culvert hole’ at river mile__12_ is our attempt to reduce stray rates of hatchery steelhead.

Winter-runs:
Our reasons for moving the lowest planting site for winter-runs is also based on concerns of stray rates to other rivers within the Chehalis basin, essentially the same reasons we moved the lowest planting site for the summer-runs.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/17 01:06 PM

Follow up to the post above:


PDR, personal document request, is in the works !!!!!! I want to know who "from reliable sources, are. I also want to know how these "reliable sources" know that any steelhead caught on the Hoquiam, the Satsop, and the Wishkah came from any Wynoochee planted fish????

I also want to see any documental research that has been done on "straying" in the Chehalis basin.

I would like to know, also, if there is any documental data that change of planting site has eliminated straying?????

My request for the PDR is for the years 2010 - 2017......time will see what comes from this request????

Oh, planting sites on the Wynoochee were never a problem, before 2011. Winter run steelhead have been planted from Black Creek up river, for ever. Summer run plants started in 1978 or 1979, and followed the winter run planting sites. STRAYING was never talked about, at any meeting that I ever attended.....

Can WDFW document that "any straying fish" have spawned in another river???? I do want to see any research on the rivers in question....will be interesting. WDFW can't even document if there is any spawning of summer run in the Wynoochee River, no study that I'm aware of.

Time tells all........hope this PDR moves faster than the 25+ year, $2.4 million, mitigation monies that were/are to be spent for additional Coho Salmon and additional Steelhead in the Wynoochee River......yea, that's right, 25+ years of not getting Tacoma City Light, spent.......grrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/17 10:24 PM

Never personally seen a Wynoochee summer run with an adipose fin. Don't personally recall hearing of one either. That leads me to believe they're not spawning very successfully in the Wynoochee.... Seems more like a cool shoulder opportunity than a biological crisis to me.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/17 06:21 AM

I received ( among many others ) a Willapa update from Annette Hoffmann at Region 6 a update on fisheries in Willapa and if you want the information PM and I will send it to you. It has a lot of info but it is in attachment spread sheets but it is interesting to say the least.

One should view this with some questions or rather just the word what? While flows are about normal water temperatures are not they are way up and I do not know what the DO levels were or are so that is blank. So from my seat this is what I see. The run is late but everything has been late starting with the Summerrun Steelhead. Had some Springers going through here on the Chehalis, cannot say to numbers but in small schools, the third week of August which is late. So late, likely below forecast for Chinook everywhere, ( ocean catch indicates that is the case ) and river and bay conditions have been just terrible with water temps in the Chehalis plus or minus a bit on 70 degrees. Same is for Willapa I am told so there is zero and I mean zero reason for the fish to enter the bays. The weather has cooled down so as the conditions improve for the fish we wait and see.

Ok now this bit that Annette sent out. For my part I am glad to see that staff has been given the time to put it out to folks and it really does reduce the confusion. As to inseason things I will not touch with a 10 ft pole. Draw your own conclusions but catch is way way down both Rec & commercial.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/17 07:02 AM

Way back in the 1950s CA successfully conducted a study on San Joaquin River Chinook using tangle nets to capture fish to attach acoustic tags. Reason for the study was to see the response of the fish to low flows, low DO, and high temperatures in the lower river-basically around Stockton. These were Fall fish.

They tracked the fish, having spread recorders through the delta. I forget. now, the final conclusions, but they had enough recoveries to get an idea of migration patterns and response to conditions. So, if the bay is warm, the rive warm, and DOs low there is some information out there as to what the fish will do.

They may have done this study over a couple of years.

The Fraser is reportedly flowing at 75% of average and warmer than average. This information has been used since at least the 80s to understand how the sockeye and pink respond and I am sure that DFO has a clue as to how it affects the other species.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/17 08:47 AM

The following link might provide some insight in how fall Chinook might react to warm water temperatures.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/counts/sockeye/chinook_chart.jpg

Current lake Washington temperatures are 73 degree; highest seen for this date yet the Chinook seem to be entering the locks at normally.

Something to keep in mind on Willapa is that those high temperatures are surface temperatures and every high tide there is a push of deeper cool water that enters the bay allowing the fish to ride into bay on that cool water. Even during those 90 degree days in late August one would see the surface water temperatures drop as much as 15 degrees on the high tide push. While the Chinook may have related to the bottom a little more than normal there seem to be expected numbers of fish given the forecasts and even some coho.

Curt
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/17 10:03 AM

Been running 70 plus surface and 68 plus something 20 ft on bottom. I did not put this out but will as I forgot. The doughnut hole above the island is not getting anything in but you have a small number in the Naselle and Nemah with the Nemah more if you can call it that.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/17 11:36 AM


and some more that was on a CC.

I have a question. How many commercial boats went out and how many of those boats filed fish tickets showing fish were actually sold?

Tim


Hi Tim,

Thanks for the question. So the morning of the 5th regional staff conducted an effort count between 7:00am and 7:15am. The effort was 12 vessels. The reported landings from the quick reporting system was also 12. Let me know if you have any further questions regarding these data.

Thanks,
Chad
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/17 12:15 PM

The Chinook are entering the locks but folks I talk with fear that swimming from the locks to Lake WA will kill a bunch.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/17 07:23 AM

A bunch of folks have asked me how the river is doing. 68 plus degrees under the boat which is normal. After that it is difficult to quantify things. Each year when we hit the warm cycle the river goes pretty much dead. No bait fish ( above 101 ) just kinda ambles on. I have never figured out if it is DO, PH, temp or just what but it happens. The recent hot spell was every bit 6 weeks long for the river so we have high temps which is normal and flows are low but normal. So what happens that keeps things sorta kinda in a holding pattern. I am clueless but the river is changing over the last few days. Seen a few Sturgeon jump and seals & birds are coming around in numbers. I think it will take a temp drop in the water to put the final part in play so whatever they don't care for is gone. It happens almost every year and this year was about normal.

On the run size. I think it will be short on numbers but time will tell. After that think of a graph of a run with numbers up the left side and weeks across the bottom and the run graphed in. Now it always ( for most but not chum ) starts up week by week then peaks & numbers drop back down. Now take and reduce the size 40%. Two things happen. One the encounters at the start of the run get pretty slim as the weeks stay the same but the front of the run is skinny so now it it really reduced. The weeks before the peak will produce much fewer fish simply because so few fish so much area in tidewater to find them in. So you get the impression of no fish, just not much. Then at the peak the numbers get to the point that it is recognizable be it reduced in numbers. One should keep in mind that WDF&W & the QIN both depend on the rain in the first of November to make escapement. River blows fish run up and dodge harvest. No rain they keep getting hammered and less get up. No rain really messes with escapement.

Then add BC & AK pulling for conservation ( Chinook ) but that is problematic. When the fish come down the pipeline ( not counting Springers ) the fish that were in the front got hammered based on the forecast and the ones at the back end of the parade not as much so that is going make things just weird stream to stream just depends on where your rivers fish were in the parade. The WDF&W expansion of 2 fish limit did nothing. If your averaging half a fish per rod then the extra fish in the bag limit is about selling license to tourist that is all.

So it is a waiting game and frankly it will be the QIN that will first see what is up. Their seasons were set to reduce Chinook impacts and Rec are C&R so once they start it will show after the first sets and I doubt anyone has a clear picture of what is about to happen. If after that set the QIN pull for conservation then it is done period. If they accept the Chinook impacts then the Rec will fit in C&R window for impacts. As Coho go I cannot say anything except no jacks so far, well maybe few is better. Remember now this thing about the water quality or whatever is being slow to tail out which just makes things much more difficult. Time will tell the story rather soon I think.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/17 07:43 AM

Many on here know where I like to fish......Low water flows, and lot's of that "moss crap" has decreased my desire to fish jacks. Every cast, collects that "moss crap", on bait, line, weight. Even trying to fish float and eggs, the result is the same.

This is the 1st year in a loooooooong time, that I've been the only boat for days at a time......and even more amazing is the walk in fishermen, are not there......I mean its 9/10/17, normally there would be many fishermen, there and trying.

Hate to say this....cause the rains might not stop, but a 2-3 fast rise would aid in getting the "moss crap" to move along. Twitching, spinners, plugs, spoons would be VERY TOUGH to fish.....9/16/17 is fast approaching.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/17 11:59 AM


Ok was out on the river. The temp at the Muc was 66.1 at slack. Yesterday about 2 hrs on the incoming it was 68.9 so we are a changing and I had my pet seal with all morning even when I moved it just followed up so they are looking for a meal.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/17 03:52 PM

Definitely on a cooling trend this weekend.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/17 07:24 AM

So look at this bit and it was reduced today for the Olympics but the storm appears to have broadened the coastal areas that get rain. Right now it looks like a bump up in flows then back down. Time will tell but if it holds true but there is a second part. If the rain comes down in say a 12 hour window it will run off much faster as the ground is hard along with dry so it soaks in very slowly. Sounds strange but building roads you can have this rain and come in on a fresh grade & trim about a inch off and dry and good to run on. So it is about not only how much rain but how many hours we get the rain in. Just put your cursor on the circle which is a flow gauge and you will get the graph to pop up. I think Doc got it right on.


https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/17 07:58 AM

Intensity has a lot to do with it. We need that old slow, misty, drizzle for weeks on end to fill the streams and the aquifers. Short storms just tend to run off. Then, we pave over and make it run off faster.

One other bump to flows is actually Falll. As the deciduous trees and shrubs drop leaves they stop transpiring water. So, in the Fall, flows will diminish slower, or even may increase slightly, as the trees shut down.

May have had more of an impact back when we had deciduous trees out there instead of fir/hemlock monoculture...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/17 09:16 AM


My dream is 1.5 inches in 1 hour!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/17 09:17 AM

Kinda short......................
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/17 12:56 PM


My brother just told me that encounters of Recs on NOR was about 25% of those landed / released and some good fish arrived at the Naselle hatchery and same %. Now it is much lower in the donut hole with commercials so a dust up is underway. Could be a lot of reasons but but the only way to check is see what portion of the encounters were on the boats with observers. Say if 80% report encounters with NOR's were on boats with observers we have a problem I think I think.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/17 01:55 PM

Rain forecast looks pretty good, the closer you get to the coast. I guess that won't do much to spike overall streamflow around the basin, but it should cool down the tidal transition areas a few degrees, which should get fish moving... we hope.

I was off work last week, and I took a few quick trips down to what I believe are DrifterWA's usual haunts to see what was happening, and my impressions match what he said. Warm water, goo all over the river bottom, and (the kicker) VERY few signs of salmon, adult or otherwise. No bank anglers tells the story well; most years, there are a handful of guys down there working a traveling lane for jacks (and the occasional adult), but I've only seen one or two people venture out there, which tells me there's not been much reason to do so.

I also checked out a couple coastal rivers yesterday, and there didn't appear to be any fish around. I think that's about to change. Let's hope so.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/17 02:54 PM

Tuesday 9/12/17

Did the "high tide" bit this morning, 7:30 - 10:30....had good run out "in the fast water", anchored where I have for 30+ years, well close any way.....good eggs, still have some of the "green moss" but doesn't seem to be as bad as it was....

bottom line, 3 hours no "jack bites", never saw a fish jump or anything roll, checked the deep holes, on way out.....fish finder NEVER marked a fish. No other boats and no bank anglers.

Can't stay as long as I'd like, Chehalis River has not a lot of water at both sides of low water....jet boat runs well in low water, it's the mud and sand, that slow me down........I've done that bit, run out of water,,,,then have to sit for 3-4 hours for the tide to float me off, NO THANKS, in 2017.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/17 06:36 PM

Bummer. Not the update I was looking for.

Oh, well. Guess we shouldn't expect much to change before some rain and cooler temps get 'em moving (whatever's out there...). They'll come, eventually... I think....
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/17 08:31 PM

It says something when I see a guy from elma in the north end. I was going to spend the day down there but I'll stick to fishing where the fish are. I'll see you guys in a few weeks. Ill have a good report from sand island to fuller on sat.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/13/17 07:47 AM


Looking better and look at the expanded range of the rain down South.
https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi

The Chehalis at Porter shows nearly a 300% jump but does not drop all the way back. The flows will not be great but it should clear a lot of bad water. It would be great if the beaver ponds dumped but I do not think there will be enough rain. It is about how it comes down fast or over days. Fast is good, this time.

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/13/17 09:58 AM

For those questioning the difference between the Rec and nets encounters with NOR Chinook the question was asked and R-6 responded.

Look at the Rec encounters with non local fish and a substantial portion are of GH origin. This is relevant as the QIN for GH required balance ( their share ) of the GH Chinook after they enter WA waters ( per Boldt ). They had not done that before so C&R for GH Chinook this year. I can map a scenario that is well based ( no dart board ) that the Willapa Rec fishery on the front of the Willapa could adversely / or limit GH fisheries in particular the GH bay fishery. Bad thing happen when you do not count all impacts but it is much worse when you then do count all impacts. Somebody has to loose.

Hi Brian,

That is a good question, the answer, I believe, is the difference in where those fisheries were prosecuted. The marine rec fishery takes place in the north end of Willapa Bay with the majority of the effort taking place along Washaway Beach. Conversely, the commercial fishery that was prosecuted in stat week 36 was in commercial catch areas 2M and 2R. These catch areas are in the extreme southern end of Willapa Bay. The genetic data that the Department has collected to date suggests the stock composition of the north versus the south ends of Willapa Bay are significantly different. In the north, approximately 58% of fish encountered are of local origin as opposed to 90% local origin in the south end. Another factor that is in play here is a difference in run timing between hatchery and natural origin Chinook. Those would be my thoughts as to why the discrepancy in encounter rate for stat week 36.
Thanks,



Chad Herring
Willapa Bay Policy Implementation Biologist
Montesano District Office
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
Office#:(360)249-1299
Cell #:(360)470-3410
Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/13/17 12:31 PM

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Another wasted morning, "hold over tide"....not much run out. I fished from 7:30 to about 10:30, water run out got so slow, even a float didn't move very fast. When I quit, the area up and down river "looked like a lake".

2 other boats, looking around.

No bites, no fish rolling, depth finder showed nothing in 2 deep stretches that I checked.

If you are going to run river above South Monty, DON'T DO AT LOW WATER !!!! Chehalis River just doesn't have enough water. Twidwells, at high water is only a few feet deep.....so you know that will be a "jet boat eater", until the river comes up a few feet. Nothing worse than to set on the gravel until the tide comes in.....4+ hours in 2016 for me....grrrrrr
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/13/17 12:57 PM

Rivrguy-

Not sure that I entirely follow Mr. Herrings logic. Yes I understand in July early August much to Willapa Bay sport catch occurs in the outer bay (Washaway). However my observations have been that as the month of August progresses the fleet shifts it effort following WB hatchery fish towards the more terminal areas. For example this year in late August we fished out of Tokeland and every day the majority (90%) of the fleet turned east and fished the Willapa Channel. Of course those anglers leaving from Tokeland were joined by those launching at South Bend. For the reports from the anglers we talked with the majority of the Chinook caught that week were from mark 13 eastward and yes lots of wild fish were reported to have been released. For the last 15 years that has been the typically effort pattern.

I find it interesting that as the season progressed the portion of wild Chinook in the catch (as reported as wild fish released) declined as the effort shifted from the "Washaway"/outer bay area to the more terminal area. Through week 33 the report recreational catch was 209 fish with 37 wild (17.7%) released. In weeks 34 and 35 the reported recreational catch was 286 with 79 (27.6%) released. Remember the vast majority of that catch occurred the terminal end of the Willapa river arm. It is hard to imagine that any fishery in more terminal areas that would not have caught wild Chinook in roughly the portions seen in week 34 and 35 in the recreational fishery. Especially considering the relative ratio of hatchery to wild fish in the terminal escapements the various basins.

I can understand your concern about the GH incidental catches in the WB marine recreational fishery. I would think as the fish move towards the rivers that rate would decline. However it seems that a goal of the "new" Willapa plan is to increase the non-Willapa Bay fish in the marine fishery. As the returns from the change hatchery releases (2019?) kick the Tokeland/South Bend will likely to shift even more of their effort/catch to waters west of Tokeland.

Curt
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/17 12:06 PM

I am having trouble finding fault with your thoughts Curt but then this wrinkle. Annette Hoffmann sent out the update for Willapa and the Naselle hatchery is 107 NOR & 39 HOR which is just strange. It is the one thing that happens every now and then which is that the entire run is at about 30 to 40% of forecast which it looks like to be true. That is not the thing though. This is what a composite run looks like when the hatchery production survival tanks big time. Will it hold true ..... no idea but I think it is about 50/50 odds in Willapa which is something a bit out of the blue but not unheard of.

Little edit: The Willapa hatchery production returns was forecast at 32k + & natural was 4 k+ which is 8 to 1 H over W which is why my thoughts on the hatchery fish crashing hard. Math says the 2.1 to 1 H over W is really not a good thing to see. Hope that helps answer the questions I received.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/17 06:15 AM

The edited numbers came from the 2017 harvest model for those looking for the source.

Also Chehalis at 80% up tidewater ( below the flats ) is 60 degrees and Muk is 65.2
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/17 09:28 AM

Rivrguy-

I see in WDFW's hatchery escapement report that as 9/13 the Naselle the counts were 299 hatchery fish (258 adults and 41 jacks) and 58 wild (57 adults and 1 jack). As a hatchery/wild ratio that doesn't look that far out of line to the pre-season expectations.

Word on the water is that last couple days lots of fish moving up river. With the weather forecast and the commercial opening should have a better information on both hatchery/wild ratios and run strength by this time next week.

Something to keep in mind is that for the last month or so the Willapa river flows have been near historic lows for the entire period.

Curt
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/17 09:40 AM

Here is the updated river forecast. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ and the flows are going to really and is really a jump. Might want to work fishing around the flow thing.

Not sure Curt as a run coming up short looks like late and can be either one this early in the run. The water conditions will not be of concern much longer so we wait. Preseason Willapa Chinook were about 8 to 1 H over W and is not holding sooooooo ...... place your bets late? Short? Both? So I can be humiliated when wrong I am running with both with this. I still think the preseason is way off and if we get 50% of forecast we will be lucky.

Note to self: Crow is not a good meal.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/17 12:26 PM

Rivrguy -

If you put a gun to my head my sense is that the run timing (to the bay at Tokeland) was about normal; However remember I'm just a angler who visits Willapa for maybe 6 days a season. I would expect the total hatchery return to be at or a bit below forecast levels. I do expect that the final hatchery return will be closer to the forecast than 1/2 of the forecast. For the wild run I expect that it be at or a bit above forecast levels.

I agree that crow is not a good meal but experience (have had way too much) has shown that lots of ketchup helps some. However rather than crow that we share a lunch with the loser treating!

Curt
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/17 04:48 PM

I released more wild or at least "unlicipped fish this week on Willipa Bay tributaries than I would have thought. Definitely not seeing a bunch of "hatchery fish".
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/17 04:01 AM


No crow? Ok your on Curt for lunch. Still think it is short but will see. Isn't like I haven't been wrong before.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/18/17 02:24 PM

Regardless of early, or late, the number of hatchery fish is way up over last year based on catch. I think our overall WB chinook catch this year was almost 40% wild.
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/18/17 06:30 PM

Well how did everyone do on the adult opener? We put the boat in at Monte and fished up to the jack hole. Didn't see a single adult roll, but saw a group of about 30 staged below the jack hole where a few bank fisherman were. Got a report of a few coho being caught on the flats below the satsop and more being caught by the trollers below monte. We went down there to finish our day trolling super baits and lost a nice silver next to the boat. All in all very slow. Hopefully this rain will push more fish in the river.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/19/17 06:06 AM

Melanie and I went out Saturday and Sunday, I caught a really nice 10 lb. + silver, hooked nose buck and wild on the outside of the 101 bridge, Melanie lost 2 after a minute or so before spitting the hook. We went up river to Monte, she lost another near the power lines, but it felt like a king. On Sunday we went out near the bridge again, she lost one and had a drive-by as well. She did everything right non all those fish, no lines broke, just pulled the hook. Also had another drive-by. We saw VERY few fish caught, most folks were skunked. We're going out today for a quick trip this morning, going to Portland to see Govt. Mule later. Hopefully more fish moved up with this rain. Nice to see Francis in Monte launching, hopefully you had good luck. Bob R
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/19/17 06:53 AM

Just a warning. I drive over the Monte bridge everyday on my to Raymond. Watched a guy in a white honda (early 90s i think) get out and look in the back of a truck and in the window. I emailed the county and they said they would patrol it more. Just make sure you don't have valuables in the truck.
Posted by: fishbadger

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/19/17 08:21 AM

Originally Posted By: bob r
Melanie and I went out Saturday and Sunday, I caught a really nice 10 lb. + silver, hooked nose buck and wild on the outside of the 101 bridge, Melanie lost 2 after a minute or so before spitting the hook. We went up river to Monte, she lost another near the power lines, but it felt like a king. On Sunday we went out near the bridge again, she lost one and had a drive-by as well. She did everything right non all those fish, no lines broke, just pulled the hook. Also had another drive-by. We saw VERY few fish caught, most folks were skunked. We're going out today for a quick trip this morning, going to Portland to see Govt. Mule later. Hopefully more fish moved up with this rain. Nice to see Francis in Monte launching, hopefully you had good luck. Bob R


Hell with the fishing, let us know how Govt Mule goes! Wish I were going!

fb
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/17 08:32 AM

Originally Posted By: fishbadger
Originally Posted By: bob r
Melanie and I went out Saturday and Sunday, I caught a really nice 10 lb. + silver, hooked nose buck and wild on the outside of the 101 bridge, Melanie lost 2 after a minute or so before spitting the hook. We went up river to Monte, she lost another near the power lines, but it felt like a king. On Sunday we went out near the bridge again, she lost one and had a drive-by as well. She did everything right non all those fish, no lines broke, just pulled the hook. Also had another drive-by. We saw VERY few fish caught, most folks were skunked. We're going out today for a quick trip this morning, going to Portland to see Govt. Mule later. Hopefully more fish moved up with this rain. Nice to see Francis in Monte launching, hopefully you had good luck. Bob R


Hell with the fishing, let us know how Govt Mule goes! Wish I were going!

fb
Mule was great, broke out "Don't Step On The Grass, Sam", as a shout out to Jeff Sessions noise about weed. P.M. me about a recording since you were so nice to respond about Mule. P.S. No luck for Melanie or me in the morning, hopefully more fish will come in for the weekend. WORST opening for us in 6 years. Bob R
Posted by: fishbadger

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/17 08:46 AM

I bet it was a great show. I missed em this time around.

One of the great things about living around here, we do get a regular stream of great acts coming through!

fb
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/17 01:32 PM

Fished Brady area yesterday. Fish moving (and very occasionally biting) on both sides of the bottom tide. ZERO action or signs of movement through the flood. Saw 3 coho hooked, with two landed. None of that damage was on my account; I took a thorough skunking. The landed fish were taken on herring behind big flashers, within a few minutes of each other. Didn't know people used that gear that far upriver, but I guess they knew what they were doing!

My overall impression was that the coho are just getting started, and they aren't around in good numbers yet, but that should improve every day for the next few. Should be in full swing (whatever that ends up looking like) by this weekend. Hope it gets a lot better.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/17 06:31 AM


I think you got it FF. Think last year and stay there with your thoughts. Our fish are stagers and always do ( that is the easy part ) but where that is something else. Coho I have seen and hooked are straight out of the ocean white silver in color, they are moving slowly on tides and pretty much just plain in no hurry. These fish do not spawn until mid November so they will keep moving to someplace and stop, ah someplace. A spurt of hatchery Coho have been hanging out but not many wild in that group I was told.

Chinook are not staging nearly as much as one would hope for. Hard to judge the bay but above the 101 bridge they are not stopping in the mid and lower tide water at all. Every fish I have hooked and got a look at could have been on a Westport charter boat. So we are going to be fishing the flow as they go by and that can be a bit of a bitch. So you inriver guys know the drill. It is going to be all about finding where they are staging up and getting to the new arrivals as success drops the longer the fish is parked right to lock jaw time.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/17 07:16 AM

Here's a simplified thought about what is going on. The fish evolved a behavior pattern that allowed them to be successful. It may have been to get out of the ocean, hold for freshet, the bolt. Whatever.

Over the decades we remove them. What spawns is what survives. There are wild coho in PS that are now spawning in December/January and later. Why? because their parents did.

For a long time I scoffed at the the idea that hatcheries, especially, bred non-biters. Again, if you harvest 90% of the run, and much/most is with hook and line just what does live?

Basically, what spawns is what doesn't get caught.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/17 07:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Here's a simplified thought about what is going on. The fish evolved a behavior pattern that allowed them to be successful. It may have been to get out of the ocean, hold for freshet, the bolt. Whatever.

Over the decades we remove them. What spawns is what survives. There are wild coho in PS that are now spawning in December/January and later. Why? because their parents did.

For a long time I scoffed at the the idea that hatcheries, especially, bred non-biters. Again, if you harvest 90% of the run, and much/most is with hook and line just what does live?

Basically, what spawns is what doesn't get caught.


(Un-) Natural selection at its finest.

Give that man a GOLD star.

This is why it's important that the big ones get away and we let a few go to keep the biter trait alive and well.

Maybe that's why we catch so many stinkin' tules in the lower Columbia?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/17 11:06 AM


It is simple cause and effect for any animal. How do you make a hatchery or wild run non biters? Use a hook & line that steadily removes the most aggressive and over time wella they don't bite well. How do you take a average 12 lb Coho to 6 to 8? Net them with a small mesh for several generations allowing a greater percentage in the pool of small fish and you will decrease size with time just as the marine fisheries are dictating the shrinking Chinook. This not new folks and was one of the first things I learned working with fish. The first thing Harry taught me was all things with salmon are proportional and when humans alter the gene flow things happen. This is not rocket science guys. Humans have been doing this to many creatures for a few thousand years. Seems somehow when it comes to fish we want to ignore fact and just plain basic common sense. Enviros blame habitat and many the hatcheries but the truth is WE are the problem because KILLING them for food and fun. Which I might add is compounded by a state government in denial and a governing agency that is lost in the wilderness.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/17 01:50 PM

Agreed that humans killing salmon is the lion's share of the problems facing salmon. I personally don't buy into any notion that sport fishing has led fish to evolve to bite less (though there may be some truth there). My experience has consistently shown that, all other things being equal, quality of fishing is directly proportional to the number of fish subject to the fishery.

In 2014, when we had lots of coho around, I got lots of bites. For crying out loud, I had Chinook taking trolled spinners about 4 inches under the surface that year, and that hasn't been the case in any other year I've fished. Past two years, few coho, and very few bites. Of course, after I realized the numbers were crappy, I didn't put in as much effort....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/17 03:22 AM

FF did not say sport fishers but hook and line which include trollers. All hook and line fisheries utilize the fishes own instincts to catch them. Also it is the hook and line that are trashing the 5 & 6 year fish as they are there two more years in the sea to get banged on. This is not a secret FF just something we do not like to admit. The greatest damage done by BC & AK.

Terminal fishing is a strange thing as to harvest as unlike commercial efforts which is mostly about finding them as catching is not that difficult. Weather. water, run timing just about everything is a variable. Certain things are a given in GH such as Chinook high % South channel and Coho North channel, that Coho & Chinook will stage up someplace in tidewater ( remember tidewater goes to past Fuller Hill ) or near that and find that area you catch fish. So you can have what looks like a huge amount of fish which can be that or about 10 other things.

Historically the best terminal Rec fishing has been years when Coho are up and Chinook & Chum are down followed by years when Chinook are down as it limits commercial tribal and NT efforts. Even low Coho runs can be great inriver as limited commercial time due to run size. The historical view is a bit off now as the GHMP did away with 7 days a week netting so inland it is different than in the past.

If you back up a bit farther back in time to the days where tons of small boats trolled all over from South Monte down the fundamental difference is hatchery production. We are down about 2 million smolt on Coho ( not counting the Hump ) which is about 60K of adults as the old rule is about 3% to the bar on Chehalis origin Coho. So these fish staged up so you simply had a lot of fish in the pool and 40 to 60k of Coho makes a real difference. Also as always in GH the limiter was natural production so the co managers could not do a wipe out thing. Our natural production has been stable but the dramatic reduction for hatchery production is the difference in Rec harvest in the last 10 years.

The dishonesty of WDF&W on all this is simply amazing and most do not even know what the hell happened. From the absolute stealing of the Skook hatchery for PS tribal production to budget driven production reductions that were more a swipe at the QIN than dollars it is a rather ugly bit of history that simply could not have happened anyplace else in the state.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/17 07:38 AM

To get into the wayback machine, back in the 90s I believe that WDFW began cutting hatchery coho production in an attempt to influence the Canadians. They were/are hammering our fish so the thought was if we give them fewer fish they might negotiate a "better" (Make Washington Great Again) deal. Instead, they kept taking their PST share; which hammered wilds more.

In my limited experience, as I was rarely involved in any sort of budget stuff, shifts if monies are to send messages and not due to a real "lack". Eventually, they are due to lack of funds but most often they are either a political jab at somebody or "we don't want you there anymore" sort of thing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/17 08:35 AM

Annette Hoffman sent out a Willapa Chinook update. Several spread sheets attached so if anyone wants the info yell. The rack escapement is a bit messed up due to the rain and they made some improvements to trap the wily creature so that is a moving target. The best gauge I could find is the total impacts for the Willapa Basin which includes a Rec estimate by creel count. I am told but have not dug in to it yet that but the numbers in the spread sheet show 873 in U which means the nets landed right on the move with the rain but not so in the rest of the bay.

That is the good news so now the bad. These numbers put to sound like two locomotives doing a head on......


Predicted: HOR NOR
569 6216

Actual 179 2206
Posted by: Jake Dogfish

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/17 09:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

It is simple cause and effect for any animal. How do you make a hatchery or wild run non biters? Use a hook & line that steadily removes the most aggressive and over time wella they don't bite well. How do you take a average 12 lb Coho to 6 to 8? Net them with a small mesh for several generations allowing a greater percentage in the pool of small fish and you will decrease size with time just as the marine fisheries are dictating the shrinking Chinook. This not new folks and was one of the first things I learned working with fish. The first thing Harry taught me was all things with salmon are proportional and when humans alter the gene flow things happen. This is not rocket science guys. Humans have been doing this to many creatures for a few thousand years. Seems somehow when it comes to fish we want to ignore fact and just plain basic common sense. Enviros blame habitat and many the hatcheries but the truth is WE are the problem because KILLING them for food and fun. Which I might add is compounded by a state government in denial and a governing agency that is lost in the wilderness.

I am a crazy environmentalist, but I agree both gill nets and sport fishing have had a impact.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/17 12:30 PM

Fishing, in all of its means and manners.
Posted by: Jake Dogfish

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/17 07:35 AM

Not all fishing methods cause fish to shrink.
Maybe it's time for slot limits?
Unfortunately that's not going to work with the "wall of death" technique.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/17 08:09 AM

Jake -
An alternative for at least hatchery Chinook would be selection of the brood stock that return to the hatchery rack. Many of the hatcheries have significant surplus fish to their needs so there should be ample potential breeders to select from for either older or faster growing individuals.

Have been surprised how little support the idea of selecting for large hatchery fish has received.

Curt
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/17 10:33 AM


I am trying to think if I recall that being done and the only time I recall is when Manny did the QIN work. Of coarse Manny was a go getter. As I recall his favorite saying was " we can do that ". Just did not let BS slow him down at least while working for t he QIN.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/17 12:42 PM

There is more to fish than size. Fisheries select for return timing. We did that purposefully and accidentally on the Fraser in order to optimize the production of fish on the spawning grounds.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/17 03:08 AM

Hell CM WDFD used run compression in a lot of places including the Chehalis. For those who do not know how you do it is simple. If your goal is to build up the early part of the run you simply take your eggs all off the front. Over several generations you get a higher percentage of the run early as your hatchery production is from parents likely to return early. You can do it the other way around also if one wished. Timing can help size also as Coho that enters now vs one in latter part of Nov has had more time to bulk up on the upwelling.

If talking Coho another way to mix things up is the size you rear them. WDFW goes to somewhere around 18 to 20 fish per lb at release as this will produce the greatest return of adults for $$$ spent on rearing. Now rear them larger a number of things happen. You get many more jacks, the adults will return bigger normally and you get the same amount of adults. Our hatcheries rear salmon just like they do trout. How do you the greatest number of fish for the cheapest price. Quality ( if size is your objective ) is not normally in the mix.

Release strategies also play into things. At the urging of a retired WDFW employee we tried volitional release with a twist. As we had a bunch of man made habitat for juveniles we pulled the screens but kept the pond watered up, kept feeding them a bit longer, and watched. To my amazement about 30% of the Chinook fry hung around in the pond then the habitat until the fall rains then booked. Why? No idea but it taught us a lesson to be sure. The lesson? Fish rearing needs are not necessarily the same as ours as ours are governed by many factors from space to money.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/17 08:58 AM

Doc Donaldson did that run-time changing with his UW salmon. Essentially, they selected for early coho and late Chinook. So, the students were introduced to the pond with coho that were both smaller and not as "important" research-wise. Then, in November and December when we were more experienced and the weather and water were a damnsite cold the Chinook came in.

Ma Nature does it to. What survives to spawn is what produces the next generation and that survival includes size, return time, age at return, willingness to bite a hook, and probably a myriad of other aspects.

Atlantic salmon males in some streams responded to total fishing pressure (probably the marine gill net) by never smolting. The females needed the growth to get big eggs, but the sperm didn't need the added size.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/17 09:34 AM


Habitat also plays a role. Most do not know but the Late Coho in GH & Willapa are from the East Fork Satsop and primarily Bingham Cr. You a number of ES streams go dry in late Spring as the aqua-fur drops and do not water up until nearly Dec thus any Coho that was to spawn in those streams needed to be late. It is simple natural selection driving the adaptability. If you could water up those streams in Sept then the normal timed Coho would utilize it also and probably not to the benefit of the lates. Lates also have a much lower reproductive / survival rate than normal timed Coho here.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/17 06:06 PM

Meanwhile, back on the Chehalis, does anyone know the tribal and comm. netting schedule yet? Melanie nailed a 21 1/4 coho on Saturday, biggest silver I've ever seen. There are fish being caught, but it's spotty as far as we've seen . Bob R
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/17 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: bob r
Melanie nailed a 21 1/4 coho on Saturday, biggest silver I've ever seen.


WOW!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/17 07:18 PM

Double WOW, especially for this time of the year......that is twice, or more, for any Silvers/Coho that I've seen this year.

Melanie.....good things happen to good people!!!
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/17 08:04 PM

Well truth be told, I lost 4 on opening weekend, when Bob had one. This day we both limited out, Bob got a bonus jack, BUT I certainly got big fish of the day. Karma!! Had to release a King yesterday. Trying again tomorrow.- Melanie
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/17 08:45 PM

Tribal netting schedule

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/

I also heard some large fish moved in. My boss got a very large coho down low Sunday afternoon. 21lb silver is one for the books, congrats!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/17 04:12 PM

Indeed, that 21-pounder is a terrific story. Congrats, Melanie! Can't help but think all that speaking you've done on behalf of the fish at North of Falcon just paid off in coho slabs!

Word on the river is the fishing is slow, but the few fish that are getting caught have been of exceptional size and quality. Seems the Coho run is taking advantage of some temporarily great ocean conditions (and some bait left behind by the dwarf Chinook run) to get its contingent, while probably below average in number, to grow to some exceptional sizes. I've heard multiple tales of 12 pounds plus, which really is exceptional, especially this early. That said, in my sampling, about 1 in 10 is catching a legal fish, so this is definitely not a large run. Makes sense that fewer fish competing for decent amounts of forage should produce some pigs.

If anyone wants my rock, you can have it. I can't make them bite; maybe you can.
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/17 06:10 PM

I fished on Saturday with a couple buddies and came home with 2 adults and 4 jacks. One boat did quite well but most struggled. I believe FF's assessment of 1-10 is fairly accurate. Many boats went home with out a fish. Good luck if you give try!
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/17 07:37 PM

A LOT of kings are being hooked in the usual bank spots on eggs, I see lots of coho rolling around in the usual spot near my area. They aren't biting. Maybe the occasional one on eggs. Nothing yet for me or many others up this high on hardware or jigs. My theory is, water is still warm to get those aggressive silvers to bite much. Kings obviously aren't as picky, especially on eggs.

People have been getting a couple more on spinners below the mouth of the Satsop where there is a little more tidal influence, colder water from the tributary, snappier fish.

Also, I have looked in a few spots on the Satsop and seen a few coho in a couple spots already. If it was open, they would be a little snappy for sure. Im more optimistic about this season, as long as us upriver guys don't get the shaft again, it should be a productive season.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/17 12:45 AM

Originally Posted By: eswan
I fished on Saturday with a couple buddies and came home with 2 adults and 4 jacks. One boat did quite well but most struggled. I believe FF's assessment of 1-10 is fairly accurate. Many boats went home with out a fish. Good luck if you give try!
Team eyeFISH still tryin' to cobble a crew together for the morning. Hopefully we can find at least ONE willing biter.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/17 05:04 AM

From my spot things have been a bit slow and still are. We had few jacks, more Chinook than Coho, everything moving right through. Two days ago stated showing better as well as adults. Yesterday plenty of jacks and a parade of adults be it slow. Could not get a big fish ( Coho ) before but yesterday they looked 10 to 12 lbs and straight out of the ocean. So think no staging down low they are simply floating up with the tide. Not a stampede but movement.

I blew my back and could not net my fish so I am guessing on size but I am not far off. Did provide some hysterically funny moments for the guys fishing near me trying to net a fish like that. So the size jump is just unusual this early and they are moving straight up steadily. You East county guys know the 3 or 4 places they will pull up at.
Posted by: Rocket Red

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/17 08:40 AM

I agree with the general consensus. Impressive size for the early run, but finding biters is WORK. Plenty of good catchers are getting skunked, or fishing all day for 1 or 2 fish.

Another thing (and maybe just my boat) but we have killed more hatchery fish in the first 10 days, than we did all of last season.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/17 09:31 AM

black gums and big spots = king
Posted by: Sol Duc

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/17 05:17 PM

I've caught 4 Kings out of the Hump and lost 3 over the last 10 days or so.....roughly 45 hours. The Copalis opened today, will be fishing it tomorrow. It's so nice to live 10 minutes from the Hump. beer
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/17 07:09 PM

If I didn't have a boat, and could walk and stand......I'd be somewhere around Fuller Bridge and on the river that just opened today. The past 3-4 days, the hatchery silvers have been on the move past Monty, past the pump houses, up in the flats. Lots of people, guides, some caught fish but lots of "non-biters".

Crappy tides, for me, and no rain has me talking to myself. As stated above, lots of "good fishermen" are just practicing casting, catching slow, so are not going to have to worry about buying a 2nd punch card.

Oh, if you enjoy fishing "jacks", and have some good eggs, find some fast water....go for it, size this year is on the small size but they eat and smoke good, and something is better than nothing!!!!

Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/17 08:08 PM

Bottom line is we desperately need rain. We fished Saturday and got 3 adults two weighed 15lbs almost identical hook nosed bucks and 1 6lb hen. Heres the kicker. We hooked 9! Should have been done at 8am. Most of the fish are not biters, lots of boats on the flat with 2 or 3 silvers caught. You need to cover lots of water and get there early to find a fish that will go. Most boats didn't get a keeper. Lots of guys catching and releasing kings. Been seeing drifterwa down there, still dosnt wave back haha.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/17 07:51 AM

Explored the Satsop and Wynoochee a bit yesterday. Visited a lot of productive water and didn't see a fish swimming. I heard tales of fish moving up the Satsop the other day. Either the fish shot up past the park, or those were just tales. We need rain, and there's none in the 10-day forecast. When we do get rain (real rain), you had better be there, because the entire early run is going to move up the tribs, really fast.

As for this week, I bet the strong east wind will get those kegged-up fish on the flats biting... or it won't. I don't have the touch to make those fish bite in ideal conditions, so I'm going to do other stuff until the rain comes (or the fish decide to stop waiting to spread out). Should be mushrooms popping after the light rains we've had....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/17 01:10 PM

From mid tidewater it is a bit weird. Sat was amazing as two large waves went through, that is the good news. After that they simply are coming right out of the ocean and up the river to someplace. With almost no tide movement they simply swim right on up with a great deal of lock jaw as they are to new to fresh as they have to overcome the biological bit from salt to fresh. Thing is they will appear in a wave that seems to last about 2 hours and has no connection wide water movement. What they do react to in a major way is the barometer going up or down. Chinook always but the bloody Coho seem to being mirroring the Chinook. Oh the fish are above average in size and very fat and healthy.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/17 01:55 PM

[img]http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu345/KeenEyeMD/FISHING%202017/image_zpsers8sunl.jpg~original[/img]
Posted by: Duncan Dharkeez

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/17 06:04 PM

Coho derby results.

Just curious are they on this interweb somewhere?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/17 01:17 AM

Posted by: Duncan Dharkeez

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/17 07:51 PM

I did not win the derby, but when I got back to my van I found one of my tires was urinated on and a dripping condom was draped over my antenna. It tasted like salted herring so I figured this was like a way to welcome new guys to the area.

It's good to be back. Thanks for the greetings who ever that was.

I plan on heading back out this weekend after I get my rig cleaned up.
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/17 08:22 PM

Report for the day. We need rain. When will wdfw shut down the chehalis for hatchery broodstock? It has to be coming down the pipe if these fish don't move. Cover water to find biters.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/17 05:22 AM

broodstock? Seriously? You need to bone up on the GH complex a bit.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/17 03:31 PM

October 7, 7-12:30...Pump House area

People, people and more people......boats, bank, gravel bars....Fuller Bridge to below S. Monty.

Cowlitz River type jet boaters....3/4 to full throttle past bank fishermen and past anchored boats, just to get where there is more boats than where he came from. Saw 3 boats try to run where they shouldn't, lots of gravel got moved around today.

Fish....a few silvers, some jacks, more Chinook hooked than I like to see. Same boats hooking Chinook, that were rigged and fishing Chinook water.

I agree with others, rain needed, need to moved fish into the upper stretches of all the Chehalis tribs.

QIN starts netting the Chehalis, 10/8/17 - 10/10/17, if WDFW gets the numbers, maybe we'll know if "numbers" on the pre-season were correct???


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/17 07:29 AM

Not sure about getting the fish moving, getting them to stop is the problem. First they came in waves not paying attention to anything. Then on the barometer drop last week the whole bloody herd moved right up the river in two days and slowly building back up. The herd made Porter before yesterday with seals right with them. The fish seem to park some but most only pause then right back at it. Makes a bitch in the bay and tidewater but lord inland it is what they wait for bright fish up river early. So for me it is not getting them to move I want the beggars to SLOW down. Everything hooked lately is silver white right out of the ocean moving upstream and no stopy down low. Lot of Chinook jacks ( three yr old ) still coming in and reports of Chum showing so go figure.
Posted by: Duncan Dharkeez

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/17 09:26 AM

Drifterwa,

Agreed on the full throttle but to some defense it's hard when there are boats anchored above and below every skinny stretch of water. I had too thread between two boats on anchor right at the confluence at the satsop last week and both guys got pissed. If you anchor up right in the exit of that channel don't get mad when boats blaze by. Once past that turn you should of course draw back and respect everyone on anchor.
Posted by: Duncan Dharkeez

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/17 09:32 AM

One other thing... That is cowlitzish, several boats last week with 8ft leaders, bead and weights just flossing against the East wall below Fuller, I watched one guy boat a king, hold it up for a photo, go to toss it back slip drop it in the boat the proceed to wrangle the thrashing hen back into the river. 18tf alumaweld tiller with prop not pump. Older boat younger guys.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/17 03:38 PM

I walked in below the mouth of the Satsop. My observation is the chum are trickling in along the North Shore.
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/17 04:56 PM

I would personally rather someone go past me on plane than 1/2 throttle. I try to be respectful of people anchored but there isn't much option when it's a narrow chute with 2 boats anchored above it.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/17 05:13 PM

Full plane 100%.... don't dilly dally getting past me plowing up a MEGA wake. Get it over with.... NOW!
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/17 09:19 PM

Can confirm the chum showing up already. Hooked one twitching last week near the mouth of the Satsop.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/17 01:58 PM

Anxiously awaiting catch reports from the QIN.... Hopefully, when we do see them, they won't be immediately followed by an "emergency sport fishing rule change," like they were in 2015.
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/17 07:25 PM

Published to the wdfw website?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/17 07:39 PM

Here?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/17 11:15 PM

Wow... those Willapa coho numbers suck.

I've got another weeks data beyond that.

Hatch coho catches are lagging horribly at only about 1/5th of predicted.

Wild coho catches just under half of expected.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/17 06:44 AM

Ugh....
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/17 09:34 AM

Any word on hatchery coho egg take to date? Looks like we're seeing really poor numbers in the nets (probably projecting out to something like 40% of forecast?). Unless a whole bunch of hatchery fish bolted for the hatcheries early, prospects are not looking good for the rivers staying open much longer.

Someone give me some good news!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/17 10:59 AM

You talking Willapa or GH. Burst of Chinook in willapa arrived at the Naselle I believe so that is better. Coho no idea on that as it is to early to tell. In GH eggtake being missed is slim to none as the take is not that large. I was told QIN did OK then nothing on the balmy weather. As to numbers hard to say as that huge two day movement just left nothing in tidal other than a slow steady parade and about the time they built up some the QIN arrived. Key is if you find them stopped you do well inland otherwise you fish what is swimming by that minute and that gets hit and miss as they seem to be in small schools. So some are doing well and some not so just depends on the day and location. The one thing that is a constant is that they are steadily moving inland before pausing, then just move again.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/17 01:18 PM

I would say that description matches what I'm seeing. Fish are either holding in tidewater or in places I can't find them. Had good fishing (for mostly the wrong species) Monday, and I finally nabbed a net-marked hatchery hen coho, just as I was getting ready to give up. (Looks like at least one got past the nets.) That was in one lower Chehalis trib. I walked a large section of the other major lower trib on the same day, and it was a kings only (and not many of those) show, with zero signs of moving fish. Nice afternoon for a walk, though.

So is a late push of kings on the Naselle reason to be optimistic that the fish are running late, or is it only good news because it means more kings in the Naselle?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/17 01:22 PM

Oh... And I was talking Grays Harbor on egg take. That they don't need a lot doesn't do much to assure me we won't get shut down; recalling that it was Grays Harbor hatchery egg take concerns that shut us down in 2015.

That the Tribe did "OK" is probably good news....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/17 01:31 PM

No good news in Willapa as it is only a question of how bad bad is. The GH on eggtake concerns last year was pure BS driven by we gotta do something from Olympia. If in GH and there are not enough Coho to make eggtake you would not know because you would not be fishing. We are around 5 to 1 W over H in GH and the lates from Skookumchuck Mit and Bingham Late production are in it.

Now your right part. If the late Coho come in well below prediction then the QIN Steelhead season does complicate it. So that could happen and I doubt unless something compelling comes along the QIN would pull and a problem could develop.
Posted by: Duncan Dharkeez

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/17 08:22 AM

Pretty sad to see the numbers of dead fish from snags and poor handling. Yesterday we left with 1 and watched boat after boat snapping jigs and snagging fish albiet accidentally but it seems like when the fish won't bite people resort to what ever will bend a rod. We had to cover alot of water to find the one fish that was willing yesterday.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/17 11:16 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

Well if you wanted rain your about to get it and then some. It is graphing on projected flows to get near record flows ( these days of month only ) then drop. NOAA only goes ten days out so if it stops things will level out but only time will tell.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/17 11:40 AM

Back in the day Nirvana had some sarcastic lyrics on "In Bloom."

"We can net some more, Nature is a whore."


Why is the most harmful, least sustainable method of commercial harvest still allowed in these waters?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/17 07:01 AM


For those following Willapa this is interesting. Seems the rule making process was a little flawed.

Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy

October 18, 2017

To: WDFW Director Jim Unsworth
Cc: Select WDFW Staff
B cc: Interested Parties
The Twin Harbors Fish &Wildlife Advocacy (Advocacy) is a WA non-profit corporation holding a 501 (c) (3) status issued by the IRS. The purpose of the Advocacy is 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 manner that insures the sustainability of those resources on into the future for the benefit of future generations."
The Advocacy filed a petition in Thurston County Superior Court today challenging a recent decision by WDFW to impose an emergency rule to the commercial fishing season underway in Willapa Bay. The petition is attached in PDF format.
The emergency rule passed by the Department on September 29, 2017 effectively suspended the requirement that Chum salmon encountered by a commercial fisher in its net and brought aboard did not have to be placed into a recovery box prior to release into the bay. The mortality rate of 59% for those fish treated in the recovery box was left unchanged after the requirement for revival was eliminated. This factor lead the emergency rule to quickly be referred by local fishers as the "Chum Chuck."
When passing the emergency rule, the advisors and members of the public involved in fisheries management with the Department were "blindsided" by the Department's action. The historical use of conference calls with advisory groups and emails to interested party lists used in the past to provide input prior to a rule change decision by the Department were not utilized.

The Department stated the reason for the emergency rule was "This emergency rule is needed to lift the restriction that chum salmon must be placed in an operating recovery box prior to being released into the bay/river. The recovery box is prioritized for unmarked Chinook and steelhead encounters. The projected forecast of Chum in Willapa Bay is likely to lead to densities occurring in the recovery box that might be detrimental to the recovery of the prioritized species. There is insufficient time to adopt permanent rules."

The petition filed by the Advocacy raises four issues. First, the Department did not have any evidence or analysis known to the Advocacy that showed the projected forecast would lead to higher than expected densities in the recovery box. The weekly season progress reports on encounters and landings in the 2017 season circulated by the Department showed the opposite. Chinook, Coho, and Chum presence in the bay were well below the preseason forecast. Onboard observer reports from WDFW staff showed no instances, either before or after the passage of the emergency rule, wherein the recovery boxes were facing a density problem. Therefore, the Advocacy alleges the decision by the Department was arbitrary and capricious and therefore, contrary to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Secondly, the mortality rate used by the Department in its modeling when setting the original season was 59% with a gillnet and 34% for a tangle net. The mortality rates were reliant upon the requirement in the rule wherein all Chum encountered by either net would be placed in the recovery box prior to release back to the water. After the Department passed the rule eliminating the requirement Chum be placed into a recovery box, WDFW staff confirmed it continued to use the same mortality rate for those Chum released even though the recovery box requirement had been intentionally eliminated by passage of the emergency rule. The Advocacy alleges it is arbitrary and capricious for the Department to claim the mortality rate is the same for Chum whether revived in a recovery box or simply chucked overboard.

Thirdly, the APA specially limits the use of an emergency rule to those instances wherein "immediate adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and that observing the time requirements of notice and opportunity to comment upon adoption of a permanent rule would be contrary to the public interest" As referenced earlier, the Department had no reasonably reliable information or data to conclude an emergency of this nature existed. Having commercial fishers "chuck" stressed Chum overboard without time in the recovery box increases the number of dead Chum in the water. The Advocacy contests the notion that killing more Chum in this manner provides value to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. The Advocacy therefore alleges the use of an emergency rule in this case is also contrary to the provisions of the APA.

Finally, the Advocacy alleges WDFW does not have the legislative authority to decide which species to "prioritize" and which species to over harvest in order to allow additional harvest opportunities. WDFW's mandate is to first provide for conservation of all species and, where consistent with that goal, to allow commercial and recreational salmon fishing. WDFW exceeded its legislative authority and acted in a arbitrary and capricious fashion by prioritizing other salmon species over the survival of Chum salmon.

In closing, the members of the Advocacy have always sought to find means of participation in the public process that avoid the need to seek intervention by the courts. In this case, no other avenues could be found.

Respectfully,

Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/17 07:27 AM

WDFW makes an interesting argument that the recovery boxes don't work, but then they require them for some species because they work.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/17 08:07 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

This will tell you where flows are and hit the rain forecast 240 hr button to see what is coming. Sat is biggy but flows drop back down fast. Ground is still soaking up a bunch.

Flows graphed up. Just cursor the dots.
https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/17 08:30 AM

Rivrguy,

Thanks for the update on Twin Harbors activity. It's depressing that this kind of oversight of WDFW is necessary.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/17 09:06 AM

Salmo

If WDFW is willing to do what they are doing in GH/WB where they know they have this kind of oversight and a long losing streak in Court then just what are they doing in other, less (shall we say) open forums where the stakeholders don't take them to court?

Very discouraging.........They can (or could have) do better.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/17 07:26 PM



grrrrrrrrrrr WDFW back to the "old days", when they did things behind closed doors and kept the public in the dark just as much as they could.

It is a sad time when the public has to have a lawyer to deal with many issues that affect a "public resource".
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/17 07:58 PM

Fortunately, some are willing to call WDFW on it. I think their belief is that the injured won't sue and play that as long as they can.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/17 09:37 PM

But the big question is...did anyone go fishing today?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/17 04:44 AM

Did but lower tide had mud from waves and storm. Did not see many fish and I think things are going to be slow. Problem is trying to figure runs coming straight through the bay and 30 miles up river in a day or two is a bitch.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/17 06:51 AM

Upper trib I fished was loaded. Only saw one boat go by. They went down and pulled plugs. The did very good. Water was on the drop and they were bitting.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/17 08:10 AM

OK this bit is from being around fish for 30 years and a bit of strange behavior they have. Looking at the river this morning it is a black color which is good. The thing is Coho move in strange ways and this year certainly jumped in that pot but always and I mean always do one thing. Irregardless of when they enter the bay they do not make a move to the spawning grounds until the rains ( we call it the beaver pond dump ) and that black acidic water that is carrying the build up in the ground and ponds of the byproducts of summer which simply looks black. Well from someplace a lot made the middle tidewater today and from this point on no staging folks. The 3 plus inches forecast today should finish it off but the Chehalis is graphed to drop hard to average or below average flows.

So we will fish moving fish not staging ( unless it gets really cold which is unlikely ) on dropping flows. This year has been a good inland year and if the forecast holds it looks to continue. Just put your cursor on the dots in the Chehalis watershed to see. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/



Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/17 10:21 AM

The posted 2 day tribal results for week 41 are interesting.

Chinook at 159% of the model plan
coho at 108%
chum at 129%

My experience was pitiful prior to the nets going in. I released more Chinook than any prior year and caught fewer coho than most years. I thought the coho run had crashed but the nets say it is close to the model predicted run size.

On the Hump side for two weeks the tribal Chinook are at 167% of plan, coho 74%, and chum 25%.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/17 02:23 PM

No signs of moving fish on the short stretch I sampled with buddies today. Quit at noon with only one bite.... and that was with 6 rods deployed with our finest swimmers. River has turned and is back on the rise.

Gonna low hole ALL of you tmro.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/17 09:29 AM

This looks better ( cursor on dot ), sorta. Remember that the Chehalis water at top end is four days to Aberdeen. So the Satsop & Nooch are falling like a rock and clearing but it will not be enough to mello out the Chehalis for a couple of days. At this minute in tidewater it is still major mud. Ten day forecast says no rain so it is a waiting game. The upper Chehalis also clears up fast but it is the four day thing slows you down but one thing is for sure is it will clear fast when the nasty water passes.

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/17 09:58 AM

Although it really wasn't flow related (it was but temp dominated) we once had 200 coho hold in a hole downstream of our trap from November to late January. Year of a freeze, creek was flowing at 31 degrees. They waited until the thaw hit, ice melted, flows went up. Then, boiled out of the hole and spawned and died within a week. They can hold until their conditions are met.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/17 07:25 AM

I checked the hatchery rack returns for Coho ending the 28th. Last year the combined Bingham & Springs return was around 11k at this time and this year same time 4k but wild about the same into the trap which are passed upstream except for those added into the hatchery eggtake for genetics. All BS aside I really do not think one should think it will improve as this year this was after rain and last year before. Me thinks the late guys which under perform the normal timed will be scarce.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/17 07:45 AM

Really seems like the bulk of the run bolted for spawning gravel and hatcheries as soon as the rain finally hit. Not many coho being caught in the tribs. Middle Chehalis might? be better. I saw several boats at Porter yesterday, but I didn't get any reports.

So, it looks like the hatchery run is well under forecast, but the wild run us about on schedule. Wonder why the hatchery fish did so poorly. Badly-timed outmigration?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/17 08:25 AM

2017 adults are the progeny of the 2014 parental brood. That WAS a good coho escapement year throughout the PNW.

BUT.....

Freshwater juveniles emerging from the gravel had to endure the ultra warm and low flows of the 2015 summer heatwave. That wiped out a significant portion of the freshwater life stage. Only the toughest bad-ass fry could survive that first year in the river.

The very same fish then smolted in the spring of 2016 where they found a warm ocean devoid of lipid-rich copepods and a plethora of invasive predators expanding their reach into the warmer sea surface.... thanks to a warm phase PDO that has persisted for nearly the past 4 years.

So in the end, final adult recruitment from the mega-brood of 2014 was bound to be poor (whether hatchery or wild). The only bright spot? Fewer fish sharing the same limited pasture allowed the remaining bad-ass survivors to grow with less competition to a very nice size once they were large enough to chase bigger prey items like baitfish and squid.














That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/17 10:09 AM

Hey! You just had to poke us in the "eye" with all that chrome! LOL!!

Good to see my friend, good to see!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/17 10:11 AM


After harvest the hatchery escapement was supposed to be around 16k. This includeds the 600k of late Coho released from Bingham and Skook so those adults are part of the 16k. This mirrors Willapa hatchery Chinook this year also but not sure on Coho but drastically lower than expected returns this year also.

Thing is the QIN had the returns well below the agencies numbers as they use a ocean driven model and WDF&W uses a more traditional data set. They compromised in the middle and it looks like the second year now that the QIN manner is better than the states. In Willapa the forecast was pure state and it appears they have some work to do.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/17 11:31 AM

Any chance we can convince WDFW to adopt the Tribe's predictilator? That would get us all marching to the beat of the same drum, if nothing else, and it seems like it will yield better forecasts.

That the Tribe's model focuses on ocean conditions makes a ton of sense, because that does seem to be, by far, the most important piece of the habitat puzzle. As eyeFISH points out, the 2014 brood was enormous, but even a huge escapement like that is nullified by poor ocean conditions, as we've seen this year. Honestly, while I frequently question how low our current escapement goals are set, I must admit that as low as they are, they can provide good fishing when the ocean cooperates. What's really great is when neither the Tribe nor WDFW predicts a huge return, but we end up getting one. That's what makes for the quality of fishing we all wish we could enjoy more often. It's more than a little frustrating to realize that when we have great fishing in the rivers, it's viewed as a missed opportunity for more commercial harvest.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/17 01:09 PM

The pre-season process is "supposed" to reach an agreed-upon forecast. Sometimes in the past the Tribes PSF was higher. It is a negotiated process.

If you take the lower PSF you get much less ocean fishing.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/17 01:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The pre-season process is "supposed" to reach an agreed-upon forecast. Sometimes in the past the Tribes PSF was higher. It is a negotiated process.

If you take the lower PSF you get much less ocean fishing.


Got it. Does explain a thing or two....
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/17 02:11 PM

WDFW and QIN gillnet landings for 2A/2D thru the end of October have been published. The EXPECTED combined net catches from both fleets was 9691 but ACTUAL catch fell considerably short (by about a quarter) at 7388 to date.

Assuming the fishery takes proportional bites out of the entire run during each stat week, and the return showed up with historic average run-timing, one can conclude that nearly a quarter of the coho run-size forecast is MIA.

If you scroll back to page 71 of this thread (yeah, it's that FRIGGIN' long!) some of you might recall the giant chasm between the QIN wild coho forecast (29K) and the WDFW wild coho forecast (109K). They settled the cavernous gap at a "technically agreed to" run-size of 41K wild coho.

If you remove the quarter of the PSF that failed to show up, the in-season run-size projection is much closer to 30K at this point in time.

In hindsight, it turns out the tribe coho forecast was just about SPOT ON. The state forecast not so much.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/17 02:20 PM

By catch stats, the Chehalis coho run came in slightly early with peak catches occurring in stat week 42 rather than week 43. (it was the only week that catches exceeded expectation). Those participating (and monitoring) were optimistic that the good catches would be a sign of a stronger than expected run, but the coming weeks made it clear there was NO STEAM behind the early returns.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/17 02:30 PM

By similar analysis of run-size projection based on in-season gillnet catches, the king run is pretty much on par with preseason expectations.

In contrast, nearly a third of the Chehalis chum run appears to be MIA. The early push of fish was tracking well, then the tribe numbers tanked in their third week of fishing... falling 70% short of expectation.

State nets were intentionally planted on the peak week of the chum run (Halloween) at which time they took over half again as many fish as expected.

Combined QIN/WDFW chum catches in aggregate are nearly one-third less than expected.

Even with last weeks surge in catch, there was no surge of chum in the tidal Chehalis where watchful eyes have been monitoring fish movement the past week. They ain't there.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/17 02:48 PM

But we got the fisheries in. That's Job 1.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/17 04:37 AM

I think Doc got it pretty close but there are a couple of interesting things still out and about. Chum are still moving up the last few days in numbers to. I say that because I can see then finning around at high slack at the house. Another change, they are dark in tidewater now and that is different. I doubt it fills the low numbers but they look to be improving.

The real oddball is hatchery Coho. The run was forecast at about 16k after harvest to the hatchery rack. Wishkaw numbers are not up but the rest add up to 5516 ( 1k for Wishkah added to the number ). The 600k of late smolt release is in the numbers but it only goes to Dec 1 and lates under perform normal timed so I do not see that gap being filled. So let us say that the backside of the normal timed picks up some lates and the remaining normals do as the early part of the run. So for the sake of discussion lets say the number is 2.5k and that will give you 8k plus change at the rack. The results are a hatchery return of around 50% of forecast.

So now take Doc's view with harvest and hatchery factor in the lower hatchery return ( wild Coho were forecast around 41k and 25k hatchery ). You get a the good chance that wild Coho are doing under expectations but better than harvest alone says they are. The flip side is hatchery Coho way under performed resulting in a higher proportion of wild in all catches.

So my bet is around escapement for everything but late Coho with the plus or minus around 10%.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/17 06:44 PM

What a beautiful day to be on the river.......finally had a good day, 2 very nice male silvers.....both 14 - 16 pounds, the wild Coho jumped 4 times, cleared the water on all jumps.

Then to top my day off, got home......found a bunch of cleaned razor clams on my front porch. I haven't cooked razor clams in 40+ years BUT the internet is full of recipes......I have flower, Panko, eggs, seasonings, and a cast iron pan to cook them in......EVERY recipe said "hot oil/butter, don't over cook".......I can do that

Thanks for the clams, whoever you are!!!!!!!!

4 days of NT netting...........grrrrrrrrrrrrr send them to Willapa Bay...
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/17 07:58 PM

Willipa can't handle nets right now. There are NO coho showing up in the river. 10 trips 0 coho, no one I talk to catching coho...nothing.

(granted, I'm only fishing for 3 hours while my son is in therapy, but still, 10 trips is enough to figure it out).

Also, I don't suck at catching fish. Plenty of old kings and chum in there to keep a person occupied, had many "bobber downs" and managed to land a few this evening in fact. If people are catching kings and chums...then why aren't they catching any coho? Because they aren't showing up, or shot straight to forks creek with some of the rain.

Im not advocating for nets in GH either, far from it. They need to just shut down NT gill netting...period.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/07/17 07:36 AM


Hey Doc I remember a NOAA paper back some that said if one factored all Chinook mortalities in the % was around 84 to 86%. I lost the thing among 10k of stuff over time but if I recall correctly the non directed ( draggers ect. ) were a estimate.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/17 06:38 AM

Well as things wind down to a high water pause in the action I took a look at the numbers so far and a little strange to say the least. On the Chehalis side the hatchery rack reports ( all five Chehalis facilities Hump not included ) have 7463 so far. Combined NT & QIN harvest is 1678 Chin / 7160 Chum / 7388 Coho with this bit. The Chehalis tribe will add around 2000 Coho to harvest and a few Chinook & Chum.

So the forecast Coho rack return was 28895 & thus far 7463 which is not that hot to say the least. The harvest by NT & QIN was 7388 combined and the forecast was 11K and change which gives us a total of around 18K know handled fish. ( keep in mind the REC harvest still has to be counted ) The thing at this point is that the REC was modeled at around 5K harvest but that number is always questionable due to how things are reported. It does give one a peek at the landscape though. The Coho run failed at the hatcheries which in turn put a higher proportion of NOR ( wild ) in the catch. The Commercial harvest was well below expectation but that means the Commercial ( and REC ) had a much higher proportion of wild in the catch. As strange as it sounds that is good news as it will tilt the final spawner number to the fishes favor. The question is how much? No idea here.

Chinook look to be performing slightly above forecast in QIN / NT impacts but one must wait for redd counts as the REC C&R has one big hunk of impacts. Time will tell.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/17 07:44 AM

On the Willapa it plays out somewhat differently. Chinook were Forks 6733 / Naselle 3266 / Nemah 3120 at the rack for a total of 13199. Forecasted was 19460 after harvest. Commercial harvest was predicted to be 5903 for Chinook and landings show 2922 which is not good. 6733 at Forks Cr is better but under forecast of 9227. Nemah was forecast at 2322 but got 3120. Naselle forecast 7900 and at the rack 3266. The projected harvest was 5903 and ended up at 2922 so it is not a leap to say the hatchery rack numbers were as high as they were due to the fact the Commercials catch was way down from prediction. By the time all the numbers are imputed I imagine the hatchery Chinook are going to be close to 60% of forecast. I think I am going to owe somebody lunch as I stuck with 50% of forecast.

Coho numbers do not appear to be all that hot either. Predicted NOR 34425 & HOR 46239. The rack reports have HOR at 3559 and that is a total failure on the hatchery side. The Commercials were supposed to catch around 20K of both H&W but got around 3391 which pretty much puts a fork in the question of how much short we are. Way short and frankly guys it is all about redd counts now as harvest and rack reports are only two legs of the four legged stool with redds being number three and two years out the fourth when the run reconstruction is done with all impacts and escapement.

Bottom line is this year seriously sucked for the fish and us.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/17 02:17 PM

As of Nov 11 the commercial salmon harvest in Grays Harbor area 2A/2D is nearly over except for the late QIN schedule. When the total commercial harvest is compared to the model it would appear that the Chinook run size prediction was spot on and the actual chum and coho run sizes were only 75% of the plan.

If this estimate is correct then the Chinook, coho, and chum run sizes were only 5-10% above the escapement goal. The commercial harvest alone will likely cause all three to fail to make escapement. This would suggest that there should have been little or no harvest this year by any group. What a sad situation.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/17 11:42 AM

Plan, model, guess........This has been a year of "low water", "high water", then lots of water.....Gill nets had a chance to be in at scheduled times---NT and QIN chose not to fish at certain times, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE !!!

This is a year of "if you're not fishing, for whatever reason".....you probably missed out !!!!!

We'll not really ever know if the run size was, low, regular, or high. WDFW does monitor a few NT boats, for hatchery vs. wild but don't think the QIN does anything, record keeping wise, about hatchery and wild numbers.

We know what a joke sports numbers are....

1. Data takes a least a year to compile

2. Less than 50% of the punch cards are returned.

At some point, some report will be released but how accurate....that's anyone's guess.

One thing for sure....11/20/2017....Seahawks are on Monday night football......Go Hawks !!!!!!!!


Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/17 01:06 PM

The sport catch record system has gone significant reviews for at least 40 years. It is probably the best system possible, given how much money is available. Could it be better? Probably. At a significant increase in cost. You get what you pay for.

Another aspect is that we are all (rec, commercial, treaty) fishing to a number, regardless of the biological or ecological impact. The mindset is to get that number now. Caution and conservative management are not rewarded. If more fish show on the grounds or at the hatchery rack there is a cry "you should have given us more days, higher limits, etc.". Ultimately, we have created a system where each fish has the name of a harvester on it and they must be harvested.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/22/17 09:20 AM

Had to think on this one a bit. SB I used to feel the same way as you do, used to. Now not so much. The state and feds authorize harvest to the max in the marine then if things are short shut down terminal & river fisheries for conservation. What conservation? The land owners that foot the bill do not think screwing over their friends and neighbors is fair. The Rec who supports and pays the most bills does not get a fair shake. So SB not NO but Hell No because this will only allow to the managers to hide in anonymity. Everybody fishes or nobody fishes as the way things are done now to hide from view the actual decision process ( outside the PFMC / NOF dog and pony show ) so nobody is accountable. So nope, nada, not a chance it is time the prime time lights come on to force this BS out in the open.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/22/17 02:17 PM

Final WB comm report distributed today shows baywide coho catch was 23% of expected. Some of this was clearly driven by effort (lack thereof when folks KNOW fishing sucks!) but the catch shortfall still speaks volumes about runsize, regardless.

Final chinook comm catch report shows total baywide harvest at 50% of expected.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/22/17 03:15 PM

There's still fish to catch. let's open it 24/7.

Isn't that what they do when there are fish still "to be caught" in the ocean?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/17 01:38 PM

Thought I'd share this graphic of historic aggregate GH chinook escapement performance relative to goal.



Emphasis on AGGREGATE basin wide goal (Hump plus Chehalis combined). Note that the goal has only been met once in the past 5 years... even with the CTC-approved e-goal reduction approved in 2014.

Of particular significance is year 2012... which was the first year of the modern-day MEGA wave of big regional returns from north-migrating chinook stocks. Yet GH somehow still failed to make goal. Why? Because the exploitation rate on GH chinook that year was 86%.

You heard it right.... 86% mortality directly attributable to fishing. Enough to finally put GH on the radar at PFMC as a stock subjected to overfishing (ER > 78%).

So putting this into bigger perspective, the escapement of just under 14K that year represented only 14% of the adult return (excluding any allowances for natural predation by marine mammals). Extrapolate that number and you get a run-size of 100K wild GH chinook!

100K!

The available chinook habitat in this basin is WAY MORE than capable of producing healthy returns of fall kings. It's just a matter of finding a fairer way of getting a few of them back for the home team.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/17 04:52 PM

Here's another example...

The graph shows the 2013 escapement at roughly 12K. PFMC showed an ER of 0.76 that year... meaning the 12K escapement represented 24% of the adult return. Do the proportionate math and you get an unfished adult run-size of 50K.

Wrap your mind around that for a second. A 50K adult return fails to meet the e-goal of 14.6K.

The horribly disjointed management of this stock permits over 3/4 of the adult return to be intentionally killed thru fisheries and ultimately fails to meet the basinwide MSY e-goal. More astounding yet is that GH is subsequently REMOVED from the official list of stocks subjected to "overfishing".... YGTBFK, right?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/17 05:11 PM

So it begs the question, "What level of exploitation would it actually take to consistently produce MSY escapements?"

I contend that it's gonna have to be a LOT less than 78%. How much less? Who knows.... but let's look at 2014 to get a better idea.

According to the graph, 2014 escapement was roughly 11.2K. ER that year was posted as 47%... meaning that the 11.2K represented 53% escapement. Total unfished run-size works out to 21K.

So at run sizes that small, getting down to a 50% exploitation isn't even enough to meet the e-goal.

..

In the setting of this stock chronically failing to meet the e-goal, having a fixed ER-benchmark of 78% before making an "overfishing" designation is utterly preposterous!

The allowable exploitation rate MUST be adjusted downward SIGNIFICANTLY. Moreover, it must be adjusted downward in PROGRESSIVE fashion at smaller run sizes.
Posted by: Keta

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/17 07:22 PM

How is the exploitation rate documented? Maybe the “expected “ fish where a miscalculation. Not challenging the validity,just clarification.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/17 07:59 PM

Chinook Technical Team is the number-crunching body for the Pacific Salmon Commission/Treaty.

Their analysis is the result of inputs from local fish managers up and down the entire West Coast from Alaska down to California. They produce an annual report documenting exploitation and escapements for most of the major salmon-producing arteries contributing to PST fisheries. While many others are available, here's their 2017 documentation....

http://www.psc.org/download/35/chinook-technical-committee/7949/tcchinook-17-1.pdf

http://www.psc.org/download/35/chinook-technical-committee/8195/tcchinook-17-2.pdf
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/17 09:18 PM

What makes anybody think that 14-15K is anywhere near adequate for GH???

There is so much available spawning area that goes unused.
Posted by: Keta

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/17 09:19 PM

Thanks for the links. Kind of sickening to see the actual numbers.

Here’s an interesting tidbit

Although Puget Sound indicator stocks have largely met their agency management objectives (i.e., exploitation rate ceilings) for the time period under consideration, none of them have CTC-approved escapement goals against which trends can be considered.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/17 11:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
What makes anybody think that 14-15K is anywhere near adequate for GH???

There is so much available spawning area that goes unused.


The current CTC-sanctioned goal ( an MSY goal derived by WDFW/QIN) actually has NOTHING to do with what the habitat can realistically support. It just happens to be the one that can sustain the MAXIMUM harvest possible.

But as we can all see from the data posted above, the PSC/PFMC/QIN/WDFW management structure lacks the discipline to stay within the level of exploitation necessary to achieve even that paltry MSY goal.

If I were Fish Czar Supreme for the day, and the management paradigm was somehow able to be conveniently switched from MSY to MSA (maximum sustainable abundance), we would likely see escapements in GH triple overnight.

Hey... if a guy's gonna dream, he might as well dream BIG!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/17 07:34 AM

Triple??? [Bleeeeep!], we're at 5-10% of pre-rape and pillage. Might not even be able to see much effect from tripling.

I bet that most folks think, as I did, that MSY management is somehow based on the biology and ecology of the fish. It is really nothing more than applying economics to fish. What is the MINIMUM investment I am forced to make in order to Maximize my returns. Kinda Wall Street view.

We were in "Fish Managers" training once and the instructor showed that by making a modest increase in escapement that harvest would be more consistent because managing to MSY (or anything) as a point should be missed low half the time. Most there argued against putting in the cushion since those were "harvestable" fish.

Another time, a group of us was trying to define OSG (Optimum EG) with optimum including a cushion, some ecological bennies, and so on. We just, at that time, couldn't come up with strong enough arguments as all the Stakeholders wanted every one of "their" fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/17 09:44 AM


Damn Doc we need more holidays so you can dumpster dive for facts! Good job guy. In this whole mess we have one saving grace. The Alaska & BC marine fisheries are mostly mixed stock and most is lower 48 bound fish which includes PS bound. Now this is soooooo bad in so many ways but the the saving grace part? Killer whales in PS as they have become dependent on PS Chinook to survive and the data is piling up as numbers spiral down. Sooner or later a judge is going to drop the hammer to stop the whale losses from nutrition then all hell breaks loose. PS your going to take the 10 count but for the coast of WA & OR it is the only thing that will force a change as noway nohow the managers stones to do so be it tribal, state, or Fed. It will take a decade or more to just undo the mess Mr. Anderson left and he still in the mix making a mess out of things. Again it will only stop when things get bad enough to force the courts hand. Sad but true.

Hey CM the changes in whales diet cause & effect?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/17 10:47 AM

Love the chinook discussion...

BUT...

Switching gears a sec to draw attention to chum. This piece from the 2014 policy... which is now close to its 4th Anniversary.... beyond initial lip-service seems to have been all but forgotten.

To promote improved management of chum salmon, the Department shall include in the 2015 annual review an evaluation of options to improve chum salmon stock assessments. The Department shall subsequently initiate in 2015 a review of the spawner goal for chum salmon.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/17 10:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

Damn Doc we need more holidays so you can dumpster dive for facts! Good job guy.


With the advent of ObamaCare, Medicare reform, and the loss of a local eye surgeon colleague in recent years, my real job has become something far bigger than full-time. The unfortunate casualty is less time to be fully engaged in fish management.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/17 01:21 PM

Recent works shows that the Pinnipeds (Yay Larry) are really chowing down on juvenile salmon. When the whales and pinnipeds are added together, they take more than humans. According to da Feds.

Apparently the SRKW's rely heavily on Chinook because , evolutionarily, they were big and abundant. Down here, we don't Have Chinook, and are working hard to eliminate the other species. The whales are rather fixed in their diets. We have also gotten rid of rockfish, cod, and who knows what else. Further north, the overall abundance of fish allows the whales access to food. Should be noted that Japanese whaling in the 50s resulted in the transient Killer Whales shifting to Sea Otter for a short time. That ended fast as there aren't enough otters to support many whales.

IF Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd get involved then maybe we will see some relief for fish down here. Too much money involved in the fisheries to actually restrict them meaningfully. Plus, those fish have to eat something and we are trying to harvest every little beastie we can find.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/17 01:23 PM

We know how many chum to at least start with as a goal. Since they are probably the foundation of the GH and WB ecosystems.

But, economic mamagement says their only value is ex-vessel so lets kill more.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/25/17 03:16 PM

Boy, we are a jaded bunch these days... And rightly so!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/17 10:32 AM

Yeah when the GHMP was adopted I and others had been all over there asses about the systematic elimination of Chum in the upper basin by fishing to MSY. As I recall they were going to study it and get back. I doubt if much was done with all the usual excuses. Now the one you will not hear is that staff at the policy level really and I mean really do not want to do that. I mean document and publish your failures? Not the WDF&W way. They are more rope a dope and wait for you to die or give up. Does not effect their pay in the least. Failure that is..
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/17 12:26 PM

Just trying to get some of this stuff back up on the front-burner and fresh in our advisors' minds as the Policy comes up for another annual review... BEFORE the NOF process starts in earnest.

We worked very hard to secure all of the elements of that Policy. It's just too easy to let the details fall by the wayside.

Anyone else see any critical issues that have been left behind?
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/17 01:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Recent works shows that the Pinnipeds (Yay Larry) are really chowing down on juvenile salmon. When the whales and pinnipeds are added together, they take more than humans. According to da Feds.


grin grin grin Always nice to be recognized!

Seriously, it is important to recognize ALL of the factors impacting recovery and that the loss to a wide variety of predators (not just pinnipeds) is having the most adverse impact. Conversely, it is also important to recognize that fishing is having a comparatively much smaller impact all factors considered.

That reality becomes even more critical when looking at how to significantly improve the availability of food for ESA listed Southern Resident orca.

Sure, many (non-fishers) will say to just further reduce or even eliminate harvest of Chinook; the low hanging fruit. Well, that fruit has been pretty well picked over and the predation problem persists or has become even more pronounced. The law of unintended consequences looms large; additional reductions of particularly recreational fisheries will further reduce license sales and the dollars necessary to operate hatcheries producing Orca food. I can hear the toilet flushing now.....

In its November 2017 edition The Reel News published an article entitled "Seven Keys to Unlocking our Fisheries" over Ron Garner's byline. In that article stats were provided showing that the Chinook output of Washington State hatcheries dropped from 23,302,293 in 1989 to 9,308,019 in 2016. That represents a drop of just over 60% in output in the face of increased predation.

Now, back to marine mammal predation in Puget Sound. Here is a link to a recent scientific article addressing the impact of four marine mammal predators: https://www.researchgate.net/publication...om_1970_-_2015.

Draw your own conclusions as to what needs to be done.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/17 03:58 PM

Actually, the first move should be the complete elimination of all marine mixed stock fisheries on Chinook. Allow the fish to grow to adulthood, achieving full age and size. That would immediately provide the whales with food. Habitat restoration will take many years to provide relief.

Doing so will cost some harvest. Only those fish that are actually eaten by the predators are lost. The rest will be available in the terminal fisheries. They will also be larger and they will require less fuel per pound harvested to capture.

If we actually want to recover the whales, that is likely the only way to do it as habitat recovery will take too long and more will starve/abort.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/17 04:49 PM

With the tribes increasingly owning there own hatcheries, at what point can they claim ownership of the fish. While some incidental catch should be expected, at what point can they demand an end to target fisheries or reimbursement for the cost of these fish? Just throwing a wish out there to stop some of the taking of our returning fish. For years we allowed open range practices, but still considered the cattle, if branded, to be in private ownership. I see no reason why the oceans should be that different.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/17 04:57 PM

Talk to Alaska and BC about that one. There were efforts in the 70s for "Ocean Ranching" and the free-range harvesters shut it down.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 10:44 AM

For whatever reason, the commercials have never been open to any changes to the way they fish. I personally believe the mixed stock fisheries protect all harvesters from any accountability when overfishing occurs, and that's why they like that paradigm so much. If they agree to go to terminal fisheries, how much a given group of harvesters can take will be limited by how much actually shows up in their terminal area (as it SHOULD be, but...). In the open ocean, everyone just fishes until quotas are met, and we can't tell how distinct runs are weathering fisheries until it's too late to make corrections. I think they like it that way and will fight to keep it that way until they fish themselves out of work.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 11:16 AM

That's the Business Model alright. Then, the Gubmint will bail them out with disaster relief because the lack of fish must be caused by some "Act of Gawd" in the black box known as the ocean.
Posted by: WN1A

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 11:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Larry B
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Recent works shows that the Pinnipeds (Yay Larry) are really chowing down on juvenile salmon. When the whales and pinnipeds are added together, they take more than humans. According to da Feds.


Now, back to marine mammal predation in Puget Sound. Here is a link to a recent scientific article addressing the impact of four marine mammal predators: https://www.researchgate.net/publication...om_1970_-_2015.

Draw your own conclusions as to what needs to be done.


I am adding a link to a just published paper that examines chinook mortality tradeoffs between fisheries harvest and marine mammal predation along the west coast of North America.. Chinook recovery may be going as well as it can, it is supporting an ever increasing number of mammal predators of all sorts. This paper didn't account for bycatch mortality in trawl fisheries and didn't look at the Bering Sea.

Marine Mammals and Chinook
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 11:55 AM

The marine mammals and birds don't have a choice as to what they eat. Most humans do. If we are unwilling to eliminate the marine mixed stock harvest, and this probably should include trawl based on what it appears to do the Yukon and other northern rivers, then we will have to kill the predators until their level balances with food supply and fishery removals.

Some sort of action is necessary if we want to avoid extinction of various animal species.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 04:54 PM

RG calls it dumpster diving, but I simply call it "data acquisition."

To quote a favorite Disney character, "It's what I do... it's what I live for."

So here's some historic evidence that the 100K GH 2012 fall chinook number I cited earlier is NOT a science fiction fantasy.

50-100K adult production from current habitat? Seriously?

Yah... you betcha! Look at what escapements in the 20-25K range could historically produce.



Except back then, they were virtually ALL caught in the terminal by locals instead of getting low-holed by AK/BC like they are today.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 05:31 PM

One of the really big holes in the above analysis is that the escapement for the teens is expected to be the same as the 80s.

There is no justification for that other than it can be used to support the current management.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 05:59 PM

Caught that footnote AFTER I posted the pic, CM

So yeah... the 22650 escapement number was "made up" for the 1910's dataset.

But ya gotta remember, they fished long and hard back then... 7 days a week for months at a time. It's certainly possible they were capable of fishing the runs down to escapements of 20-25K or even less.

Escapements of 23K producing runs of 70K is a recruit per spawner ratio that's barely over 3:1.... definitely in the realm of believable.

If true escapement was actually greater than 23K, it probably wasn't by much.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 07:10 PM

Perhaps. It will be used to justify high harvest rates. Also, the fish back then were older and larger. A female had more eggs. 20K in 1910 was radically different than 20K in 1980. Lots fewer eggs from the smaller fish, eggs buried shallower so more could be scoured on a given freshet.

Just disappoints me that rather made-up numbers will be used to justify current management.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 07:39 PM

Run size is an interesting term that may lead the reader to think it represents the number of fish in the run. The data eyeFISH shows clearly states that it is the harvest plus escapement. The older data is only the non tribal gill net harvest plus escapement. In this case it is shown as 78,901 in the late 1980's and 70,670 in the teen years.

There are a lot of fish that are not considered to be part of the run size. In the 1980's data there is no release mortality, no net drop out, no drop off, no pinniped harvest, and no ocean harvest. The data for the teen years also ignores tribal and recreational harvest. These missing fish could easily amount to another 30,000 actual fish produced by the 22,650 fish escapement.

A couple of years ago when 2-3% net drop out was added to the model, all the historic run sizes had to be increased.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 09:40 PM

When I was managing, the PS data bases we used were escapement plus PS net catch. Canadian, all hook and line, Alaskan were all excluded.

There are actually very few "data bases" that I am aware of that have the complete catch and fishery induced mortality included. Plus, even fewer have an annual analysis of the catch by stock so that broad assumptions are used for stock distribution.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/17 09:49 PM

While on the subject of catch accounting, I have been unable to find any coastal creel reports for GH this year.

Typically the creel crew reports on Westport, Johns River, 28th St, Cosmopolis, South Montesano, and Fuller ramps. This year? No report!

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/reports_plants.html

Mebbe one of you knows where else to look, or perhaps there was a staff oversight in posting to the WDFW website?

Or mebbe they simply didn't do it?

I had occasion to launch at WP, Johns, 28th, S Monte, and Fuller.... ZERO checkers encountered outside of WP.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/17 06:31 AM

eyeFish, I have also been unsuccessful at finding creel count data this year. In my opinion the reason is that there were no creel counters. At least I never encountered one in my 17 trips to Monte, Cosi, and 28th street. Several others who fish often also noted the absence.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/17 06:38 AM

With apologies to Dr Emmett Brown " Data? We don't need no stinking data".
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/17 01:22 PM

This whole fish accounting thing is interesting. When Managers only work with estimates of harvest plus escapement as a measure of run size they are assuming all other uncounted fish losses are a constant percentage of the run from year to year. Over the long term this must be a bad assumption relative to Canadian and Alaskan harvest of Washington fish.

In the short term, pinniped harvest seems to have escalated. This year in the Chehalis there were more animals that were smarter and more aggressive than I have ever seen before. I observed a number of chinook being taken by pinnipeds while being played. I also noticed that seals and sea lions appeared out of no where to chase and often successfully grab a released fish. Once I tried to recover a natural origin coho prior to release and had it taken out of my hand by a large seal. I am starting to think that released fish have a substantial pinniped mortality possibly greater than 50%.

Pinnipeds are certainly a problem for gill nets as well. A tribal fisherman fishing above Cosi claimed that he boated six fish out of 47 net encounters. Sea lions took the missing fish. My own observations suggest that 20% of drift net encounters are taken by pinnipeds and perhaps 50% of set net encounters meet the same fate.

If pinniped harvest is increasing, then run size estimates based on harvest plus escapement should be expected to overestimate the predicted run size. They would also be expected to overestimate escapement. Since WDFW will not consider modeling a conservative run size estimate reduction and plans to harvest every theoretically available fish, one would expect regular failures to meet escapement goals. How can this be good management?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/17 02:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Soft bite
eyeFish, I have also been unsuccessful at finding creel count data this year. In my opinion the reason is that there were no creel counters. At least I never encountered one in my 17 trips to Monte, Cosi, and 28th street. Several others who fish often also noted the absence.


WDFW answer will be.....NO MONEY.......but it tells me that whomever does budget for Region 6, this is not a very important item.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/17 02:20 PM

Soft Bite and others....

QIN netters have a netting schedule right now:

11/26, 27, 28, 29 and then 12/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

I went to town yesterday, just to watch the "only net I saw", one on South side of river, by Swanson's.

1 young person was watching net ????? but he was also chatting with person sitting in vehicle.....cork line started bobbing, he continued to chat for a while....then went down to shove boat off.....WELL in that short period of time....sea lion came over, rolled over cork line, grabbed fish, went back over cork line, put on quite a show on "killing the salmon".....barked a few times, as if to say, "thanks for lunch, can I have another"???

Never saw any seals, yesterday, but there were 2 sea lions......

Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/17 04:10 PM

Assuming constant interceptions, even back then, was wrong from a biological sense but "worked" from an allocation and even conservation.

Escapement should be measured independently so removals by predators (pre spawn) has no effect on the escapement estimate. There are enough problems with how they do escapements anyway, but that's another whole thread.

Net dropout and release mortality should be included. They should be more or less real and not just "agreed-to".

Seals have increased and have learned to fish. In the 80s there were some I knew of in Dungeness Bay that actively fished gillnets.

IF achievement of the escapement target is the primary goal then fished planning starts with a run size, subtracts ALL mortalities, and when the harvestable number is accounted for the fishery is closed. We used to have net dropout as a number. That came off harvest. It can be done, but the short term would mean reductions in fisheries.

Just ask Rivrfshr what would happen to some gill net fisheries if the actual release mortality was accounted for as it occurred.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/17 04:30 PM

I would add that i the late 80s an accounting model was being developed for PS. It would have clearly included net dropout and I think pinniped predation. Was going to have more stocks, better estimates of timing, etc. Don't know what happened to it.
Posted by: Sol Duc

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/17 05:51 PM

I hate that word " Harvesting" when it comes to fish. fishy
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/29/17 06:41 AM


Change of pace for a minute. I received this twice now so I thought some would find it helpful. Simply put WDFW is trying to get it website functioning better.

From: WDFW Web Project (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 11:20 AM
To: DFW DL WDFW Staff <DFWDLWDFWSTAFF@dfw.wa.gov>
Subject: Help us distribute a website study by Dec. 5

To all staff:

We are conducting a follow up study this week to test the preliminary organization of our new website. We did a similar study earlier this month, and we appreciate everyone who encouraged others to participate. After making changes based on results from the first round of testing, we are doing this second online study to help validate the effectiveness of the site structure.

Using a simplified set of website topics and subtopics, study participants will identify where they think specific information would be located. We want to ensure the new site structure makes sense for current website users as well as first-time visitors.

Please help us distribute this revised study to anyone interested in Washington's outdoors. We are specifically looking for responses from people who aren't avid hunters or anglers. Please forward the study link to friends, family, external colleagues, outdoor organizations, and educators, and encourage them to take the study by Tuesday, December 5.

Please refrain from taking the study yourself as we expect to have other ways for staff to provide feedback in the near future.

Link to the study: https://anthrotech.optimalworkshop.com/treejack/wdfw2

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact me at james.blum@dfw.wa.gov<mailto:james.blum@dfw.wa.gov> or 360-902-2232. Website redesign project information is also available on the SharePoint project page<https://shared.sp.wa.gov/sites/dfw/DO/StaffComm/External_Site_Design/SitePages/Home.aspx>.

Sincerely,

Jim Blum
Website Redesign Project Manager
Posted by: wsu

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/17 08:54 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Thought I'd share this graphic of historic aggregate GH chinook escapement performance relative to goal.



Emphasis on AGGREGATE basin wide goal (Hump plus Chehalis combined). Note that the goal has only been met once in the past 5 years... even with the CTC-approved e-goal reduction approved in 2014.

Of particular significance is year 2012... which was the first year of the modern-day MEGA wave of big regional returns from north-migrating chinook stocks. Yet GH somehow still failed to make goal. Why? Because the exploitation rate on GH chinook that year was 86%.

You heard it right.... 86% mortality directly attributable to fishing. Enough to finally put GH on the radar at PFMC as a stock subjected to overfishing (ER > 78%).

So putting this into bigger perspective, the escapement of just under 14K that year represented only 14% of the adult return (excluding any allowances for natural predation by marine mammals). Extrapolate that number and you get a run-size of 100K wild GH chinook!

100K!

The available chinook habitat in this basin is WAY MORE than capable of producing healthy returns of fall kings. It's just a matter of finding a fairer way of getting a few of them back for the home team.


Do you know where to find the location of the harvest (meaning ak or be or elsewhere)?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/18 04:54 AM


Thought I would post this up for folks watching Willapa. Tim, Ron & Art have pretty much stayed right on the Willapa policy as the agency has a rather short memory as to what words mean let alone what a paragraph was intended to portray.




January 2, 2018

Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855 thfwa@comcast.net


To: The Members of the WDFW Commission via: email in PDF format Re: Response to Department Presentation and Comments on Willapa Bay
The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy and members of the public have invested thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars into the development of the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C-3622). We offer the following comments regarding the presentation provided the Commission by Region 6 Fish Program Manager Annette Hoffman during the regular meeting on Saturday, Decem- ber 9, 2017.

First, the presentation was smoothly delivered and contained numerous tables, charts and graphs. How- ever, unless a person was very familiar with the data and history in Willapa Bay, we believe the public could come away from the presentation under false or inaccurate impressions.

The Willapa Bay Policy states:

Purpose
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.

The presentation by the Department was vague at best about conservation, restoration of wild salmon, or our progress in avoiding ESA. Conservation over harvest does not appear to be a Department priority when one viewed the presentation.

In the week following the presentation to the Commission, Ms. Hoffman offered the first conference call of the season with the Willapa Bay Advisors. The outcome was the Advisors were told the Department would likely fail to reach escapement goals on natural spawning Chinook, Coho, and Chum in Willapa Bay in 2017. The Department either did or, should have known, this fact at the time of the presentatio Many in the public had come to that conclusion over a month earlier. Zero for three on reaching natural spawning escapement deserved prominent notice in the presentation.

To further understand the conservation problems in Willapa Bay, turn to hatchery egg take which is the lowest performance bar one could establish. The Department missed hatchery egg take for Chinook.
Then, Chum too if not for efforts to “mine the gravel” as Chum were snagged or dip netted in the spawn- ing grounds of other streams and transported back to the hatcheries. Now comes an emergency rule cutting rec bag limits down to the minimum (1 clipped Coho) on January 1st. The reason provided was
a fear the Department would not make hatchery egg take on Coho either. Without mining for Chum, the Department seems to be approaching zero for six on reaching escapement goals. Is it possible to get any worse than that?

How could such a result not be included in the presentation? Advisors in the conference call asked this very question of Ms. Hoffman and were told the data was all in there, you just have to add up the dif- ferent numbers. The response was “Do you think it is appropriate to expect the members of the Com-

mission to figure out how to do that (paraphrasing)? Since the priority is conservation first and harvest second, zero for six should have made it into the presentation. The fact the Department failed to point out the failure to reach escapement goals in it’s annual review in a clear and precise fashion is telling on its own. Neither members of the public or members of the Commission should be required to retain a forensic accountant to figure out success and failure in reaching escapement goals in Willapa Bay.

Perhaps the most alarming factor to many viewing the presentation to the Commission was some of the comments offered by Ms. Hoffman. It seemed to many present that she was somehow trying to claim the only major problem facing us in 2018 was “Allocation of Available Impacts” (See Slide #21). Then, her comments left many with the belief she was promoting the notion that the recreational sector had exceeded the share of the catch the Commission intended when passing the policy. Recognizing Ms.
Hoffman was stationed in Region 4 and not present during the passage of the policy, we can not find a source for this claim on the public record and the Advocacy members attended every Ad Hoc Meeting and Commission meeting wherein the policy was discussed.

Regardless, the facts are again telling. When one compares the impacts (fish killed) by the recs and nets bay wide the impression recs were somehow exceeding the commission expectation by a factor of two is clearly debunked. Using the data in the Dept’s Excel spreadsheet filed with passage of the commercial

Willapa Chinook NOR Impacts (Bay Wide)
Year Nets Recs Net % Recs %
2014 2,553 205 92.6% 0.074
2015 606 243 71.4% 0.286
2016 385 149 72.1% 0.279
Total #s Average % 3,544 596 78.7% 21.3%

season in WB in 2017, the Advocacy found the last three years wherein data is available for both sectors (2017 rec data is not available at this time). The impacts on Chinook natural origin spawners (NORs) provided the commercial nets averaged 78.7% of the total bay wide terminal impacts and the rec sec- tor averaged 21.3%. It is noteworthy that the policy establishes a rec priority for Chinook and the same for the nets on Coho and Chum. The one with the priority gets to use all the available impacts and any remainder goes to the other. How does the recs historically taking only 21% of the impacts align with Ms. Hoffman’s comments that they somehow were using twice the impacts as intended by the Commis- sion when the policy was passed?

In fact, Ms. Hoffman’s comments are contrary to the actual language of the policy which states:

4. Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:

a) Achieve spawner goals for the North, Naselle, and Willapa stocks of natural-origin Chinook and hatchery reform broodstock objectives through the two phase rebuilding program described above.

b) Provide for an enhanced recreational fishing season. The impact rate of the recreational fishery is anticipated to be ~3.2% during the initial years of the policy, but may increase in subsequent years to provide for an enhanced recreational season as described below:

c) Manage Chinook salmon for an enhanced recreational fishing season to increase participation and/ or catch including consideration of increased daily limits, earlier openings, multiple rods, and other measures.

d) Conservation actions, as necessary, shall be shared equally between marine and freshwater fisheries.

e) Provide opportunities for commercial fisheries within the remaining available fishery impacts.

As for increasing the rec impacts in the future, clearly the Commission not only recognized but encour- age this to happen. While the increase occurred faster than some thought would the case, it is important to note that the declining rec opportunities statewide and the Departments fishing reports, etc. led to an increased pressure as WB was promoted as the best opportunity for recreational license holders. The result was the local community shared with the rest of the state the resource which encourages license sales by the Department. It is time to insert the old saying “No good deed ever goes unpunished”?

Prior calculations used the actual impacts and the percentage of the impacts between sectors. The Harvest Rate is a percentage of the fish killed compared to the runsize. Reviewing the Department’s presentation, slide #10 shows the harvest rate of the recs on the Willapa Bay (marine)@ 9.6%, Willapa River @ 14.9%, and Naselle River @6.1%. The font for the Willapa River is set in red as if to point out this is a problem (rec sector taking more than anticipated?).

Returning to the spreadsheet utilized by the Department to set the seasons in 2017, the data does not sup- port the impression recs in the north have somehow overpowered commercial fishing. From 2014-2016 the nets took an annual average of 1,181 Chinook impacts (bay wide) and the recs in the marine and freshwater up north took 150. Would a transfer of impacts from the northern rec sector provide an eco- nomic surge for the nets? Hardly, unless one terminated rec fishing in the north nearly entirely. One can now see why those who understood the implications of Ms. Hoffman’s comments immediately became alarmed over the future of recreational fishing in WB, especially in the north.

What would be the purpose of the Department seeking to convince the Commission to shift impacts from the rec sector to the commercial sector? The most logical answer the Advocacy could develop is the Department is seeking to transfer rec pole impacts to the commercial sector to allow use of non- selective gillnets during Coho run time. The use of gillnets over the more-selective tangle net would
increase the mortality on the late portion of the Chinook NORs mixed in with the Coho requiring extra Chinook impacts from somewhere. Where does the Department look for them? In the north where most of recreational fishing occurs seems to be the direction the Department is headed.

The Advocacy tries to avoid allocation battles and maintains the belief that a dead fish is a dead fish re- gardless of the gear type used to kill it. However, moving the impacts from the most selective (pole) to the least selective gear (gillnet) is punishing those who have adopted selective fishing. Certainly not an effort to improve conservation performance and ironically, would likely prove be the equivalent of “put- ting a Band-Aid on an open chest wound” for the commercials. Further, it is contrary to the language of the Policy which directs the Department to: “Pursue implementation of additional mark-selective com- mercial fishing gear to enhance conservation and provide harvest opportunities”. The Policy does not contain a provision calling for transfering rec impacts to the commercial sector so the Deptartment can provided additional harvest opportunities for non-selective gears.

The economic reality of commercial fishing is not based on who gets the larger portion of the impacts as

Page 4, Commission Presentation by Dept
shown on a computer model (effect of moving impacts). That just gets them a few extra days of the season or increasing the use of non-selective gillnets over tangle nets during season adoption in NOF. Rather, it is primarily the run-size coming back into the Bay that puts fish in the boat and makes both sectors “winners or losers”.

As we pointed out in our comments to the commission following the presentation, the commer- cial sector caught 198 less Chinook this year than landed the previous year. The Coho crash in 2017 resulted in a drop of 14,729 from the previous year. Clearly, it wasn’t Chinook that broke the bank this year and neither was it using more selective tangle nets. Rather, it was the simple fact that Coho were in such small numbers the commercials stayed home many of the days when they were able to fish.

Are the smaller runs the result of passage of the policy? No. The small run sizes in 2017 are the results of “sins of days passed” under the management schemes used prior to the passage of the policy wherein the gillnet dominated the Bay. As a result, we’ve failed to make escapement goals 7 years in a row. For Coho, which were thought to be in the best shape, we’ve missed escapement goals 2 out the last 3 years. Then in a Bay which historically had huge runs of Chum which were the backbone of commercial fishing, we’ve failed to reach escapement goals 11 out of the last 13 years. It is important to note that the Advocacy and many who have studied WB fear the runsizes have yet to bottom out. Runs will likely decline even further due to low ocean productivity, warmer climates, and the continuing failure to meet escapement goals.

Recently, the Court soundly rejected the assertion by the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association that a gillnet license holder’s profit margins are on an equal par with the state’s duty to manage for conservation. At this point, one wonders if the Department listened to its own successful argu- ments in that case. Regardless, it’s time for the Department Senior management to realize it can not provide harvesters with fish that are not in the water. Rather than continuing to open up old allocation wounds, the Department needs to address the conservation problems and take mea- sures that restore the run sizes.

In closing, the Advocacy sincerely hopes that the Commission will allow the public time to digest the content and comment on presentations from the Department related to the Willapa Bay Salmon Policy before reaching mindsets or adopting positions on requested actions. As one Commissioner noted last meeting, it is very difficult to respond quickly in 3 minutes at the mike. The Commission Members have similar challenges. We would point to that old saying on the radio of “Now.......for the rest of the story.”

Respectfully,
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/18 09:18 PM

May as well add my Willapa Policy comments, too...

.
.
.


Commissioners:

I am deeply concerned about the way WDFW Fish Program and the Region 6 staff are implementing YOUR Willapa Bay Policy and the intellectually dishonest manner in which they attempt to hide their management failures from you…. THEIR BOSS!

A bit of historical context helps to set the stage.


Let’s start with the most fundamental conservation tenet of the Policy…. rebuilding a wild chinook population that historically has been ravaged by a century of harvest and hatchery abuses. Let’s be CLEAR that the primary impetus for crafting this Policy is recovering a healthy self-sustaining population of natural origin chinook in the basin. WDFW’s best scientific models predict that recovery to the agency’s natural origin escapement goal is possible within 16-21 years ONLY if harvest becomes more hatchery-selective AND releases of hatchery chinook are sufficiently tempered in order to markedly reduce pHOS (the proportion of hatchery strays on the spawning gravel)…. while concurrently curtailing the in-basin exploitation of natural origin chinook to an impact cap or harvest rate of 14%. This is the level of harvest restraint necessary to rebuild the stock in 16-21 years. Exploitation at any rate exceeding 14% would only serve to flatten the rebuilding trajectory, delaying or perhaps extinguishing any possibility of recovery…. EVER!


The commercial advisors balked at a 14% impact objective right out of the gate, arguing that a significant cohort of hatchery chinook from prior large releases were still grazing the ocean pasture. These fish needed to be caught as they returned to Willapa Bay to keep them off the gravel, so gillnetters argued that a 20% impact cap would not only soften the blow to their fleet, but also help them to remove more hatchery fish to improve the glaring pHOS problem on the spawning grounds.

The Commission went along with this compromise to phase in the 14% impact cap by allowing a “transition” of 4 years to allow a 20% harvest rate. Incentives are built into the policy to ramp up the implementation of selective gears during the transition with a goal of at least 6% allocated to alternative gear. The Policy requires an annual review of fishery impacts and includes an insurance provision or “payback clause” to maintain the rebuilding trajectory if the harvest rate is exceeded in any given year.

So how are we doing on natural origin chinook recovery? Are we hitting the conservation benchmarks spelled out in the policy? How well is Region 6 / Fish Program fulfilling the deliverables spelled out on the Policy?

To put it bluntly, staff is failing the Policy and you the Commission… MISERABLY!

But how would the Commission even realize this when staff refuses to include a PowerPoint slide/graph showing the historic escapements relative to the natural origin spawner goal. Upon identifying the oversight in the PowerPoint prior to the staff presentation, I personally asked that the slide be included. This advisor request was REJECTED by staff, citing that achievement of the natural escapement goal is NOT a staff objective during the transition, but rather one reserved for 16-21 years out. The objective metric during the transition is a 20% harvest rate, so that’s what they would present to the Commission.

But they didn’t even do that. The truth is they are batting a thousand on exceeding the 20% harvest rate, but were too cowardly to tell you outright. Instead they cleverly parsed up the exploitation by each sector…. commercial, marine recreational, and freshwater recreational… to intentionally muddy the waters to disguise yet another year of over-harvest.

When I confronted Annette Hoffman about the glaring error of omission, her response was simply. “It was all there, all you had to do was just add it up.”

<< Are you fooking kidding me >> (and no I didn't send that part... READ ON)

So I ask you, how many commissioners were familiar enough with the spreadsheets to “just add it up” on the fly from two spreadsheets presented FIVE SLIDES APART during the last Commission meeting? Prior to my testimony in the public hearing, how many of you were honestly left with the impression that the rate had been exceeded yet again? Hmmmm… I wonder why.

Not once since the Policy took effect has staff delivered on the already lenient 20% impact cap. It has been EXCEEDED every year. What’s worse is that they couldn’t muster the intellectual honesty to tell you straight up. This inexcusable pattern of staff-sanctioned over-exploitation under the leadership of Annette Hoffman mirrors exactly that of pre-Policy management under the leadership of Ron Warren. When the Policy says to shoot for 20%, they deliver 25-27% instead. When it was 30% pre-Policy, they consistently delivered 36-38%. Regardless of what goal you set before them, Region 6 staff is still habitually overexploiting the Willapa harvest objectives by a margin of 25-30%.... NOTHING HAS CHANGED ! ! !

And what about the payback clause? Not once has staff considered invoking it to pay for past sins. Instead they look for weasel words in black and white to justify why the clause does NOT apply. Once again, where is the intellectual honesty? Are they serious about recovery within the 16-21 year time frame? And will they hold themselves accountable to maintaining the rebuilding trajectory?

This is exactly like an undisciplined fat kid whose doctor/dietician has laid out a perfect plan to slowly get him back to a healthy weight over the next 16-21 months. The first 4 months, the doctor gives Fat Albert a break by allowing him 2000 calories a day to lessen the shock from his typically obscene 3600-3800 caloric intake. Eventually Albert’s got to whittle down to 1400 calories a day for this health plan to work. But he just can’t help himself. He’s just got to snarf down that extra 500-700 calories. Besides, he’s thinking who’s really gonna know… and who’s even gonna care?

So I ask you, will Fat Albert ever reach his goal in 16-21 months if he’s habitually sneaking an extra 25-30% in calories without telling his doctor? If he can’t hold himself accountable to the plan, then who will?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/08/18 09:31 PM

And look... I'm not here to demonize the commercial fishermen. They're just hard-working folks trying to earn an honest living the way they've been accustomed... it's culture, it's tradition. OK yeah... I get it.

They will fish in EXACTLY the most efficient, least labor-intensive, and most cost-effective manner permitted under the law.

The guys making and implementing the rules shoulder the responsibility to the resource.

The rule makers (Commissioners) have made their wishes known... it's the Policy. The problem is a rogue agency (WDFW) that cannot discipline itself to implement the policy as written. Instead WDFW willfully breeches the policy guidance and breaks the rules regardless.

Time for the Commission step up to the plate... demand a payback in 2018 and 2019. Defiant/incompetent heads MUST roll!


Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/09/18 11:07 AM

Something interesting in your letter, Doc. If WDFW believes that the escapement goals don't become "real" until 16-21 years out then what folks are essentially saying is that the whole thing is none of their concern. None of them will be around when it comes time to pay the piper. The staffers then may just be starting High School now, probably in Kansas or Iowa or some such so they will have not clue or history in the situation.

But, in seriousness, what should be of concern is the kick the can down the road mentality. Somebody else, later, will fix it. Must have learned that from the Legislature.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/09/18 12:07 PM

Your concern is EXACTLY what former Commissioner Miranda Wecker spoke to when we finished writing and adopting this Policy. She really wanted to make sure this thing got done before her departure. Her parting words paralleled your last post to a TEE....

That we MUST stay committed to the course and maintain the modeled rebuilding trajectory to achieve the intended recovery in that 16-21 year timeline, even though she would perhaps not even live long enough (nor many in the room) to actually see it come to fruition.

Region 6 is off to one helluva crappy start to that 16-21 year journey.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/09/18 12:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Something interesting in your letter, Doc. If WDFW believes that the escapement goals don't become "real" until 16-21 years out then what folks are essentially saying is that the whole thing is none of their concern. None of them will be around when it comes time to pay the piper. The staffers then may just be starting High School now, probably in Kansas or Iowa or some such so they will have not clue or history in the situation.

But, in seriousness, what should be of concern is the kick the can down the road mentality. Somebody else, later, will fix it. Must have learned that from the Legislature.


WOW, do I ever agree with the "kick the can, down the road" bit....

Now 25 years of Wynoochee Mitigation.......new personnel, every few years, lets start over again......new items added, some items change......bottom ?ucking line, "can gets kicked down the road"......grrrrr
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/10/18 11:38 AM

It's more than just kicking the can down the road. Those fish were my responsibility. It was not just a job. For whatever reason, we now seem to, as a society, separate the job from the results. The run didn't make escapement. Too bad. The patient died. Well, that happens. The kids didn't learn. Hey, I taught them. The list goes on.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/18 07:05 AM


Not much sleep so I will try to update after a little nap ( old guy thing ) but at first read some say all out assault on Willapa policy others not so. I tend to lean toward the agency minions are at it again trying to chip away at the Rec fisheries.

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

January 16, 2018

Contact: Annette Hoffmann, 360-249-1201

WDFW seeks public comments
on Willapa Bay salmon priorities

OLYMPIA &#150; State fishery managers will hold a public workshop Jan. 23 in Raymond to solicit public comments on priorities for upcoming sport and commercial salmon-fishing seasons in Willapa Bay.

The workshop, sponsored by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), is scheduled from 6-8 p.m. at the Raymond Elks Club on 326 Third St.

Annette Hoffmann, regional WDFW fish manager, said the department is currently seeking guidance on how to reconcile priorities for salmon-fishing opportunities established in the state's Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy.

That policy, approved by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2015, gives recreational fisheries priority in the Willapa Bay chinook harvest, while designating commercial fisheries as the priority for coho fisheries in the bay.

To meet conservation objectives, WDFW requires both fisheries to release any wild chinook salmon they encounter and manages fishing seasons to hold mortality rates for those fish within a prescribed limit.

Hoffmann said the department has asked the commission to provide greater clarity on ways to achieve those priorities, and wants to involve participants in Willapa Bay's recreational and commercial fisheries in the discussion.

"The commission makes the policy, but we also want to hear from those directly involved in these fisheries," she said.

Hoffmann said state fishery managers will convey comments heard at the workshop to the commission during a public meeting scheduled Feb. 9-10 in Olympia. The department will then look to the commission to provide guidance in setting fishing seasons for Willapa Bay in 2018 and future years.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.

This message has been sent to the WDFW News Releases & Weekender mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/18 11:30 AM


For those who do not know here is the NOF schdule for NOF Willapa & GH.

2018 North of Falcon public meeting schedule
Figlar-Barnes, Kim P (DFW)
11:23 AM
To Allan Hollingsworth, Andy Mitby and 12 others
Quick reply allReplyForwardDeleteActions
Welcome to the 2018 North of Falcon public meeting schedule for setting the 2018-19 Salmon Fishing Seasons. Please refer to the below list for meeting schedules:





Meeting Date Time Location



Grays Harbor & 2-26-18 6-8 pm Montesano City Hall

Willapa Bay Forecast



Statewide Forecast 2-27-18 9 am – 3 pm Lacey Community Center, 6729 Pacific Ave., SE Lacey



PFMC 3-9 to 3-14 See PFMC Double Tree by Hilton Sonoma, One Doubletree Drive,

Agenda Links Rohnert Park, CA



Grays Harbor Advisory 3-19-18 6-8 pm Region 6 Montesano Office





NOF # 1 3-20-18 9 am – 3 pm DSHS - Office Building 2 Auditorium, 1115 Washington St SE, Olympia



PFMC Public Hearing Ocean 3-26-18 7-9 pm Chateau Westport Beach Rm, 710 W Hancock, Westport



Grays Harbor NOF 3-27-18 6-8 pm Montesano City Hall

Public Discussion



NOF # 2 4-3-18 0930 am – 5 pm Lynwood Embassy Suites, 20610 44th Ave. W, Lynnwood



Final PFMC 4-6 to 4-11 See PFMC Sheraton Portland Airport, 8235 NE Airport Way, Portland OR

Agenda Links




For those who do not know here is the NOF schdule for Willapa & GH


Grays Harbor Advisory 4-17-18 6-8 pm Region 6 Montesano Office







All 2018 NOF meeting schedules are located on WDFW webpage at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/

Please refer to WDFW webpage as meeting dates and locations are tentative and could change.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/30/18 09:43 AM


The following is a letter that I attempted to address the current status of the Willapa Policy. I would urge all to pay attention to this issue as current WDF&W staff are attempting to circumvent the intent of the policy. It is not a small thing and as always remember, next time they come for you!


Dear Commissioners,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent actions taken by Region 6 ( R6) staff and the Willapa Bay Policy ( WBP ). I recently attended a public meeting in Raymond on this issue, that simply put was a " dog and pony show. " Ms Hoffman and Mr. Philips provided a copy of the policy and a one sided sheet of issues that lacked depth and context, did not provide a in depth summary on the pros & cons but rather limited that discussion and only allowed participants to put forth suggestions. What information was provided was biased to lead one to draw conclusion the staff desired. Honestly Commissioners this process was more about creating confusion in peoples mind rather than educate. This is the definition of a " dog and pony show " by almost any standard that I am aware of. Staff did express confusion as to what the Willapa Policy intended to accomplish as to allocation of available impacts between sport and commercial fishers. I might add that staff stated they were going to have a whole series of these meetings to what end no idea as we all were left wondering why?

This brings me to the purpose of this letter. There cannot be any confusion on this issue with staff as it simply is not possible. Why one may ask? Ms Hoffman could at any time as Region 6 harvest managed simply asked Chad Herring who is the R6 District 16 number cruncher and was very involved with the process of creating the WBP. If that was not adequate she could have turned to the head of her division Mr. Ron Warren, who also was very engaged in the process. If that was not adequate again either Ms Hoffman and Mr. Philips could have picked up the phone and called senior WDF&W staffer Mr. Jim Scott who was the primary author of the WBP for clarification. It is not possible for a WDF&W staffer to stand in front of a room full of citizens and express any confusion as to what the WBP was intended to accomplish or the manner it is to accomplish the goals of it. Perhaps they could be confused if not fully informed by senior WDF&W staff but as Ron Warren once told a group on this issue who questioned a statement as to his view or the agencies in the meeting and he stated forcefully he was the agency in the meeting. So at the recent meeting Mr. Philips and Ms Hoffman were the agency and it is not possible for the agency to be confused on this issue.

Commissioners a large number of citizens participated in the WBP process. We drove long distances to many meetings, endured verbal abuse and threats of violence from opponents of HSRG and the WBP to get this task accomplished in a partnership with WDF&W. For staff to now attempt to undermine that joint effort by so many citizens is appalling and frankly a affront to those citizens.

A number of challenges faced staff with the implementation of the WBP. Frankly were simply ignored and brought us to this place with the WBP. The driver of this is the fact that Willapa Bay has a rather small Natural Origin Recruits ( NOR ) and a large Hatchery Origin Recruits ( HOR ) which means selective or alternate methods of fishing by any harvester would be required for any recovery of NOR Chinook stocks. This was discussed many times, resisted by the commercial fishers as they refused to recognize HSRG and the need to manage for natural production in any manner and was accepted by the sport fishers. There cannot be any confusion with staff as it was the primary driver in the discussions many times. It was known that selective or alternate harvest methods would have to fully implemented rather quickly for the commercial fisher and this was a fundamental objective of the WBP.

To assure that the NOR Chinook trended up to recovery several mechanisms were in the WBP. A payback clause to more less refund fish the next year by the harvester who over fished their allocation is present but never complied with by staff as it relates to commercial fishers. The harvest rate impacts would go from 20% to 14% after the first implementation years to again insure that the Chinook stocks continued to trend up to escapement goals. Additionally the sport fisher was given Chinook priority and commercial Coho and Chum.

After mostly failing rather miserably at compiling with the previously mentioned WBP objectives staff simply ignored goals of the WBP and created what could best be described as a train wreck. Additionally to comply with HSRG in the creation of the WBP a reduction of Chinook production at Forks Creek Hatchery to 350K was required. This action resulted in a very simple fact that four years from implementation of the WBP that the mix of NOR and HOR Chinook in the North end of Willapa Bay and the Willapa River would be drastically changed from the vast majority of the Chinook being HOR fish to nearly one on one NOR / HOR. This is not a small detail. With the future being as I described even if the commercial fisher used a tangle net to reduce mortality the number of NOR's encountered and released mortalities in any Willapa River ( Forks Creek production ) would nearly dictate a very large reduction of fishing time by commercials in the South end of the bay during their Coho fishery. Again Commissioners that was why the use of selective gear or alternate harvest methods was a priority. I would also point out that it was WDF&W that insisted on the aggregate of all streams in Willapa Bay for each species rather than separate the bay into two sections ( North & South ) as I and others urged to simplify harvest allocation impacts.

The fact is Commissioners with the WBP after four years and the Forks Creek Chinook production reduction it will be very difficult just to keep the sport fisher a full seasons in Area's T & U. (North Willapa Bay ) At that time the majority of returning Chinook will be returning to the South end of the bay to Naselle & Nemah giving access to the commercial fisher. This will be a majority of the HOR Chinook to be sure but the Commercial fishers gear will need to be selective or alternate types ( traps / other ) to access these fish due to small number of NOR Chinook. This outcome was what the WBP dictated and was the desired outcome. Not to remove commercial fisheries from Willapa Harbor but to direct them toward a method of harvest that was sustainable. The majority of commercials fishers refused to change gear types which leaves one with the outcome we have now which is the one the commercial fleet chose.

Finally Commissioners one last issue. In the nearly 40 years I have been around the agency or working with it one thing has been present but never to the degree it is now. The thing? WDF&W staff believe it is proper and acceptable to with hold facts or information that would lead one to draw a conclusion different than they would if fully informed. Now I know what my mother told me that was prior to my car and myself grounded for six months when I utilized this method but you can choose your definition. I can tell what it is not. It is not forthright, honest, or ethical. In fact I see that a bill was dropped addressing this issue in the legislature as this seems to be a problem that WDF&W is the poster child for.

From my seat in the stands you folks have some work to do internally before you start making decisions be it the WBP or any other policy. If staff provided information I seriously doubt the validity or accuracy of it let alone anything that is not biased toward the outcome that senior staff in Olympia desire. It is my understanding that the Advocacy will be making a presentation on Willapa soon and I urge the Commissioners to listen to them. It will be unvarnished truth to be sure but after the smoke and mirrors of staff presentations you might find a forthright honest presentation refreshing.

Sincerely
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/18 08:48 AM

Here is the link to the WDF&W Commission meeting agenda for February 8-9-10 and both Grays Harbor and Willapa are on the agenda but different days. Links are provided to view WDF&W presentations and one should be concerned.

I am told that the Willapa has a error as who & what and is to be corrected.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/02/agenda_feb0818.html
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/17/18 12:18 AM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Your concern is EXACTLY what former Commissioner Miranda Wecker spoke to when we finished writing and adopting this Policy. She really wanted to make sure this thing got done before her departure. Her parting words paralleled your last post to a TEE....

That we MUST stay committed to the course and maintain the modeled rebuilding trajectory to achieve the intended recovery in that 16-21 year timeline, even though she would perhaps not even live long enough (nor many in the room) to actually see it come to fruition.

Region 6 is off to one helluva crappy start to that 16-21 year journey.


Turning a BLIND eye to conservation, once again....

ZERO payback for the past 2-3 years of OVER-harvesting the policy's impact cap. Just more concessions to the gillnet fleet. Gee, what's new?

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/02/feb_1618_b_wb_guidance.pdf
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/17/18 08:30 AM


Here are my comments to the Commissioners. Frankly I doubt if the Commissioners truly know the depth of the hole Willapa is in and frankly the probable outcomes from staffs actions. My view of things.



Commissioners:

The recent review of the Willapa Policy ( WP ) and the many issues surrounding it have been discussed, primarily around harvest issues for 2018. While important I feel all are failing to grasp the true nature of the impact of the Willapa Policy when the policy is fully implemented in 2020.

Prior to the WP the entire Willapa Harbor was managed for what can best be described as a kill zone fishery area with the Commercial fishers being the prime beneficiary. The WP has many elements and verbiage to direct both harvesters and the agency toward conservation driven harvest opportunities. What most miss is not what the words say and mean but rather what they do.

To truly understand the WP and its effect on Willapa Bay it is best to look at Willapa Bay as two areas with the North area comprising the Willapa River, North River, and Smith Creek. The second area is simply the South Channel and the streams that empty into it which include the Naselle and Nemah rivers. If one is not familiar with the Willapa Bay and the harvest sectors WDF&W has a map on its website.

It is critical that one understand the interaction between four terms in the WP to fully understand the probable outcome.
1. NOS: Natural origin spawners in the gravel.
2. HOS: Hatchery origin spawners in the gravel.
3. Ratio: This is the mix of NOS & HOS in any given fishery.
4: Encounter Ratio: When harvesting the NOS & HOS mix determines how many NOS encounters which lead to mortalities from NOS encounters when releasing NOS adults.

I will outline what the WP dictates for Chinook in the Willapa River, which is the location of the Forks Creek Hatchery. The hatchery Chinook production was drastically reduced to 350K to comply with the Prime stream designation as it relates to straying. This action will fully implemented in 2020 when the first returns from the reduced releases return. In 2020 the Chinook ratio could drop to nearly 1 to 1for fishers in areas T, U, and inriver, it just depends on what the run forecast is for any given year. What is certain is with the ratio being what it will be starting 2020 areas T & U going forward will be difficult to maintain even the sport fishery. The NOS population is a small one under escaped resulting in the sport catch and release ( C&R ) hooking mortality possibly being more than can be maintained and reach spawner objectives. There will be zero commercial opportunity as even a tangle net mortality is far greater than the NOS returns can tolerate. This will happen regardless of any action WDF&W takes.

To complicate matters two very real unknown factors will also be at play. First the Willapa NOS population has been supported by substantial influence by the HOS staying for years. In 2020 this ends and the Willapa Chinook NOS will be a standalone population and how well it will perform is not known. It is not about just making a redd but rather how successful the NOS spawners will be in reproducing offspring. This cause and effect is dictated by the simple fact that multi generational hatchery fish do not reproduce as well as wild NOS when returning to the gravel. Genetically the Willapa hatchery Chinook are the same as NOS as the massive staying of hatchery resulted in a NOS that is in reality a HOS adult spawning in the gravel just unmarked with a fin. Again this is a real unknown and likely to very difficult for staff to quantify until 2024 to 2028. One certainty is the beginning returns will not be greater than at present, In fact we will be lucky if the first generation returns from 2020 to 2024 are the same. The most probable outcome is a reduction in numbers from four to eight years, two generations, and then the stock if managed properly slowly begin the 20 plus year recovery period envisioned in AHA modeling.

The second issue all about what the fish do when they return in 2020. Prior to 2020 T & U areas were the destination of returning Willapa River HOS fish so the ratio of HOS & NOS was favorable toward harvest. 2020 this is not so resulting in the vast majority of HOS Chinook will be returning to the South Channel. This leaves one with a real unknown. Will the Chinook track in close to the mouth of the bay and swing through T or track West and more or less track straight down the South Channel? The fact is the more adults that enter in the Tokeland side of T as they go South will greatly help the ratio of HOS & NOS reducing encounter ratio of NOS thus reducing the number of NOS mortalities from release. What is known is that between 0% and 100% of the South bound Chinook will do something in or around T and the North bay but to what degree to favorably effect the HOS / NOS ratio will not be fully known until several years of fishing which would be 2023 or 2024.

To add to the difficulty is the fact that staff will have little data to utilize. What the WP did when the Chinook hatchery production was moved South is create totally new parameters resulting in a much different hatchery complex for Chinook. The fact that Mr. Herring, District 16 staffer, has done a lot of work on the numbers and has a real feel for what the true relationship is between numbers and the fish is a plus as this is going nearly impossible to sort out while maintaining harvest.

In 2020 the South Bay fisheries will also be drastically altered. The added Chinook hatchery production from the Southern hatcheries will be available with a favorable ratio of HOS & NOS. The downside is that the NOS population is rather small and is going to be very vulnerable to over fishing. Commercial fishers will have a substantial number of fish available for harvest but to access them the fleet will need to utilize tangle nets or the most selective gear that can be developed to be utilized. Every NOS mortality that the fleet can avoid allows it to access thousands more Chinook and Coho for harvest. From the start of the WP implementation the Commercial fleet has resisted utilizing selective gear with a few exceptions. If this course of action continues the Commercial fisher will force itself off the water as Chinook NOS population will not rebound but rather resume to decline in NOS spawners. This will result in limiting the Commercial fleets access to Coho also to a far greater degree than at the present time.

The issue surrounding the Willapa Chum population are steeped in history and environmental changes that have been experienced acerbated by over harvest. The Chum issue needs to given a complete review separate from this discussion in my view. I say this because my best guess is WDF&W will seek to lower the escapement goal rather than address past failings. It is easier to ignore a problem rather than take action to repair the damage done in the past.

Additionally the sport fishers that have traditionally fished T & U will be restricted by the loss of the Forks Creek production and small numbers of NOS & HOS impacts available for harvest. It is a fact that all fishers, be it sport or commercial, fish where the fish are. It should be expected that the sport fishers in the South Channel will increase dramatically in the first years after 2020 and this in itself will create ever greater conflict between sport and commercial fishers. Again the South Bay NOS Chinook population is a small one which will now have both Commercial and sport competing for the same limited number of NOS impacts as presently exist. Another way to look at the issue is that the vast majority of Chinook Willapa Bay hatchery production will only have half the NOR adults supporting harvest it enjoyed prior to 2020 with the conservation directives in the Willapa River.

The other reality is that the Commercial fleet is in reality two groups of fishers. The North end fishers from Tokeland, which are who the Commissioners usually see at meetings, and the Southern fishers. All are territorial, do not take intrusion by another fisher lightly, and only have the catching of a fish in common. The dislocation of the Northern Commercial fishers to the South Channel will be a issue as will migration of the majority of the sport fleet to the South Channel.

So here we are in 2018 arguing over the definition of terms and intent of the WP. Commissioners I urge you to do nothing. Intent or not the years prior to 2020 are, for lack of a better description, our training period. It is the time that staff, fishers and yes the Commission must develop the discipline to properly conduct harvest under very unfavorable conditions. Frankly Commissioners we are failing miserably and there will harsh consequences unless this changes. The agency knows this is coming and the lack of candor on this issue is appalling.

So again Commissioners I urge you to do nothing. we have two years to get our act together and any action by the commission will only make things worse. It is time for WDF&W staff to do their job and lead because in 2020 it will be a new world and as a citizen fisher I feel it would be of substantial benefit if we were actually prepared to face the coming challenges.

Sincerely,
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/17/18 10:54 AM

RG, I am a little dazed and confused too. In your letter, you lay out all the complications and difficulties that emerged from the WP process that created the current WP. These were the result of difficult decisions regarding the mix of conservation, hatchery production, and logistics and management of the sport and commercial fisheries within WP. This produced the current WP, warts and all. You recommend the Commission "do nothing". The current WP has some language in it that is open to interpretation. Apparently, there is a difference of opinion as to whether WDFW is following the wording of the WP. If the Commission does nothing, what will change in the next two years to meet the challenges? Without some more direction/clarification from the Commission won't the meandering continue and won't the evaluation of how well the management actions met the WP by 2020 be in the fog too?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/17/18 11:04 AM


I think yes to fog. That said staff did not do the Commission any favors by not clearly identifying the difficulties and when they did is was only for the present. The lack of candor around what will exist in 2020 and what conservation means for the future. Believe me you will not like 2020 and 2024 to 2028 running off the natural spawn productivity ( not redds ) has the potential of being a disaster if we do not address it now, which we will not.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/17/18 12:05 PM

By 2020 the NORs will be effectively "gone". Can't find them. So, there can be fishing on the HORs. Since the situation being created will be "impossible" to manage per the plan, we just toss the plan and fish.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 07:51 AM

The Feb 8-9 commission meeting audio is now up. For those interested in Willapa, the following link includes a panel presentation after the WDFW presentation. It had representatives from recreational fishing, commercial fishing and conservation. It included smart, passionate, and knowledgeable people that gave a great overview of the Willapa policy. The panel discussion and following public input is well worth the time to listen.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/02/audio_feb0818.html
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 10:08 AM

Everyone should listen carefully to Commissioner Carpenters scathing comments to staff at roughly 49:30
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 10:22 AM

I just want to go back and reflect on the effort that was brought forward by the Commission at the time on this Policy.

There were DOZENS of meetings (more than that) HUNDREDS of hours devoted to this, an UNTOLD amount of public comment and staff time put into this...


And now I sit here and I kind of get the sense that YOU want US to come down and manage the DAMN fishery!

That's the feeling I get.

You KNOW what the Policy says, we're sitting up here and thinking we could probably make some adjustments and tweek it....

BUT.... when I was gainfully employed and had a bunch of employees, the one thing I didn't want them to do was come to me and always give me reasons why things DON'T get done... CAN'T get done.


Come to me with solutions on how to make things work!


So I'll shut up now, but that's the feeling I get, and it bothers me a GREAT deal.


<< APPLAUSE >>
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 10:57 AM

You ask for "advice" when you you don't want to follow directions.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 11:06 AM

I regards to shifting impacts from rec to commercial....

RW weasel word of the day "flexibility"

"We all believe we have the FLEXIBILITY to do what I just said, but we don't want to push if that's NOT the intent of the Commission"
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 12:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
By 2020 the NORs will be effectively "gone". Can't find them. So, there can be fishing on the HORs. Since the situation being created will be "impossible" to manage per the plan, we just toss the plan and fish.



I am having a little difficulty with your time line here. Do you mean that after decades of fishing in WB at hatchery management levels that included net fisheries starting late July which did not extirpate natural, production that in 3 years under the WP, they will be gone? And gone in the same year that the Willapa will be getting back the initial returns of the program cutbacks? If anything, wouldn't it be the offspring of the reduced production of hatchery fish that spawned naturally; so 2023 onward maybe?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 01:52 PM

This will be the last year of adult returns of Willapa River origin hatchery fish from the old (pre-policy) smolt releases.

2019 will be the first year that the entire Willapa-origin cohort will be the progeny from the reduced production and smolt releases from Forks Creek.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 02:14 PM

The Chinook will continue to be overfished in order to net the last hatchery fish. The overfishing will be from the outside wall the way in was open productivity is going sideways. Few spawners, mostly with strong ties to the hatchery. The need to aggressively net the coho and chum will further take whatever outlier Chinook are out there.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 02:15 PM

eyefish -

I thought that first year of the new Willapa hatchery release levels was in 2016.

Curt
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 03:41 PM

RW needs to be fired.

WB chinook management has been a fiasco for over a decades and its all been on RWs watch whether as Region 6 director, or as a leader in olympia.

This should have been the simplest chinook fishery to manage in the entire state and over the course of his career he's screwed it up so bad nobody will be fishing in a few years, there will be no hatchery operations for chinook and a feral hatchery stock will be ESA listed and eventually dwindle to nothing.

How you take a fully integrated chinook hatchery/wild stock and end up with what we have today is beyond me.

WDFW can't get out of its own way in WB.

The idea that WB is a complex management problem for chinook is nonsense. Its simple compared to the rest of the basins in the state. The policy is simple. The plan is simple (and wrong). The politics and circumvention of the policy are the only thing that is really complex.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 04:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Smalma
eyefish -

I thought that first year of the new Willapa hatchery release levels was in 2016.

Curt


Having a little trouble corroborating that, Curt.

Policy passed in June of 2015... about the time 3.2 million sub yearlings from a 3.6 million 2014 egg take were scheduled for release.

My guess is they went out to sea.

...

Which means the 2016 release should have been the first year of the reduced Forks Creek production.

BUT....

The final 2015 future brood document lists another egg take of 3.6 million in 2015 to produce 3.2 million smolts for release in 2016.

How does one ascertain if those smolts actually went out? It's not on the hatchery website.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 04:17 PM

What I said in my original post is the line we've been given by staff at all the advisory and planning meetings to date. Now I don't know what to believe ???
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 04:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Geoduck
RW needs to be fired.



Pretty "interesting" that he has risen up the ranks to become the TOP fish manager in the state.

Don't be too surprised if he becomes the new Director of the whole shootin' match!
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 04:22 PM

Correct Curt. First year of reductions at Forks Creek was 2015 brood. The first year where age 3 adults returns are impacted is 2018. So the first year where all ages classes 3-5 are fully impacted by these reductions is 2020. Consequently, the adult progeny of the 2018 spawners will first be returning in 2021, achieving full reduction of all age reductions in 2023.
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 09:12 PM

I have this horror movie vision of a giant walking, talking waffle......
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/18 09:42 PM


The following is the "Willapa Policy", it was signed June 13, 2015

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3622.pdf



The following is the "Grays Harbor Policy", it was signed March 1, 2014


https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3621.html
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/18 07:26 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Originally Posted By: Geoduck
RW needs to be fired.



Pretty "interesting" that he has risen up the ranks to become the TOP fish manager in the state.

Don't be too surprised if he becomes the new Director of the whole shootin' match!


Kee-rist, that just proves it's not what you know it's how long you've been there. It will be a sad fukin day if that happens.
Posted by: Great Bender

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/18 05:55 AM

You boys down on the coast have arrived at the nexus. The actions of WDFW Fisheries Management over the past 3-4 years re: WB speak for themselves, and in a very clear and concise manner.

The Vice Chair of the Commission has accurately sized things up, and can move forward and act ONLY with an overwhelming outcry of public support.

Get organized, focused, and even more vocal. Fight hard to overcome the foreboding politics...and do it because it's the right thing to do.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/18 06:51 AM

My look at the 2020 thing was driven by looking at GH Chinook the 4 & 5 year age groups perform about the same proportionally. The 3 and 6 year age group are in small numbers but the 3 year number can move up or down in any given year substantially. I do not have a Willapa run reconstruction but it really does not matter much. In 2019 the Willapa River will have 10% of the prior hatchery releases but the 5 year class will be present at the full release in prior years resulting in a much larger number of HOS. Bit of a train wreck to manage I imagine. It is hard to stare into a crystal ball and be accurate but fish math does let one look at probable outcomes and the scenarios that they to dictate harvest.

In 2020 the Willapa River be a stand alone population with a hatchery release of 300 K and change. Harvest will have to be dramatically reduced in the North end of the bay. The only variable is HOW the much much smaller allowed harvest is structured.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/18 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Geoduck
RW needs to be fired.

WB chinook management has been a fiasco for over a decades and its all been on RWs watch whether as Region 6 director, or as a leader in olympia.

This should have been the simplest chinook fishery to manage in the entire state and over the course of his career he's screwed it up so bad nobody will be fishing in a few years, there will be no hatchery operations for chinook and a feral hatchery stock will be ESA listed and eventually dwindle to nothing.

How you take a fully integrated chinook hatchery/wild stock and end up with what we have today is beyond me.

WDFW can't get out of its own way in WB.

The idea that WB is a complex management problem for chinook is nonsense. Its simple compared to the rest of the basins in the state. The policy is simple. The plan is simple (and wrong). The politics and circumvention of the policy are the only thing that is really complex.


Great Bender has it right. Things will continue down the Sh%$ hole as long as the same "good ol boy" is managing the show. RW has had his fingers in every crap pie that the Department has baked!

The removal of Unsworth was like cutting the tail off the snake. Who was the driving force behind Unsworth's dismal performance? I can tell you, RW and Grossmann hold just as much responsibility for the mess as anyone, perhaps more!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/18 09:40 AM

Quote:
How you take a fully integrated chinook hatchery/wild stock and end up with what we have today is beyond me.


Well you do it by having massive straying which degrades natural gene flow by massive hatchery influence. I worked with Chinook for many years and what existed in Willapa is 100% the opposite of integrated. The desired outcome of integrated is the natural gene flow into the hatchery brood. In Willapa WDFW did the opposite and that means it may be genetically same but the gene flow is ass backwards.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/18 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Quote:
How you take a fully integrated chinook hatchery/wild stock and end up with what we have today is beyond me.


Well you do it buy having massive straying which degrades natural gene flow by massive hatchery influence. I worked with Chinook for many years and what existed in Willapa is 100% the opposite of integrated. The desired outcome of integrated is the natural gene flow into the hatchery brood. In Willapa WDFW did the opposite and that means it may be genetically same but the gene flow is ass backwards.


This is exactly what is happening to Quinault steelhead...the NOR steelhead there are trashed, the hatchery run has become the genetic contributor...and when the hatchery run crashes, as they all do eventually, the "wild" run will go right with it.

They just closed the Quinault to commercial netting because of a lack of hatchery broodstock returning...if that doesn't turn around lickety split, you will see a concurrent sinking of the wild fish.

I am sure those who have been advocating for Quinault style hatchery management all over the place will find someone else to blame it on, but the fact of the matter is that anyone with half a wit about hatchery/wild integrated hatcheries has seen this one coming for a while, it's literally just a matter of time.

Streams like the Wilson in Oregon will be next...the "integrated" system there is overwhelmingly dominated by hatchery fish returning and spawning, and when that crashes, as they do, then there will a big surprising lack of "wild" fish spawning in the subsequent generations.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Jake Dogfish

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/18 06:12 PM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Originally Posted By: Geoduck
RW needs to be fired.



Pretty "interesting" that he has risen up the ranks to become the TOP fish manager in the state.

Don't be too surprised if he becomes the new Director of the whole shootin' match!


Kee-rist, that just proves it's not what you know it's how long you've been there. It will be a sad fukin day if that happens.


I think this is where we are at unfortunately.
The Commission has stated they will not use a outside firm to hire the director after the last debacle. They also have mentioned the internal candidates a lot, and having someone familiar with the situation.
Joe Stohr has already talked about running for Director. He will handle north of falcon, and many fishing issues before the next director is chosen.
This is where Ron Warren will come in, experienced but not responsible for anything.
The commission will be choosing among which dirty diaper smells freshest.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/18 08:25 AM

I argued and was shouted down initially that WB genetics was always so heavily influenced by CR strays (both hatchery and wild), that it was pointless to try and argue that there was ever any pristine WB chinook genetics. Its always been a mongrel stock. We can debate that if you like, but I think the numbers are on my side here. While you may not like the way they are integrated, but they are identical-- that is by definition fully integrated. From a genetics point of view, starting a segregated stock is not really the way forward as you're starting from scratch. I think the idea that the habitat ever supported lots of chinook naturally is questionable given the small size of these rivers. If you insist the goal is more NOS then bring as many NOS into the hatchery as you can. I understand from the hatchery reports there are many NOS at the rack that are never used.


The WB "public process" on this has been ridiculous. The WDFWs goals have been muddled from the get go. Even with the policy in place the decision making process has been abysmally inconsistent.

If the goal 10 years ago was to destroy the saltwater WB fishery in its entirety, it seems the decision making has been on point to achieve that goal. The current course set will clearly lead to ESA listing. The only question is when.

I'm utterly embarrassed to have ever participated in this fiasco.
Posted by: Lucky Louie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/18 09:02 AM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Originally Posted By: Geoduck
RW needs to be fired.



Pretty "interesting" that he has risen up the ranks to become the TOP fish manager in the state.

Don't be too surprised if he becomes the new Director of the whole shootin' match!


Kee-rist, that just proves it's not what you know it's how long you've been there. It will be a sad fukin day if that happens.


Phil Anderson was director of WDFW when RW moved up the chain before Anderson’s demise. I’m sure Anderson is working hard behind the scenes to get his handpicked lackey in this time around.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/18 09:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Jake Dogfish

I think this is where we are at unfortunately.
The Commission has stated they will not use a outside firm to hire the director after the last debacle. They also have mentioned the internal candidates a lot, and having someone familiar with the situation.
Joe Stohr has already talked about running for Director. He will handle north of falcon, and many fishing issues before the next director is chosen.
This is where Ron Warren will come in, experienced but not responsible for anything.
The commission will be choosing among which dirty diaper smells freshest.


Joe Stohr sat in on a meeting between Greg, myself and Barbra Baker. Joe said the problem with opening up the NOF meetings is because they are Gov't to Gov't. I asked Joe "What government agency is meeting?" He replied "I really don't know...NOAA?"

I was told that Joe Stohr's desk is where problems go to hide, no action.

I cannot express how damaging it would be (in my opinion) to have Ron Warren even continue in his current position, let alone move to Director. Many here on this board have expressed their distrust for Warren. I can tell you from direct experience, he has lied to my face.

There are some serious issues in the senior leadership at WDFW. A house cleaning would be painful, but I believe it is necessary. If Ron Warren and Mike Grossmann remain, the new director will be set up for failure, just as Unsworth was. These two ARE just as responsible of the train wreck we are in as anyone.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/18 10:06 AM

Current management does nothing so they cannot be blamed for doing something wrong.
Hopefully they all suffocate while their heads are buried in the sand.
Posted by: Great Bender

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/18 10:09 AM

OBSTACLES FACING THE NEW DIRECTOR--SHORT LIST

Willapa Bay/Grays Hbr Policy Dilemma
Wynoochee Mitigation
Point No Point Ramp
NOF Co-Management Dysfunction
Departmental Transparency
Successive River Closures/Lost Fishing Opportunity
Native v. Hatchery Genetics
Revenue/Budget Disparity
Stakeholder Alienation
Tribal Relations
AK/BC Fish Interception
Comm/Rec Halibut Catch Quotas


Add to, subtract from or replace any of the items above---and it still adds up to one FUBARed, hell of a mess.

The team of present Fisheries Mgrs. and AAGs has either contributed to this nightmare, or has done little or nothing to remedy any of the above. Nearly all of this has happened or been accelerated during their watch.

Conclusion: Why should any one (or all) of them be up for renewal or promotion? Looks and sounds like a plan that would only produce more of the same, or make things worse--if that is at all possible. Little wonder Jim Unsworth went back to Idaho.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/18 10:38 AM

Demolish the building, put them in a tent, and start over.
My kids deserve better!!!!!!!
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/18 11:38 AM

To be fair, there are an awful lot of very good, hard working people within the DFW. Truth be known, they probably are not at all happy with the way the current (and past) senior leadership has tarnished the department. Of course, as in any organization, there are those who emulate the conduct and persona of the leadership. Imagine knowing your boss has intentionally lied to cover up something. It leaves you with two choices, right? I believe the culture of elitism and obfuscation which the senior leadership at the department has systemized has a great deal to do with the current issues the department now faces. If the department was any other private corporation, the senior leadership would of been asked to resign.

By condoning the actions of Ron and others, we give them permission to continue..... And now there's some discussion of promoting one to Director? Is this madness?
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/18 11:45 AM

To be fair.
I've supported the resources of this state my entire life.
This agency has helped run the thing into the ditch.

I feel for the good employees.
Hopefully they stare out the tent door and envision a better solution.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/18 11:02 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
This will be the last year of adult returns of Willapa River origin hatchery fish from the old (pre-policy) smolt releases.

2019 will be the first year that the entire Willapa-origin cohort will be the progeny from the reduced production and smolt releases from Forks Creek.


My original statement stands.... got confirmation from the lead WB bio today.

Parental brood 2013 was the last LARGE egg-take at Forks Creek. These were released in 2014. The 0.4 age class from that brood returns in 2018. Last of the Mohicans.

2019 will see the 0.4's from the SMALL Willapa/Forks 2015 release. Essentially all age classes in the 2019 return will be from the smaller out plants since 2015.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/18 06:33 AM

Eyefish -

So you are telling us that the information in WDFW's slide presentation at the recent commission was in correct? Slide #9 pretty clearly showed that the release from the Forks hatchery was 3.5 million in 2015 and dropped to 350K in 2016.

In the big picture I guess it does not matter too much. The bottom line is that small boat Chinook fishery in Willapa as we know it will end soon.

Curt
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/18 06:51 AM

More bad news. Seems that's all we get any more. Maybe time to sell the boat ,rather than watch it age in the garage.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/18 08:24 AM


You would think that you could get the same numbers someplace but as Curt said it is not that important in the big picture. Thing to remember is most of us use 4 years for Chinook runs but that is not a bulls eye. 4 & 5 year age groups are usually the same ( give or take change ) in numbers in any given year. Also use the brood year and not the release year as guide as the fish return 4 to 5 age on brood years not release timing. So 2013 plus 4 is 2017 and 2018 will have the 350k release 4 yr olds and 5 year olds off the 3.5million. This means the 2019 will be only returns from the 350k releases.

Did I get this right?
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/18 09:20 AM

Pardon the copy and paste but Chinook released from Forks Creek Hatchery per the coastwide mark release database supports the lower releases beginning in 2016 from the 2015 brood year.


09:09:27 02/22/2018 Regional Mark Information System PAGE 1
REPORT: RTR CWT & TOTAL RELEASED BY YEAR

Species Name Release Year State CWT Released Total Released
------------ ------------ ----- ------------ --------------
Chinook 2010 WA 402354 2400546
------------ --------------
Chinook 2010 subtotal 402354 2400546

Chinook 2011 WA 389931 3638300
------------ --------------
Chinook 2011 subtotal 389931 3638300

Chinook 2012 WA 399644 3189750
------------ --------------
Chinook 2012 subtotal 399644 3189750

Chinook 2013 WA 399792 3227824
------------ --------------
Chinook 2013 subtotal 399792 3227824

Chinook 2014 WA 406152 3166719
------------ --------------
Chinook 2014 subtotal 406152 3166719

Chinook 2015 WA 386575 3221073
------------ --------------
Chinook 2015 subtotal 386575 3221073

Chinook 2016 WA 0 379192
------------ --------------
Chinook 2016 subtotal 0 379192

Chinook 2017 WA 99852 368537
------------ --------------
Chinook 2017 subtotal 99852 368537

============ ==============
Chinook TOTAL 2484300 19591941
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/18 10:32 AM

Going by the lead bio's info....

Unable to reconcile the discrepant data trail from the WDFW website
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/18 11:20 AM

Same here Doc but my question was " when is the Willapa River a stand alone return off of the new 350k production." Reply was 2020.

So everyone we are all right depending on source being staff, website, or other. About normal me thinks!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/18 04:19 PM

Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/18 04:52 PM

The only way to reconcile the RMIS report and the one I just posted is if the "year" in the latter actually refers to the parental brood year instead of the year of release.

Since the table is titled "On-Station Smolt Releases" one would think "Year" refers to when they were actually released.

....


Interesting thing about that document is the history of shifts in chinook production between the 3 hatcheries as the management objectives changed.

Up until 2008, we had meat-market production at all three facilities pumping out a total of upwards of 7-8 million smolts for release annually.

In 2009, WDFW declared Naselle the Primary stream for conservation. Naselle production was ratcheted down, while Nemah and Forks Cr were amped up to compensate for most of the shortfall.

In 2015, WDFW/WFWC decided it was too difficult to pass natural adults intact thru the full gauntlet of fisheries. Conceptually, one can think of WB geographically as an outer (Willapa) middle (Nemah) and inner (Naselle) bay. The prevailing argument was that it made no sense to make the primary conservation population have to traverse the entire outer, middle, and inner bay(s) before making it to home waters. It would be more practical to manage commercial fisheries if the primary fish could make a quick left turn to escape the bulk fleet. Hatchery production could be ramped up in the south bay for more stable and predictable harvest while minimizing the effects of the primary production in the north.

So that's where we sit today...

Look, the sky is NOT falling down. Total baywide chinook production is very similar to what we had in the early 2000's. The way things seem to be headed, that production is likely to significantly increase in the next few years as the big players seek to amp up Naselle production even more. The BIG difference is that Willapa/Forks is now the primary stream with hatchery releases curtailed to better meet the PNI/pHOS criteria of a well-managed primary population.

The challenge to the rec fishery will be to figure out how to get their gear in the migratory path of those Naselle and Nemah fish. Where there's a will, there's a way. Someone will figure it out, and then a lot of the whining will probably go away.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/18 07:49 PM

Nice cheerleading doc. WDFW needs all the help they can get these days.

I'm afraid the rec's wont have much opportunity to "figure it out" when there's an ESA listing of Willapa river chinook and the whole bay is closed to salmon fishing. The current policy seems likely to result in that.

The big problem with the switch from naselle to Willapa is that the habitat does not support the decision. The commercial fishery gauntlet is beside the point. Can't manufacture NOR fish if the habitat isn't up to the task.

BTW, Do you know anyone that's caught a chinook south of the goose/ledbetter point line in the salt?

Anyone?
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 08:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Todd
Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Quote:
How you take a fully integrated chinook hatchery/wild stock and end up with what we have today is beyond me.


Well you do it buy having massive straying which degrades natural gene flow by massive hatchery influence. I worked with Chinook for many years and what existed in Willapa is 100% the opposite of integrated. The desired outcome of integrated is the natural gene flow into the hatchery brood. In Willapa WDFW did the opposite and that means it may be genetically same but the gene flow is ass backwards.


This is exactly what is happening to Quinault steelhead...the NOR steelhead there are trashed, the hatchery run has become the genetic contributor...and when the hatchery run crashes, as they all do eventually, the "wild" run will go right with it.

They just closed the Quinault to commercial netting because of a lack of hatchery broodstock returning...if that doesn't turn around lickety split, you will see a concurrent sinking of the wild fish.

I am sure those who have been advocating for Quinault style hatchery management all over the place will find someone else to blame it on, but the fact of the matter is that anyone with half a wit about hatchery/wild integrated hatcheries has seen this one coming for a while, it's literally just a matter of time.

Streams like the Wilson in Oregon will be next...the "integrated" system there is overwhelmingly dominated by hatchery fish returning and spawning, and when that crashes, as they do, then there will a big surprising lack of "wild" fish spawning in the subsequent generations.

Fish on...

Todd


The Quinault uses wild brood for it's hatchery stock. How do the Steelhead brood programs North of the border fit into this argument? The Vedder for example does not seem to have the dual crash issues referenced here. One would think if a wild brood hatchery program on a given river exists, the wild and hatch. fish both would have the same issues? What other BC brood program examples might exist that would display Wild and Hatchery crash concurrence?
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 08:11 AM

My point about the Quinault is that the "wild brood" they use is heavily hatchery influenced...tons of those hatchery fish spawn in the river, artificially increasing that
"wild run"...and when the hatchery run tanks, there will be less spawners, and less "wild" fish.

The introgression on the Quinault is among the worst on the west coast.

The Vedder, as of now, is dominated by wild fish, and the hatchery run is fed from that component, rather than the other way around. As long as they keep it that way it won't trash the wild run.

The Wilson, on the other hand, is just like the Quinault...overwhelmingly dominated by spawning hatchery fish.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 08:29 AM

Todd, you have an official pHOS number for that krik?

ODFW has a wild fish policy of <10%... just never see where it's actually measured.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 08:35 AM

I do not, Francis...I haven't seen one that I can recall. I'll admit that my thoughts on the Wilson are highly anecdotal, but catch rates while I have been there and from what I have been told by several others is more like 90% or more clipped fish to unclipped fish during the peak of the run, and that there are plenty who are not happy with the few wild fish being caught being tubed up and turned into hatchery fish.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 10:46 AM

Question? Do the QIN use full wild brood each year or just add in a % of wild to each years production?

If they use full wild brood then the concept that it is a hatchery fish different from the wild is incorrect other than behavioral changes not genetic. If it is a multi generation hatchery product of natural origin with wild added then that means it is what is normal for a integrated stock. If the point is any hatchery fish of genetic source is not compatible due to simply being reared for a portion of its life is unacceptable then that would be off center bubble also.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 10:49 AM

I think they use whatever swims into the hatchery, choosing for the larger ones.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 10:50 AM


Ok I was correct on the future return years but wrong on the Willapa returns by years. 3 yr are give or take 30% and 4 yr are 43% give or take 5 yr making up the bulk remaining. GH is about even for 4 & 5 yr classes but Willapa with the large hatchery production it is not. Simple fact is hatchery fish numbers change due to the rearing environment.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 10:56 AM


Here is some Willapa information.

C---

I have worked on the Willapa Bay Chinook baseline analysis but haven’t had time to think hard about the results. Ken Warheit helped with the analyses by running a population mean centered PCA and an assessment of mixture analysis power using a program he wrote that implements a method described by Eric Anderson and others.

Analysis of the data set we generated from the Willapa Bay tributaries Chinook samples that were sent to the Molecular Genetics Laboratory suggests that there is little population structuring among the donor populations. For these analyses we combined the samples from each of the three hatcheries with the samples taken from the adjacent streams.



Pairwise Fst s were all well below 0.01 (table below) and indicate that most of the genetic variance is within populations rather than between them.


FST (theta)

ForksCr Naselle Nemah

-------------------------------------------------

NorthRiv 0.00429 0.00346 0.00521

ForksCr 0.00068 0.00212

Naselle 0.00116

We (Ken Warheit and I) ran exploratory principle component analyses (PCA) to see if there was enough variance structure in the data set to separate samples into more-or-less discrete population clusters. The analysis that I ran was naïve to sampling locations and showed perhaps a weak offset to the North River/Fall River group (red) from the other three groups.

Ken ran a PCA that was aware of population membership and was based on population means, an approach that is similar to Discriminant Analysis of Principle Components (dapc) in the R-package adegenet. Ken’s scatterplot shows significant overlap between the population clusters but the North River and Forks populations show greater dispersion along the first and second axes respectively. The Nemah and Naselle samples form tighter clusters that overlap substantially.

The first plot looks at individuals distributed around a study-wide central value while the second plot looks at individuals distributed around population mean values. Confusing?

We also looked at assignment accuracy in two ways. Ken ran a program he wrote that implements a method developed by Eric Anderson and others to estimate the accuracy of genetic mixture analysis stock assignment the four populations. The plot below shows the results from 100 simulated mixtures. Simulated fish from North River/Fall River misassigned (assigned to one of the other 3 populations) about 20% of the time and the other populations had higher misassignment rates.

None of these analyses address misassignment rates of tule Fall Chinook to any of the Willapa Bay populations – which might be a bigger issue than misassignments within the Willapa Bay population complex.

I will be out of town until August, but we can talk about this when I get back. Maybe I will have additional insight when I get back after letting this bounce around in my head for a bit.



Sewall F. Young
Molecular Genetics Laboratory
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091

Phone: 360.902.2773
email: sewall.young@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 11:02 AM


And some more all of it interesting.

Summary of recent genetic analysis performed on Willapa Bay watershed Chinook salmon
Purpose of work:
to extend and update the existing baseline genetic data sets and profiles of Chinook
salmon populations within the Willapa Bay watershed.
Four spawning populations were considered in Willapa Bay tributaries and comprised the North, Willapa,
Nemah, and Naselle rivers.
We sought to answer two questions:
1)
Is there genetic population structuring among the four spawning populations of Willapa Bay
Chinook?
2)
Are the genetic profiles of the four spawning populations distinct enough that we can
reliably accurately identify the spawning population of origin of individual fish?
Samples analyzed included collections from naturally-spawned or -spawning fish and from broodstock
from each of the three hatcheries.
Preliminary results:
1)
Population structuring –
Pairwise
F
ST
values, a measure of population differentiation genetically
comparing each spawning population with all other spawning populations, were all well below 0.01
indicating that the Chinook salmon spawning populations are genetically very similar
.
Principle Component Analysis (PCA), naïve to sampling locations showed substantial genetic overlap
of the four spawning populations. PCA analysis aware of sampling locations still showed significant
overlap among the spawning populations, but the North River and Willapa River populations showed
slightly dispersed clusters and the Nemah and Naselle populations formed even tighter clusters that
almost completely overlapped.
PCA analysis supported the hypothesis that some population
structure may exist in Willapa Bay Chinook, but it is weak.
2)
Identification of spawning population –
Using simulations, we tested the ability of the spawning
population genetic data to genetically assign population of origin to unknown origin individuals.
In
the best case, ~80% of North River simulated fish assigned correctly to the North River spawning
population. In the worst case, only ~50% of Nemah River simulated fish assigned to the Nemah River
spawning population.
The simulations suggested that Chinook spawning populations in Willapa
Bay are too similar to reliably assign individuals to their spawning population of origin.
Preliminary conclusions:
Population structure may exist among spawning populations of Chinook in Willapa Bay tributaries, but it
is weak, and insufficient for reliable and accurate assignment of Chinook with unknown Willapa Bay
population origin.
Please note that this analysis included only Chinook from within Willapa Bay and does not address any
question of genetic assignment of fish originating outside of Willapa Bay tributaries.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 11:04 AM

Or in laymans terms. They are essentially the same.

Begs the question why we're trying so hard to derive a novel and adapted wild stock.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 11:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Question? Do the QIN use full wild brood each year or just add in a % of wild to each years production?

If they use full wild brood then the concept that it is a hatchery fish different from the wild is incorrect other than behavioral changes not genetic. If it is a multi generation hatchery product of natural origin with wild added then that means it is what is normal for a integrated stock. If the point is any hatchery fish of genetic source is not compatible due to simply being reared for a portion of its life is unacceptable then that would be off center bubble also.


I'm thoroughly confused? If wild stock brood has always been used in a system, never contaminated w/ an outside stock, the genetics should remain the same whether generations are reared in hatchery pens or not? Is it the time spent in a hatchery pen rearing environment that is the devil that F's thing up? Or, like the Quinault, does the generation after generation used, just turn into to the problem, even though originally from in system wild stock?
Does the Vedder use captured wild sock every year for it's hatchery production? Or, do they have hatchery returns that supply it?
Also, the Quinault Tribe used to live capture all wild it's brood stock from a net strung out in the lake. I new an employee on net watch and hung out there for a day 7-8 yrs ago. They did sort and breed nothing under 15#.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 03:21 PM

Rearing in the hatchery will select for fish that survive in those conditions. If they use, for example, water that is the same temperatures as the river will be less damaging than if they use water of a different temperature. Fish are cold-blooded and their enzymes have optimal temperatures to funtion. Incubate and raise them in warmer water and you select for that inheritable trait. In the wild, in cold water, it becomes lethal or sub-optimal.

The greater the difference between the hatchery environment and the wild then the greater the impact when those hatchery fish "go native".
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 06:09 PM

Thanks for that explanation Carcassman. I'm no Biologist but it seems if that is known, why not change hatchery practices to benefit the "best conditions" for rearing? Maybe that's already in the works.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/18 06:32 PM

The desire, especially with steelhead, is to accelerate incubation and growth to achieve age-1 smolts. Warm water grows them faster. I believe that one of the reasons most hatchery steelhead suck so bad in the wild is that they are generally cultured in water way warmer than what they try in the wild.
Posted by: milkBottleMikey

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/24/18 12:15 AM

"BTW, Do you know anyone that's caught a chinook south of the goose/ledbetter point line in the salt?

Anyone?"

Yeh, that place aint charlie's point- its were locals rule and yuppie insects like everybody else gets off the f'in break.

Follow the white hilaker next season, godwillin.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/24/18 10:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Geoduck
Nice cheerleading doc. WDFW needs all the help they can get these days.


I'd hardly call it cheerleading, just trying to lay the choices out into a better sense of perspective for those on the outside looking in.

...

Quote:
The big problem with the switch from Naselle to Willapa is that the habitat does not support the decision. The commercial fishery gauntlet is beside the point. Can't manufacture NOR fish if the habitat isn't up to the task.
A bit of history is in order here.

The habitat doesn't support much in the way of natural chinook production no matter which stream is chosen for the primary. Among the three hatchery rivers, the least suitable for producing natural kings in any significant numbers is Nemah. The other two are pretty much neck and neck. Enough so that in the first attempt at HSRG reform back in 2009, we were considering TWO primary streams.... both Willapa AND Naselle.

When the final decision was made, the commercial fishery gauntlet WAS in fact the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point.

The commercials did NOT want to lose access to 2T and they lobbied hard AGAINST a Willapa primary. They overwhelmingly supported Naselle as primary.... along with meat-market production at Forks Creek to maintain their reign on 2T. That really worked out to their benefit.

While in the past, the entire Bay was managed for 30% exploitation, now only Naselle would be managed to a 30% impact, while the rest of the basin was a free-for-all NET-FEST! They typically took 15-20K kings during the period of Naselle primary @ 30%. Their mean king harvest DOUBLED under that paradigm. By 2014, baywide impact had risen to 57%.... 51% comm and 6% rec, a nearly 90:10 split on wild impacts!

And of course, natural escapement was in the toilet.

We have a Wild Fish Policy in this state.... and despite past blunders, the agency's PRIMARY mission is to preserve protect and perpetuate the resource. Secondary to that mission is the goal of providing/enhancing viable fisheries.... but only to the extent that they DO NOT HARM the resource.

Bottom line, we need to reign in the gross over harvest of wild chinook that can't even meet bare bones escapement goals. It's the only way the wild fish have a chance at recovery. We are also compelled to follow HSRG guidelines in hatchery/harvest reform to reduce the number of hatchery origin spawners (pHOS) on the gravel by optimizing the size of the hatchery programs commensurate with our ability to selectively remove the hatchery product in our fisheries. There's only two mechanisms to reduce pHOS .... we either selectively HARVEST MORE or we judiciously PRODUCE LESS to begin with.

The heavy hitters in the harvest arena REFUSE to come along in the state's quest to transition to a more selective fishery. Their defeatist attitude WILL spell their impending doom. Instead of seeking better ways to selectively leverage limited NOR impacts into many multiples of dead fish in the box, they cling to the anachronism of non-selective gillnetting.... irresponsibly burning that impact at a ridiculous rate that takes them off the water that much sooner.

So like it or not, the newest Policy passed in 2015.... warts and all... is currently our best shot at correcting the hatchery/harvest abuses that have plagued wild chinook in this basin for over a century. (FYI.... Forks Cr hatchery was built in 1899)

Quote:
BTW, Do you know anyone that's caught a chinook south of the goose/ledbetter point line in the salt?


Nope.... but mebbe this should be THE year for the ye/eF collaboration to gitter'dun. You in?
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/18 10:24 AM

My problem with the policy is that it was always all about preserving commercial opportunity while halfheartedly trying to meet conservation goals. The fact is its going to fail on all fronts. No meaningful commercial fishery (no big loss in my book), and a probable ESA listing resulting in no saltwater rec fishery.

We could have done everything the same, but skipped switching primaries and we'd be in so much better shape today, not to mention an additonal 2+ chinook generations towards a more adapted wild stock in the naselle. In hindsight, that it was a mistake is so glaringly obvious now.


As for fishing the south bay, I'm in, but it seems like a windmill to me.

Over the past decade, I've spent decent chunks of 4 tides south of the ledbetter/goose point line with no fish to show for it. That said its a big area, but many areas are unfishable due to high currents and bad weeds though. The weeds can be unreal even by WB standards. Maybe there are good pockets to fish, but I don't think there is anything like the 2T/2U stretch in the south bay.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/18 11:15 AM


A lot of good points and all can be 100% right or wrong depending on your perspective. Fact is for whatever reason for the huge hatchery Chinook production in Willapa it is the wrong fish & wrong place if terminal harvest is involved. To many hatchery fish on top of a very small natural production. Harry once told me a story about Chum. Seems he was asked if he could find a way to produce more fish at little cost. He took a look at the hatchery composition and came up with Chum fitting a low volume ( raceway / incubators ) opportunity in Hood Canal, so green light. After a bit of time off to the harvest managers and the question, " shouldn't we figure out how to harvest them first? " Ah nope was the answer we will figure that out later he was told. Now we all know that was a failure with all sorts of issues around the harvest.

So folks get your arms around the issue. The Willapa Chinook production is about feeding the ocean harvest pool. The terminal issues are simply secondary issues that need resolution.

As to fishing the South channel you better figure it out because that is where the fish are going to be. Also your NOS / HOS ratio is about to be the worse you can imagine. New world in Willapa is fast coming and you will need to adapt or stay home. These are the only two options available.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/18 11:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Geoduck



As for fishing the south bay, I'm in, but it seems like a windmill to me.

Over the past decade, I've spent decent chunks of 4 tides south of the ledbetter/goose point line with no fish to show for it. That said its a big area, but many areas are unfishable due to high currents and bad weeds though. The weeds can be unreal even by WB standards. Maybe there are good pockets to fish, but I don't think there is anything like the 2T/2U stretch in the south bay.




In the past decade, I've spent MANY more than 4 tides in the 2T/2U area WITHOUT a fish to show for it.

I've ventured south only one time since 2005. Pretty certain I wasn't below Leadbetter. Just started trolling south along the east shelf once I found deep water... not sure if I was actually in the main Nahcotta or more likely in the smaller channel leading to the Palix.

All I remember was catching a ton of LARGE dogfish.... and later being surrounded by a pack of 35-40 harbor seals following the ONLY boat in that zone. Couldn't have devoted any more than 2-3 hours to that venture.

...

Look.... there's still gonna be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-7 million PLUS chinook released into WB. By design, the policy has significantly constrained the comm fleets ability to access chinook. It's not difficult to imagine eventually getting sport gear somewhere in front of the migratory path of all those kings and not have good things happen. They don't just disappear into some black hole. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/18 07:33 PM

You see the thing that is idiotic, is we make chinook THE recreational priority, then switch prodution around that the only place we can access them effectively is on the nemah river (even there it is pay to play).

Its just dumb. the rec's were sold a bill of goods.

All of this to try and protect wild chinook when they are genetically indistinguishable from the hatchery stocks.

The problem with WB is that we're focused on very marginal chinook habitat and tyring to do recovery there. We should be focused on real chinook streams like the chehalis.

WDFW spins its wheels worrying about mid hood canal or the stilly when it comes to chinook. What about the real chinook rivers (skagit, snohomish, chehalis, columbia, the snake.

I think we should focus our limited efforts and resources on rivers with the hyrdology and potential habitat to maybe support chinook through the coming climate changes were facing. Instead we focus on streams that maybe supported small distinct wild stocks pre settlement, but with modern habitat issues they clearly cannot make a go of it. Throw in a little local warming and its a recipe for failure.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/18 06:14 AM

Quote:
We should be focused on real chinook streams like the chehalis.


Well I think one has to pick the point in time you want to base your plan on. Thing is in the past prior to the changes made by man the Chehalis was a moderate Chinook stream with East Fork of the Satsop being a real producer. This time frame would be prior to Bingham Hatchery when the hatchery was at Schafer Park. The Chehalis was and is a Coho producing SOB but outside the Satsop in the past Chinook prospered in the Hump which performs just the opposite of the Chehalis.

Thing is you cannot return to the past but only try to manage in a manner that allows fish to proper in some manner that may or may not look like the past. Willapa was managed as a kill zone fishery for years. Add to that stocks were moved all over the place resulting in the genetics that exist now. The Willapa policy is a harsh and severe solution to years of abuse and mismanagement and never was intended to make one feel warm and fuzzy all over. It was the method chosen by WDF&W to address the previous bad behavior which by design will have a lot of pain for all harvesters. This was a fact from the get go.



Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/18 06:56 AM

At one time, Chinook were primarily a Big River fish. Adults were 40, 50, 100 pounds because that is what it took to spawn in the big rivers. The smaller streams had a few, probably, but if there wasn't sufficient flow in August/September to get them upstream, they weren't there.


We have fished the stocks down to younger and smaller sizes. A 20 pounder can now rather easily spawn in the small streams like the WB tribs. We have created the small stream Chinook. As I have said before, we are turning the Chinook into a piscivorous chum; now ever creek can have them.

The primary historic Chinook streams were big (Sacramento, San Juoquin, Columbia, Skagit, Fraser, Yukon, etc. ) Cold in summer (snow melt/glaciers) with strong flows. That's where real Chinook lived. The smallest streams had outlier populations and I suspect that streams draining low mountains that were primarily rain driven were not great streams for Chinook.

We now want to change that because we have better uses for the big rivers than fish production.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/18 10:41 AM

Carcassman, Agree, big river chinook are not the priority. My arguement is if we care about the species, they should be rather than ESA listed fish on dinky streams. The reason chinook will fair poorly in creeks is that most don't have the in river habitat to support many fry. Gotta do some growin before the estuary will work.


Dave I agree, that some action needed to be taken, but the path chosen was lose-lose-lose (for conservation, commercial, recs). Staying with Naselle could have been win, lose, win. It was a dumb switch.

Francis, I am not accustomed to being skunked on WB. I think its happened to my boat 6 times in the past decade. More than half of them have been at the hands of the south bay. Thus my pesimism.

Granted an n of 4 is not huge, but given success rates in other areas is a bit daunting.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/18 11:45 AM

Even a "small" stream has plenty of habitat for the Chinook fry. They would compete with coho and steelhead fry, but since they emerge sooner would be at a size advantage. But, like coho, their primary habitat of choice would be lower river/valley floor which is reserved for human use.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/18 11:42 AM


This was forwarded by Kim & Barbara from Region 6. This is different.

Hi Folks,

As you all are aware the first advisory group meetings for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay pre-season planning are slated for the week of March 19th. I would like to make you aware of changes in the WDFW organizational structure as it relates to policy implementation and management of fisheries in the coastal marine estuaries of southwest Washington. In an effort to streamline the management structure and mitigate additional duties that policy implementation has created for regional staff we intend to align policy implementation responsibilities with that of Puget Sound and the Columbia River. For these areas the policy implementation and management oversight originates more directly through the Intergovernmental Salmon Management Unit out of our headquarters office in Olympia.

To that end, the Department has created a South Coast Fishery Policy lead. Primary duties of the position will be the implementation of our Commission policies for Willapa Bay (C-3622) and Grays Harbor
Salmon Management (C-3621) as well as other applicable policies. The position will have responsibilities for the pre-season planning process associated with North of Falcon (NOF) as well as in-season management and will report directly to the Statewide Salmon and Steelhead Fishery Manager – Kirt Hughes. All regional staff will continue their work in District 17 (the watersheds of Willapa Bay and Gray Harbor) and continue to report to the Region 6 Regional Fish Program Manager, Annette Hoffmann.

I am pleased to announce that Chad Herring has agreed to fill this position on an acting basis in order to complete the NOF process. Chad has been working in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor fisheries management since 2012, most recently as the Willapa Bay Policy Implementation Biologist since 2015.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/18 09:26 AM


Schedule change NOF Willapa.

Hi Everyone,

As you may be aware, we have a Willapa Bay advisory meeting which is associated with the North of Falcon salmon setting process that is scheduled for April 12 (Thursday) at the Region 6 Montesano office from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Due to some scheduling conflicts, we need to move that meeting a week earlier to April 5 (Thursday), same time and place as above.

Sorry for any inconvenience. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks.

Barbara
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/18 07:07 PM

Final GH meeting was also switched from April 17 to a couple weeks earlier on Apr 4.

Interesting that they do this when BOTH the GH and WB final meetings were intended to review seasons AFTER the final PFMC shebang April 6-11.. The idea was to help staff review the pending changes to the reg book before the printer deadline.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/14/18 07:37 AM

This way, they can change your input at PFMC. And they do such a good job on getting the pamphlets and announcements out in clear as a bell English so what's the worry?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/18 08:37 AM


Had some questions on GH & Willapa NOF and what things look like. As to what seasons look like , limited is the answer. The Adviser meeting for GH was just give me ideas BS, ass deep to be honest. Why? No harvest model so it was kinda throwing something at the wall and seeing if it sticks. It was a waste of everyone's time and frankly just going through the motions.

Willapa? I passed (out more accurate as a dear friend drank me under the table, again ) so I can not be truly accurate. That said it seems the the English language is being redefined by WDF&W as to the meaning of words. This issue is about the Commission guidance that put Chinook impacts at 11% Rec / 9% commercial. Seems that this can be determined to be North bay even though that was not in the one page Commission directive.

Maybe someone present can describe the meeting a bit more. My perspective is pretty much same o same o nuthin new. Same game just different look.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/18 09:38 AM

It sounds like the first GH Advisors meeting went about as expected. You got the news that things aren't all that great regarding forecasts and opportunity. Then a brainstorming session to talk about it. Isn't this sort of standard for a first meeting? Ideas during the brainstorming would feed several options for development in the model. It probably takes a little time to flesh out these options in the model. These could be discussed at the followup meetings. Would you rather have "this is the way its gonna be" for the first meeting?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/18 10:20 AM

Brainstorming my ass. ( not meant to offend ya ) We had preseason forecast and with numbers tight you cannot propose a season with sincerity that reflects reality without the harvest model. You can get commercial inputs ( when you have the model ) but Rec requires staff to do the inputs. It was 100% dog and pony show driven by the need to meet the APA process legal requirements so they cannot be sued. ( again ) All that was done in the GH meeting was show last years seasons with this years returns to show the difference between the two years.

Three monkeys doing something to a football could have multi tasked and done the same thing. That staff have a bitch of a job this year ( well always ) is a given. Was staff dishonest? Not no but hell no. Was staff just going through the motions for Olympia? Not yes but hell yes. The meeting was a classic D & P show.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/18 09:39 AM


Couple of meetings got added and in the e mail notification I lost track of one so I asked. Below are the remaining dates.

You are correct, at the public meeting we discussed that we will have an additional meeting for Willapa Bay. The purpose of this meeting as well as the meeting for Grays Harbor on April 17th, will be the pamphlet language walk through. For Willapa Bay, this meeting is scheduled for April 12th at the Region 6 office at 6pm. It is not a change just a confirmation that we will have the meeting that I discussed in my March 14th e-mail to the distribution list.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/18 11:53 AM

Here is another change for GH NOF. For my part no I do not know whats up other than they violated several promises made back a bit by Ron Warren on process and headed behind the door. As numbers are short, ocean folks are trying to gobble and if your local you should pay attention. the QIN get 50% of harvestable ENTERING WA ST waters. So if the ocean is not restrained it will eat into the non treaty ( ours ) share and can will be back filled by terminal fisheries. If your a Chehalis Basin resident inland you might want to pay attention as it appears a hold up is in progress out of sight.


To All Interested Parties:


FYI – There will be a public meeting to review the 2018 Salmon Sport Fishing proposals for Grays Harbor on Tuesday April 17, 2018 at the Montesano City Hall from 6 pm to 8 pm. This meeting was originally scheduled to take place at the Region 6 Office in Montesano, but was changed to the Montesano City Hall to accommodate more people.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Kim Figlar-Barnes
Fish Biologist
WDFW Fish Program – Region 6
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563

360-249-4628 ex 235
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/18 01:51 PM

Need to look very carefully at how the sharing is worded. It was my understanding that the 50:50 applies to all fish landed in WA, caught in the waters of WA and the ocean outside 3 miles. Not BC, not AK, not OR but all the rest.

I think, based on what I have seen in the Reel News a year or so ago, the State now divides the catch 50% "outside" and 50% Tribal inside. That means that QIN would get 50% of the harvestable from the Quinult and Chehalis. It would not include, as Indian fish, anything taken in the ocean trolling. Anybody remember Makah??? Tribal trolling, tribal by catch in Fraser fisheries are all supposed to count against the Tribal share.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/18 03:35 PM


Had some questions asked on the 50%. Tribal troll and such count against them as they add and subtract. Thing is most do not know that last year for the first time the QIN insisted on their full 50%. I imagine they will do the same this year with things being tight. It makes the marine & fresh water sharing numbers break different as to the harvestable fish available. Simply put the NT marine harvest can impact the fresh water sharing and increase the QIN portion of fish crossing the bar into GH. It is a zero sum thing .
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 07:01 AM

I know it is quibbling but QIN doesn't always get 50%. Treaty Indians get 50%. If there is no marine take by Tribes then they do get 50%. It's exactly like the NI shares on salmon and steelhead. Since NI don't take steelhead (we'll ignore the beach/Whidbey fisheries right now) each stream is shared 50:50. One for you, one for me.

In salmon, the NI side (especially) has already taken a big chunk in marine waters. Ultimately, this is why the in-river recs get cut off so often. Their (the NI) have taken the share ahead of them.

In Boldt, in Court, the sharing is Treaty/non-Treaty. If, somehow, the ocean troll by tribes harvested every last Quinault Chinook the QIN would have no allocation left under Boldt.

The above is what the Courts' have said. They also let the State and Tribes negotiate something different for whatever reasons they collectively have. Which is why transparency is critical.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 10:49 AM

This is also why many Puget Sound tribes are not particularly stoked at the effectiveness of the Makah troll fishery...they are lowholing the other tribes.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 11:49 AM

That's true, Todd. Which may be why there is an effort to make folks think that Tribe fishing in bays and rivers gets 50%.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 12:35 PM

Non-tribal folks have always had a strangely difficult time understanding that by the time a particular run gets to a river that the non-tribal share may have already been completely harvested by marine fishers over the past year.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 03:08 PM

It can go both ways, however, which is something we need to push for too. I know a Makah tribal fisher very well. He told me one time that many in the tribe felt they had a right to attempt to harvest 50% of any fish that passed them. I don't think they really cared how that affected anyone else. I think the state needs to hold fast that they don't give a rip which tribe takes the fish, as long as the 50/50 holds true. Any agreement should be clear that if any side goes over, adjustments down the line. It seems to me that we usually see set fisheries for the tribes, and adjustable ones for us.
Posted by: bob r

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 03:35 PM

A few years ago I seem to recall that the Makah tribe over-harvested blackmouth salmon by more then 3000 fish, when called on it the position was that there must have been a run that exceeded far above what was projected because "we caught that many". Harvest for the rec community was cut drastically, I believe that adjustments were agreed to for upcoming years,but never actualized. Big surprise! Bob R
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 03:54 PM

Originally Posted By: bob r
A few years ago I seem to recall that the Makah tribe over-harvested blackmouth salmon by more then 3000 fish, when called on it the position was that there must have been a run that exceeded far above what was projected because "we caught that many". Harvest for the rec community was cut drastically, I believe that adjustments were agreed to for upcoming years,but never actualized. Big surprise! Bob R


My memory may be a bit hazy but as I recall there (according to WDFW) wasn't a hard number for them to fish to at the time. Another issue was that WDFW was receiving the fish tickets but for whatever reason never hit the alarm button. Finally, I do not recall that there was ever a "pay back" agreed to let alone put into effect.

Guess who got the very short end of the stick on that deal?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 04:38 PM

It was obvious to WDF that the Makah could take all of the Treaty Share of a stock. We were actually asked by Tribe A to shut down Tribe B because B was corking them and letting nothing up the river. The State couldn't and wouldn't do that. It is an inter-tribal allocation issue that WDFW needs to stay out of.

I suspect, though, that WDFW is willing to "accommodate" overages by some tribes, as was seen with the Makah troll. If it had been the NI recs that over harvested there would have been screaming and yelling to cut back their fisheries. Rather than crickets.

And, Larry is right. WDFW had the tickets in a timely manner but other priorities prevented their being entered into they system or reviewed.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 04:48 PM

To piggy back on Todd's recent comment, there seems to be a lot of trouble grasping the concept that sharing covers all WA fisheries.

When the first US-Canada Treaty was signed the PS Tribes were threatening what was called the "All-Citizen" suit. In it, catch in ALL US fisheries would count which means the AK fisheries might not only take all the NI share but might cut into the Indian Share. In that case, AK would have to be responsive to the needs of WA. They, as I recall, were refusing to support the Treaty unless the suit was dropped.

If memory serves, the suit was not fully dropped but the Tribes agreed to hold off if WA gave them full Co-Management authority. Bill Wilkerson thought it was a good idea.
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman

And, Larry is right. WDFW had the tickets in a timely manner but other priorities prevented their being entered into they system or reviewed.


That was an acute embarrassment for WDFW calling into question the integrity of the entire reporting process. Implausible deniability???

Or the three monkeys; Hear, See and Speak no evil. And we, the NI side of co-management, had to cut back our fisheries.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/18 09:21 PM

Part of the foundation of Co-Management is that you manage yours and we manage ours. Before that, the State had (though Boldt) clear conservation responsibility. Now...........
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/11/18 10:57 AM

For GH and have requested translation.

The Area 2-2 Humptulips North Bay chinook fishery begins in August and runs through Sept.15.

The Area 2-2 East Bay coho fishery begins two weeks later than 2017 and is scheduled Oct. 1-Nov. 30.

The Chehalis River spring chinook fishery is scheduled May 1-June 30 while the jack fishery in the lower river runs Aug. 1-Sept. 15.

The Humptulips River is scheduled to be open for salmon fishing Sept. 1-Nov. 30, about two months fewer than last year. Anglers can keep one wild chinook during the month of September but must release wild chinook the remainder of the fishery.


Willapa Bay Area

The season in Willapa Bay (Area 2-1) is similar to last year and is scheduled Aug. 1-Jan. 31. Anglers can keep three adult salmon, one of which may be a coho.
The freshwater rivers in the Willapa Bay area have similar seasons to 2017. Anglers may retain one wild coho.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/11/18 11:20 AM


The link to the WDFW page posted.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/2018/finalized_fisheries.html#coastal
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/11/18 02:28 PM

If you fish Grays Harbor and want to know the fishing seasons before the 2018-19 Pamphlet comes out...


FYI – There will be a public meeting to review the 2018 Salmon Sport Fishing proposals for Grays Harbor on Tuesday April 17, 2018 at the Montesano City Hall from 6 pm to 8 pm. This meeting was originally scheduled to take place at the Region 6 Office in Montesano, but was changed to the Montesano City Hall to accommodate more people.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/29/18 09:36 AM

Some folks are questioning the seasons for 2018 this fall. The dates are up in another thread so you have that part. As to rational PM me and I will forward the e mail sent by Chad for R-6 staff on the reasons they ended up where they did. If you did not receive it then you are flying blind but ask and you shall receive! The e mail is from R-6 and is rather forthright explanation of this falls salmon season. Staff stumbled at the start of NOF due to the confusion on ocean numbers and not being willing to turn loose the model. Midway with the public meetings they failed miserably but they pulled it together and finished strong. No BS just the ugly truth straight at ya. That is acceptable always even if one views the outcome differently simply because folks no matter what staff does someone will be upset with something. Coming right at us with the unvarnished truth makes some upset but someone will be upset no matter what. So they sucked it up and came right at us. Give them credit folks because that is not a easy thing for any agency staff to do let alone WDF&W.

Now you East County folks. Look down to the graph and zero in and the % of catch by week. It is October that is the greatest impact which can limit the front and back of the season. Reduce October by time limitations ( days ) or catch and you can extend the season front and back sides. Now this would adversely effect the those from outside the area the most & benefit the local residents the most. So here is the rub guys. If you do not attend the meetings then the views of folks who do will be front and center. This is a squeaky wheels gets fish thing so if you do not put in the time you have no bitch. Whatever your thoughts there needs to be a lot more inland butts setting in chairs next year or don't bitch.

Anyhow I give credit for staff for taking US head on and being forthright. From my chair it is the best way to go.




From R=6:

Hello Everyone,

During the last North of Falcon meeting on April 17th, the Department released its proposal for salmon fisheries occurring within the Grays Harbor Basin for 2018. During this meeting we received some input from the public to re-evaluate the proposed season for freshwater fisheries. Specifically, took assess the two adult bag limit and season duration in order to possibly extend the salmon season into December. Also, the Fish and Wildlife Commission has received some e-mails regarding this topic. Regional staff conducted an analysis of the proposed Grays Harbor season for 2018 and drafted a response. What follows below is the agency’s response to those commission e-mails and a synopsis of the analyses results.

First, let me say, thank you for your interest and attendance of our Grays Harbor North of Falcon (NOF) salmon season setting process. It is important for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to get representation and input from all user groups in regards to the shape and scope of salmon seasons within our management and conservation objectives for the upcoming 2018 season. As the Department considers a proposal for this year’s salmon seasons in Grays Harbor there are some documents that guide and/or provide management and conservation objectives within any given year. These documents include, but are not limited to, U.S v. Washington (commonly referred to as the Boldt Decision), the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission’s Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management Policy (C-3621). These documents, treaties, and federal court orders lay the foundation for which salmon seasons prosecuted in Grays Harbor are to be structured.
In regards to your request to evaluate reductions in bag limits in order to prolong Coho directed freshwater fisheries within the Grays Harbor Basin, the most constraining management objective for fisheries planning in 2018 is a 20% total exploitation rate (TER) cap required for Grays Harbor Wild Coho under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST). The PST designates specific coastal stocks as indicator stocks in order to reflect the health and sustainability of coastal Coho stocks in total. Grays Harbor Coho as well as, Quillayute Coho, Hoh Coho, and Queets Coho are all identified as indicator stocks in the treaty. For Grays Harbor Coho, the forecasted ocean escapement of ~42,000 is roughly 16% above the spawning escapement objective of 35,400. At this level Grays Harbor Coho fall into the “low” abundance category, which limits the TER to 20% through all fisheries, from southeast Alaska to California.
As part of the NOF salmon season setting process for fisheries in Grays Harbor, the WDFW hosted several open public meetings prior to the April meetings of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), these are presented in Table 1 (below). The purpose of these meetings were to gather input and fishery suggestions from the advisory group and members of the public in order to craft a fishery package that met management and conservation objectives. An additional advisory meeting after the April PFMC meeting was scheduled to provide Grays Harbor advisors and the public with the proposed fishery package for Grays Harbor in 2018 (Table 1). A full meeting schedule was available on the agency website and this information was sent via e-mail to advisors and interested parties. All meeting handouts as well as audio recordings of all meetings are available on the agency’s website; https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/season_setting.html .
Table 1: Advisory and Public meeting schedule for Grays Harbor Salmon Fisheries in 2018.
Meeting Type Date Location Time
Forecast meeting - Public February 26 Montesano City Hall 6 pm – 8pm
Advisory Group meeting March 19 Montesano Regional Office 6 pm – 8pm
Public meeting March 27 Montesano City Hall 6 pm – 8pm
Advisory Group meeting April 4 Montesano Regional Office 6 pm – 8pm
PFMC April 6 - 11 Portland Sheraton Hotel NA
Advisory Group meeting April 17 Montesano City Hall 6 pm – 8pm

During the advisory group meeting held on April 4, department staff informed those in attendance that the current fishery package as modeled showed a 22.5% TER for Grays Harbor Wild Coho and that further shaping would be necessary. Also preliminary modeling showed that simply reducing bag limits would not enable us to reach the objective and that shortened seasons would more than likely be required. The remainder of the meeting was utilized to take suggestions on how to shape the fishery package in order to meet this objective, these included:
- closing the commercial fishery to preserve wild Coho impacts for recreational fisheries;
- shaping all sectors fisheries to proportionally reduce impacts to wild Coho;
- closing freshwater recreational fisheries in a step-wise manner working backwards from the traditional closing date until the objective is met;
- closing freshwater recreational fisheries in systems without hatchery production;
- take actions necessary to keep freshwater recreational fisheries open until December 15.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policy on Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management (C-3621) provides the Department with guidance as to what factors should be considered when setting salmon seasons. As a general policy statement, the policy directs fishery managers to focus commercial and recreational fisheries on the harvest of abundant hatchery fish while minimizing the impacts on wild stocks. Guiding Principle #7 specifically states, “In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, fishing opportunities will be fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of WDFW-managed fishers”. Given our policy guidance along with input received through the NOF process, all fisheries were reduced proportional to their impact to wild Coho in order to meet the 20% TER objective in the Pacific Salmon Treaty. This approach resulted in the reduction of recreation salmon fishing opportunity in Marine Area 2-2 of one week in the month of September. Commercial fisheries opportunity was reduced in the final week of October. Lastly, freshwater recreational fishing opportunity for salmon during the months of December and January was removed. Proportionally freshwater recreational salmon fisheries make up 49.5% of the total impact to Grays Harbor wild Coho. Even with the reductions in the proposed fishery package mentioned above the resulting modeled TER for Grays Harbor wild Coho was estimated to be 20.7%.
During the April 17 NOF meeting, WDFW received comment that the fishery package should be re-evaluated to possibly extend or shift the freshwater recreational season to provide some salmon fishing opportunity in December. While there was not consensus among recreational interests supporting such a change, the WDFW felt it was important to review of the package in order to have a fully informed assessment supporting our decision making process. To that end, WDFW evaluated shifting the current proposed freshwater salmon season for October 1 through November 30 to October 16 through December 15. The model evaluation showed that this approach could essentially be impact neutral in regards to wild Coho. Further evaluation of total Coho harvest under this “shifting of the season” approach would result in the reduction of harvest of hatchery Coho by 278 fish; this would represent a harvest reduction of 7.1% of the total freshwater Coho harvest. Another suggestion provided at the April 17 meeting was reduce the bag limit during freshwater salmon season from a two fish adult bag limit to a one fish adult bag limit in order to extend freshwater recreational salmon opportunity into the month of December. Similar to the open-dates change, our analysis of the reduction in bag limit would reduce the total harvest of hatchery Coho and would further reduce total impact to wild Coho by approximately 30 fish. Catch Record Card (CRC) data indicates that 78% of the total Coho harvest occurs within the October to November period (Figure 1). Conversely, only 6% of the total Coho harvest takes place during the first two weeks of December.
Figure 1. Percentage of Grays Harbor Coho harvest using CRC data for the years 2002 through 2016.

It is also worth noting that regional WDFW staff have received comments during and after the April 7th advisory meeting from recreational fishers that they would not be in support of reducing the bag limit in order to extend salmon fishing opportunity within the Grays Harbor Basin. After careful consideration of the input received, Commission policy on salmon management in the Grays Harbor Basin, conservation objectives, and the additional analysis summarized above, the WDFW intends complete the rule-making process to implement the season described during the April 17 meeting; see season detail below.

MARINE AREA 2.2
Humptulips North Bay Fishery: August 1 – September 15, daily limit 2 (combined), Release wild Coho
East Grays Harbor Fishery: October 1 – November 30, daily limit 1, release Chinook
FRESHWATER
Lower Chehalis River (mouth to Hwy 107 Bridge): October 1 – November 30, daily limit 6 only 1 adult may be retained, release adult Chinook
Chehalis River and Tributaries: October 1 – November 30, daily limit 6 only 2 adults may be retained, release adult Chinook and adult wild Coho
Humptulips River: September 1 – September 30, daily limit 6 up to 2 adults may be retained of which only 1 may be a wild Chinook, release wild Coho
Humptulips River: October 1 – November 30, daily limit 6 only 1 adult may be retained, release wild adult Chinook and wild Coho
SPRING CHINOOK
Chehalis River (to Hwy 6 Bridge near the town of Adna): May 1 – June 30, daily limit 1 adult
JACK FISHERY
Chehalis River (to South Elma Bridge): August 1 – September 15, daily limit 6, release adults

Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Chad Herring
Anadromous Policy Analyst – South Coast (acting)
Montesano Regional Headquarters
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/07/18 09:45 AM


This was forwarded to me and Larry was speaking to more than the individual who was the lead in the exchange. Bottom line I think Larry would be OK with the information being circulated.

B--- and others,

Sorry it has taken me this long to get back to you but I wanted to provide you with the most recent developments. As of today we have a meeting scheduled for next week to develop/discuss the spending proposal with the Co-managers. Dir Stohr (acting) has also been in contact with Quinault Nation President Fawn Sharp who indicated to him that they would like a resolution to this issue soon. For these reasons we are cautiously optimistic that we will reach an agreement regarding the use of these funds soon. Ron and I understand that folks are frustrated but ask that you give us a bit more time to work on a solution as it seems like we are making progress.

As for 7400, we have been in discussions with Green Diamond since access was closed a few years ago. We have reached an agreement on an alternative access point a few hundred yards downs stream from the old access. Currently we are in the final stages of permitting and (fingers crossed) are hopeful that we will be moving dirt soon. Again, a long time in coming but we are confident that we are very close to having something concrete to share with the sport fishing community.

We will be sure to reach back out with an update following the upcoming meetings.

Sincerely,

Larry Phillips
Region 6 Director
WDFW, Montesano

360-870-1889
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/07/18 03:06 PM

Am i the only one to take offense to the moving dirt comment? Hasn't this been the problem in the riparian zone?
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/18 02:52 PM

Originally Posted By: slabhunter
Am i the only one to take offense to the moving dirt comment? Hasn't this been the problem in the riparian zone?


I think you're the only one.
Posted by: Eric

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/18 03:19 PM

Originally Posted By: slabhunter
Am i the only one to take offense to the moving dirt comment? Hasn't this been the problem in the riparian zone?



There will be no more dirt moved than has occurred naturally over thousands of years as the river wanders back and forth in it's floodplain. In fact, existing roads and gravel bars should make this task an easy one.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/18 04:29 PM

I just hope parking doesn't get to be a problem?????? Not so much at the 7400 line area BUT THE WHITE BRIDGE AREA....

I can see during some weekends.....jammed parking at White Bridge.....Jet boat guides, drift boat guides and rec. drift boat and jet boat persons. parking at White Bridge....THEN turn around rigs or the return service bringing rigs back from 7400 Line, are going to park where??????

WDFW just hasn't done what it should have been doing over the years...acquire additional parking not only at White Bridge but also Black Creek......pressure is only going to increase in the future.....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/18 04:41 PM

Wonder what ever happened to Bob Watson's old program to acquire land, access, easements, and such. And, before that there was an effort by many to acquire access for steel heading on a lot of streams. Wonder why those programs (apparently) died.
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/18 05:14 PM

Parking will be an issue. It's been bad enough when 7400 has been closed. There's more than enough real estate to add room for parking to the white bridge launch. I am still excited for this launch to open. I avoid the wynoochee due to crowds in the winter so no sweat off my back.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/18 05:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Wonder what ever happened to Bob Watson's old program to acquire land, access, easements, and such. And, before that there was an effort by many to acquire access for steel heading on a lot of streams. Wonder why those programs (apparently) died.


Good question.....would take work to contact land owners but I really think that "many land owners would just as soon not have anyone on their property or even going by, summer, winter, fall. The trash that is left on some of my local rivers, all times of the year.

I offered to take Region 6 Director Larry Phillips on a ride from tide water to the 7400 area, just to show him the places that now have no access, where there was "lots", in the late 60's, 70's, 80's...….thats when WDFW should have been getting 99 year leases on all the local rivers. At this time I've not had any contact on this request by me.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/12/18 02:48 PM

It seems to me that WDFW is in favor of boat-oriented fishing. Period. Some of that is obviously the land ownership in the state and where the "important" fish (salmon, steelhead, etc.) occur. But what fisheries does WDFW push that are shore-based? Very few, if any.

We have some pretty good fisheries but you need a boat. So, the idea that the agency needs to work at access is not even on the radar.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/01/18 05:23 AM

Nope I am not dead, yet anyway. Things have been pretty steady around this area and I did not see anything worth posting. Well this the QIN and WDF&W seem to be inching along with Wynoochee Mit but nothing earth shaking. Also the Satsop boat launch is pretty much graveled in and will continue to stay that way I imagine. Stand on the old hwy bridge and look upstream. Whatever caused the river to move west is now going to be feeding thousands of cubic yards of gravel down stream. Damn good chance the whole bridge reach will slowly fill in. So we have a primitive launch.
Posted by: larryb

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/01/18 01:35 PM

does the state still have the old launch downriver on the west side? might be able to use it again
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/02/18 06:46 AM


The old bar your talking about is gated off. The launch at the bridge is usable but off the bar but it will water up this winter. Long term no idea as I have zero idea on if that much gravel will flush through.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/02/18 07:39 AM

River changed quite a bit, for the first time in quite a while, below the new split by Stormy's place. I think the switch from the old channel being dominant to the new changed (sped up?) the dynamics of the flow downstream. The big elbow hole where the channels join back together used to slow the flow to a near stop at that point in the past, but since the change, it pushes down through that area much more quickly, likely driving lots of change downstream during last rainy season.

I'll need to take a walk down the lower before it rains, to see how the water below is looking. For the past several years, it seems to me the fishing down there has gotten to be a timing thing. To some extent, it always has been (tides), but it seems like the fish don't hold down there for any length of time anymore, so unless you hit moving fish, you often won't see much happening, even during high season. Hopefully, there is some new holding water down there somewhere. More likely, it's just straightening out more (going the wrong direction), but it's an excuse to go exploring, and I needed one.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/02/18 08:54 AM

The new west channel above the bridges is a huge oxbow with acres of gravel piled up between the west side of the bow and the cliff channel. The west channel has water now but not much flow but once it rains the gravel between the two channels will do something. Thing is 57 years ago and for many more the river below the old bridge was very deep on the west side and from 3 to 5 on the east side. It was the swimming hole with the rope swing and bridge jump on the railroad bridge. Things moved around every year but did not change much over time other than the gravel bar under the old highway bridge growing and shrinking year to year.

Now the bar on the east has moved down to the boat launch area and the bridge bar is gone. What never was before is the west side bar that appears to be expanding. That has never happened in my time. By the way a snag is under water right where the two channels come together for you low water boaters.
Posted by: larryb

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/02/18 01:42 PM

not talking about the gravel bar. just above the bar the state had a few acres of land with a boat launch. when the river changed it fill in and they opened the launch by the freeway
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/18 07:34 AM

Originally Posted By: larryb
does the state still have the old launch downriver on the west side? might be able to use it again


I know the place your talking about...….I've been in the area since 1968, that West side boat launch was gone before my arrival. The road going into that area, Wormans Bar, is still there BUT is gated off.

I'll miss the current boat launch, if its not usable, sure allowed me to "twitch" 100's of Coho over the years.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/18 12:20 PM

Well the QIN numbers are up and here is what they are. Modeled Chinook were 1381 & actual is 2216. Coho modeled 3766 actual is 3857. So what happened? IT rained early and on about the 10th of Sept things changed dramatically. The Coho jacks showed with 3 year Chinook then we did not fish for two weeks. The movement was way way more than one would anticipate and shot gunned all over the place. ( shotgun is the same as scattergun )

How much no one knows but the movement was huge and the QIN dropped on the backside of the movement did well the first 2 day set but things tailed down the second and by the time we fished tide water uninterrupted it was done. Simply put now we wait until the fishes timing catches up with ours as the front part of the run is upstream. Inland guys dream come true for a bit but the fish are staging so bites will decline for most lacking fresh fish.

Maybe / maybe not. There are some fish moving head down straight up the river but how far? No idea but once the Chum start in they will bring the rest of the Oct. part of the run with them if any are still waiting. When it rains in the first part of Nov or earlier and the rivers brown out they will move but that is the Nov fish so guys it is all about where you fish.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/13/18 08:15 AM

Anyone taking bets on when they are going to shut us down? With no real rain forecasted all week and into next week, I say we are shut down by the 30th.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/01/18 12:56 PM


Took a quick look at tribal and NT net season and so far it is tracking close to the harvest model with one exception Chum which are a no show ( in numbers ) so far. Have to wait for the last NT set but it was aimed at Chum and from what I have seen they did not find them.


Here is the thing, when looking at NOAA river forecast we have a bump coming and then below average flows the next ten days out and the bump is a small one so the water is going to stay low and clear for this time of year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/18 10:53 AM


Hey guys there has been a really big change in the lower Satsop toward the mouth. Headed for Willis's place so heads up if your running up from or down to the Chehalis. Lot of trees hanging around also so I was told.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/16/19 06:45 AM


Been a bit since a Grays Harbor issue ( other than the policy ) came up but it is that time. Dates, time and location for the NOF bit.


Grays Harbor Advisory Members,

Welcome to the 2019 North of Falcon (NOF) planning process. Please review the lists below pertaining to the 2019 NOF meetings.

Listed below are meeting dates pertaining to Grays Harbor:


Meeting Date Location/Time
GH & WB Forecasting 2/26/2019 Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano - 6 pm to 8 pm

GH Advisory 3/5/2019 WDFW Region 6 Office, 48 Devonshire Rd., Montesano 6 pm to 8 pm

GH NOF Public Mtg. 3/26/2019 Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano - 6 pm to 8 pm

GH Advisory 4/8/2019 WDFW Region 6 Office, 48 Devonshire Rd., Montesano 6 pm to 8 pm



Listed below are meeting dates pertaining to NOF and Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC):


Meeting Dates Location/Time
State Wide Salmon Forecasts 2/27/2019 Lacey Community Center, 6729 Pacific Ave. SE Olympia – 9 am to 3 pm

PFMC 3/7 to 3/12/2019 Hilton Vancouver Washington (see link below for agenda & times)
301 W. 6th Street
Vancouver, WA 98660

NOF # 1 3/19/2019 DSHS – Office Building 2 Auditorium, 1115 Washington ST. SE., Olympia – 9 am to 3 pm


NOF #2 4/3/2019 Lynnwood Embassy Suites – 9:30 am to 5 pm
20610 44th Ave W
Lynnwood, WA 98036

PFMC - Final 4/11 – 4/16/2019 Double Tree by Hilton Sonoma (see link below for agenda & times)
One Double Tree Drive
Rohnert Park, CA


To see more details and agendas for the “North of Falcon – Setting 2019-2020 Salmon Fishing Seasons” and possible schedule changes go to: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/
To view meeting dates for Grays Harbor Advisory Group see the following link: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ghsag/ This site will also include handouts, notes and audio of the completed meetings.

Please note I have attached the Advisory Group Handbook. This book explains the role of advisory groups and the responsibility of members. Please take some time to review this handbook.
I look forward to seeing you at the WB & GH forecast meeting on February 26th.

Have an enjoyable day,

Kim Figlar-Barnes
Fish Biologist - Grays Harbor
WDFW Fish Program – Region 6
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
360-249-4628 ex 235
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/19 05:38 AM


For those looking at GH for 2019 Kim provided the link to get you to the minute and recording of the recent GH Adviser meeting. Short and simple it looks to be C&R on Chinook with a two bag limit for Coho with seasons similar to recent years with last years restricted season not in play. Numbers and things may move around a bit as things are finalized on ocean seasons and the QIN.

To All Interested Parties,

Information from the March 5, 2019 Grays Harbor Salmon Advisory Group meeting is available on WDFW’s webpage. Please follow this link to the site: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ghsag/
To review information from the meeting just click on Meeting Handouts, Meeting Notes or Audio. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Enjoy your day,

Kim Figlar-Barnes
Fish Biologist - Grays Harbor
WDFW Fish Program – Region 6
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
360-249-4628 ex 235
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/19 11:43 AM


A new wrinkle to watch play out and it is explained minus exactly what the error was / is.

Hello Everyone,
Just wanted to keep the advisors up to date on information pertaining to the 2019 NOF process.

As you may be aware, the March meeting of the Pacific Fishery Management Council is currently ongoing. In the background of the council meetings in the big room, Department staff have been meeting with our tribal co-managers and representatives from federal agencies. Through these discussions and in reviewing data that informs the forecast model for Chinook, an error was found in the run reconstruction data relating to sport catch on the Humptulips. The QIN and WDFW are working collaboratively on resolving this issue.

What does this mean for the forecast? Recall from the forecast meeting on February 26th, we presented Grays Harbor salmon forecasts and made the statement that they were all agreed too with our co-managers. We are still in agreement with the method, unfortunately, due to the error described above, the outcome of the model for Grays Harbor Chinook (both Humptulips and Chehalis Rivers) will change. Once we have completed our work to correct the data and generate a new forecast value we will circulate that and update information on the agency website.

Thanks,
Chad Herring
South Coast Fishery Policy Lead
Montesano Regional Headquarters
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
Office#:(360)249-1299
Cell #:(360)470-3410
Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/19 09:53 AM


Clarification from staff on what the issue is holding up Grays Harbor 2019 season process.


As I understand it, the issue was related to WDFW inputs for catch and the allocation of that catch to the Humptulips and Chehalis portions of the watershed. Again, the important piece is that we are addressing the issue to ensure that we have the best information to inform decision making through the season setting process.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/19 04:12 PM

here we go.......................
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/19 04:43 PM

Here are the changes and there are several. Hump W was 6207 and H 2467 Chehalis was 17781 W and 2390 H. Compare with new below and we will have to see but the Hump is going to be challenging to say the least. Remember Hump is not in 3/5 like the Chehalis so it is the W impact that governs everything.

From Chad:

Good afternoon everyone,

We have reached agreement on Grays Harbor fall Chinook forecasts for 2019. I have inserted a table below with the forecast numbers. Forecasts for all other salmon species (spring Chinook, coho, and chum) in Grays Harbor are unchanged from what was presented at the forecast meeting. I have also attached the preseason planning model runs that were presented at the advisory group meeting with the updated fall Chinook forecast numbers. There were two models that were presented, one was 2018 fisheries with 2019 forecasts and the other was 2019 forecasts with a rec season more closely resembling what has been offered in recent years. Staff are currently working on updating the information available on the WDFW website.

Just to provide some more clarity to Kirt’s earlier response. The issue was in how historic catch data was assigned to origin (hatchery vs. wild). The model assigns origin based on current year runsize proportions when actual catch data is not yet available. The problem was the historic catch data was still referencing these proportions instead of the actual catch data by mark type reported from CRC and tribal sampling. Staff will be available to discuss this in more detail at our upcoming Grays Harbor fisheries public discussion meeting on March, 26th at 6pm at Montesano City Hall.


Predicted Return
Escapement Goal
Harvestable Number

Runsize
Chehalis



Hatchery (Mean rates)
2,226
341
1,885
Wild (Mean Ret/Spawner)
13,568
9,753
3,815

15,794


Humptulips



Hatchery (Mean rates)
5,435
650
4,785
Wild (Mean Ret/Spawner)
4,427
3,573
854

9,862


Thanks,
Chad Herring
South Coast Fishery Policy Lead
Montesano Regional Headquarters
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
Office#:(360)249-1299
Cell #:(360)470-3410
Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/19 12:29 PM


Heads up folks and this is at hand. The way the schedule is put out is a bit different so one has to track it differently.

March 26
Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion
6 p.m. to 8 p.m.; Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano.
Public discussion for discussion of pre-season forecasts and possible salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor and its associated watersheds.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/19 04:29 AM


Heads up folks and this is it for the NOF bit this year. You might want to pay attention as staff has been a bit duplistic in this process and frankly Olympia and some members of the Commission have been actively engaged in trying to undo the GHMP.


Apr. 8, 2019
6 pm to 8 pm - Region 6 Headquarters Office, 48 Devonshire Rd., Montesano
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/19 05:03 AM


As a Adviser I had intended to stay in process through this years NOF while placing my objections to staff. After the reports I received on yesterdays Commission meeting I changed my mind.

Memo: Mr. Chad Herring

I am writing to formally protest as a GH Adviser the failure of Region 6 staff to comply with the Grays Harbor Management Policy. Before I address that issue I feel obligated to say that from the Chehalis Jack fishing rules to Humptulips area C staff has done an outstanding job of research and monitoring these and other issues has tried to treat all fairly with this one glaring exception, which I will address.

The GHMP Item 7 of the guiding principles states: In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, fishing opportunities will be fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of WDFW- managed fishers. The failure to address this issue exist in the marine fisheries in the bay area of Grays Harbor has and appears to be continuing this year. Grays Harbor marine areas is basically two distinctly different fisheries which are the South channel known as Johns River and North channel. For whatever reasons Chinook travel and hold in the South channel / Johns River and Coho travel the North channel. Due to the 3/5 provision of the GHMP state fisheries are limited to a 5% Chinook impact utilizing catch and release. Each year the bay fisheries are limited to the period of time it takes for the Johns River Chinook catch and release fisheries to reach the limits imposed by the GHMP. This results in the loss of Coho harvest opportunity in the North channel which has few Chinook impacts as WDFW refuses to recognize the Grays Harbor Bay area is made up of two distinctly different fisheries and users who participate.

The North channel from the 101 bridge passes the Port of Grays Harbor to the area adjacent to Bowerman airport is a mom and pop small boat fisheries utilized primarily by local citizens and is clearly a targeted Coho fishery with few Chinook impacts. The South channel fishery is primarily a large boat fishery Chinook C&R fishery dominated by people of means and fishers from outside the local community. Each year the entire bay fishery is governed by the amount of time it takes the fishers in the South channel to utilize the allowable marine Chinook impacts dictated by the GHMP with few Coho impacts.

One could argue endlessly the duplistic nature of calling a C&R Chinook fishery in the South channel a targeted Coho fishery but for myself that is not the issue. It is the fact that if both the fishers in the North channel & Johns River / South channel were treated fairly and staff complied with item 7 that the North channel would be available for recreational fishers from August through November dependent upon Coho abundance. Simply put a Chinook C&R fishery in the South Channel under the guise of a targeted Coho fishery should not be allowed to utilize nearly all the Chinook impacts and deny a true targeted Coho fishery a full season. This violates Item 7 guiding principles, is absolutely discriminatory toward citizens of less financial means, and the local fishers. It would be a rather simple exercise to define the North channel that fishers would easily distinguished for the average citizen.

As this is not my first rodeo Mr. Herring I recognize your limitations to address this issue and as this is the case I will seek to bring both Mr. Warren and the Director Kelly Susewind into this conversation. The violation of Item 7 of the GHMP and the discriminatory practices resulting from these actions are totally unacceptable. Any attempt by agency staff seeking to not comply by endlessly throwing real or imaginary road blocks as the agency has done for many years on Wynoochee Mitigation is unacceptable.

In closing let me be crystal clear. The violation of Item 7 in the Grays Harbor marine fisheries and the resulting discrimination toward fishers of less means and of local origin must end immediately. It was my intent to address this issue at the Commission GHMP review but that was unfortunately cancelled. Due to time limitations at the last GH Adviser meeting a full vetting of the issue was not made available which resulted in no other option than lodging this formal protest of the violation of Item 7 of the GHMP.

Dave


CC: Director Kelly Susewind
Mr. Ron Warren
Mr. Mike Scharpf
MS Kim Figlar-Barnes
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/19 05:16 AM

After researching the hatchery production for the Chehalis I was taken back a bit on several things but the most obvious one being the falsification of the preseason forecast. Simply put the NOF harvest model utilized ends on Dec 1st but staff are including the late Coho which return after Dec 1 in the fall harvest model which inflates and distorts the actual number of adults available for harvest. So all understand I asked staff if the late Coho where in the fall model and they confirmed it. I used smolt releases for the hatcheries to use as a tool to track just how this effects fisheries. Keep in mind after Nov 15th it is the very start of the late Coho run and very few of these fish are present and the vast majority of the normal timed Coho are past areas available for fishing. The T day Coho which are the remaining Satsop natural timed are present in numbers, sometimes.




Fellow Advisers:

So far in the NOF meetings, both Adviser and public, I have been surprised by the lack of understanding of just what and how our salmon runs are comprised of and the timing of those runs.

So I have requested that staff provide the complete model be projected on the wall to fully utilize it. Additionally in the model is a tab that has not been shared with the public or Advisers and it is labeled Total Exploitation Summary. Many of the questions regarding Chinook harvest and conservation are easily understood if discussed while viewing this tab. In my opinion the criticism of the Johns River catch and release and inriver REC fisheries are misguided. Catch and Release is a primary tool utilized by WDF&W for conservation based harvest. Yes fish die but the thought that by restricting these fisheries would affect the health of the Chehalis Chinook run is simply a fantasy.

While I have voiced concern about the Johns River fishery limiting the REC opportunity in the North channel which violates Item 7 of Guiding Principles it should not be taken as a rejection of the Johns River South Channel fishery but rather a failure by staff to recognize some simple facts. The Johns River South Channel fishery is in relatively shallow water and Chinook for whatever tend to hold creating excellent opportunity while Coho is much more limited. The North Channel is a deep channel and Chinook present are moving and the ability to catch Chinook is drastically reduced but Coho opportunity is dramatically enhanced.

Terminal it is the QIN that have total control of our Chinook escapement, period. WDF&W fisheries are restricted by the 3/5 clause of the GHMP and I doubt that non treaty fisheries will have any directed Chinook in the foreseeable future. The true damage to our Chinook stock is marine from Alaska all the way to the Washington coast. To advocate that we give up the paltry 5% impact after the returning adult Chinook are mauled in the marine fisheries all the way up to the Grays Harbor bar at Westport will help with escapement is frankly as I said a fantasy. Viewing The Total Exploitation Summary tab will make this abundantly clear.

Coho behavior is reasonably consistent year to year staging above South Monte Bridge to above the Nuke site intakes and then slowly but steadily work their way upstream with this rather large variable, rain. In a normal year the normal timed Coho stage as I said above Friends Landing and below Fuller Hill but if it rains not so. Take last year it rained early and bounced the river. By bounced I mean the Satsop and Upper Chehalis received enough rain to rapidly raise flows to well above normal flows and Coho have a direct response of moving upstream to where ever they feel like. This past year they moved up to the area around Fuller Hill and staged up but the Satsop normal timed hatchery release turned into the Satsop and continued up to near and above Schafer State Park. This resulted in the Chehalis River below the South Elma Bridge to South Monte having primarily the hatchery returns of what remained of the two hatchery releases on the Satsop ( not much ) and the Skookumchuck & Onalaska combined 100K normal timed Coho hatchery adults available for harvest.

This event coupled with the hatchery returns underperforming in my view resulted in a mix of wild out numbering hatchery fish in the range of 20 to 1. With a conservation restricted season this resulted in a full blown catch and release Coho fishery. It is doubtful that the total REC impact exceeded expectations as once it rained the Bay and tide water fisheries drastically underperformed and Coho impacts were simply taken upstream.

For the Chehalis River the available hatchery fish for harvest is dominated by two things, the weather ( rain ) be it lack of slowing down the fish movement upstream or a river flow bounce which puts the fish into a rather rapid movement upstream before they stop and stage up. The other is hatchery production which provides opportunity but it is not a uniform thing for all fishers. First we have two distinctly different stocks with two different run timings. Normal timed with show in August and increase in numbers to mid November and lates which start showing in the last two weeks of November through December. Then the location of the hatchery releases which do not generate the same opportunity for all users. Rather than use adult returns for the hatchery returns I am listing the numbers by release and give or take a bit on smolt survival the normal timed Coho are similar. Two variables are upper basin Coho smolt releases have a lower smolt survival than lower basin releases and Normal timed a Coho smolts have a higher survival than late Coho smolts. Also the mix in streams of hatchery & wild can vary wildly. A example to use is the Wishkah and Satsop sub basins which are very different and the wild production can limit access to the hatchery production on the Wishkah even if you have substantial hatchery production present. The same applies to the Satsop sub basins in some years but hatchery production is on the East fork only with the Middle and West Forks free of hatchery influence.

Chehalis Hatchery Coho Releases
Normal Timed
Westport net pens is 100k
Mayr is 300k
Friends Landing is 25k
Satsop Springs is 450k
Bingham is 150k
Onalaska is 50k
Skookumchuck is 50K

Total 1,125,000 K Normal Timed Coho Releases

Late Timed
Bingham is 150K
Skookumchuck is 50k
Onalaska is 50k
Eight Cr is 100K

350K Late Timed Coho Releases

Total Chehalis Hatchery Coho Releases 1,475,000

The hatchery releases are of two stocks that overlap. Normal timed arrive at the hatchery prior to December 1st and Lates after December 1st. Simply put a percentage of normal timed Coho will return with the lates and a percentage of lates will return early with the normal timed Coho.

How this relates to the availability hatchery origin adults for summer fishing seasons before November 1 put forth below:

BAY: If you are fishing below the 101 bridge in Aberdeen you are fishing on the adult returns off of 1,025,000 normal timed Coho. You must subtract the Late Coho releases and the Westport Boat Basin net pen fish. The net pen fish are Bingham Satsop origin conditioned to return to the boat basin but it is doubtful that only a marginal amount of adults will be available to fisheries other than the boat basin. This number of hatchery and wild Coho available to the Rec fisher is at its greatest in the North Channel of the bay.
ABOVE WISHKAH RIVER: If you are fishing above the Wishkah River you must subtract the Mayr Hatchery releases and are fishing on 750,000 normal timed Coho smolt releases.
WISHKAH RIVER: If you fish the Wishkah River you are fishing on the release of 300,000 normal timed hatchery Coho.
BELOW SOUTH MONTE BRIDGE: If you are fishing below the South Monte Bridge you are fishing on releases of 750,000 normal timed Coho releases.
BELOW FULLER HILL: If you are fishing below Fuller Hill you are fishing on the returns from 725,000 normal timed Coho smolt releases. As with the Westport Boat Basin fish you must subtract the smolt releases from Friends Landing but it is my thought that a few will make it into the upriver catch as stated
SATSOP RIVER: You are fishing off the Bingham & Satsop Springs Hatcheries releases of 600,000 normal time Coho smolt releases.
ABOVE FULLER HILL: If you are fishing above Fuller Hill Bridge you are fishing on 100,000 normal timed Coho smolt releases from the Onalaska program and Eight Cr. site.


AFTER NOVEMBER 15th:
BAY AND BELOW SOUTH MONTE BRIDGE: It almost always rains around the first week of November and the river tribs plus mainstem rise sharply and brown up. This is the end of nearly all REC Coho opportunity for this reach of the basin.
ABOVE THE SOUTH MONTE BRIDGE: You are fishing on 350,000 late timed hatchery Coho smolt releases.
SATSOP RIVER: You are fishing on 150,000 late timed hatchery Coho smolt releases.
ABOVE FULLER HILL: You are fishing on 200,000 late timed hatchery Coho smolt releases.

I hope this helps all in understanding some of the conflicts clearly visible between the public & some Advisers in the NOF process.

Dave

Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/19 08:29 AM

They are not including the late component in the NOF outside planning?????


Way back, like 70s, WDG planted steelhead in Kennedy Creek but, for a while anyway, those plants didn't make the published lists. Nice little fishery was created.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/19 09:15 AM


Not sure on the outside but I think yes is the answer as they bunch up the numbers regardless of timing. Like the old days, a Coho is a Coho which is similar to the old H & W discussion. Old habits die hard. The difference here is they recognize the difference and manage somewhat for it but take the winter Lates returns and pump up the fall numbers for harvest. They even set limits on the Lates but it is in the Steelhead season which starts Dec 1.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/19 09:18 PM


Staff provided this model run for the Advisers review. THIS IS NOT SET IN STONE but rather staff trying to keep the Advisers informed and are subject to change. In fact Chad, Mike, and Kim have went the extra mile as it relates to information. Mr. Philips even updated things with screens to compare models side by side as to changes. Credit given for this element of GH NOF folks.

Other issues still abound as always but the seasons provided in this model appear to be reasonable. If some want the model shoot me a PM.

From Mike:

Hey All,

The process is what it is, then things happen. We’ve had technical exchange of the attached updated planning model, but no policy level discussion yet. There are adjustments to both commercial and sport schedules. On the sport side, changes are what was talked about in the Advisory meeting, model E; going mark-selective in the North Bay, and going to a one-fish bag in the Humptulips, but allowing a two-fish bag in September and requiring the release wild Chinook and wild Coho. For the commercial adjustments in 2C, we proposed one day in week 42 (week of Oct 13) and one in week 44 (week of Oct 27). In 2A/D, four days in weeks 43 and 44 (weeks of Oct 20 and 27). These adjustments are depicted in the attached model.


Model F - PFMC 2 April 14 2019
Fishery Description
Sport
Marine 2.2 Dates Bag Limit
Area 2D only Sept 16-Nov 30 2 Adult bag: release Chinook (east of 2B only)
Area 2C only Aug 1-Sept 15 1 Adult bag: release wild Chinook and wild Coho

Chehalis River Mouth to Hwy 6 0 0
Chehalis River Mouth to South Elma Bridge Aug 1-Sept 15 : Release adult salmon
Sept 16-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
0 0
Chehalis River Porter up to High Bridge Oct 1-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
0 0
Hwy 6 to high bridge

Hoquiam Oct 1-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook

Wishkah Oct 1-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook


Wynoochee Oct 1-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook

Satsop Oct 1-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
0 0

Black River Oct 1-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook

Skookumchuck Oct 16-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook


Newaukum Oct 16-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook

Elk and Johns Oct. 1-Nov 30 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook

Humptulips River FW Sept. 1-Sept 30 2 Adult bag: release wild Chinook and wild Coho
Oct. 1-Nov 30 1 Adult bag: 1 may be Chinook, release wild Chinook and wild Coho
Dec 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho


Area 2A/2D Week 43 4 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook
Area 2A/2D Week 44 4 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook

Area 2C Week 42 1 12 hr days, live boxes
Area 2C Week 44 1 12 hr days, live boxes
Posted by: ronnie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/19 09:39 PM



Am I not reading it right, because I don't read what happens between South Elma bridge and Porter. Is it closed or should the line say from South Elma bridge to the high bridge instead of from Porter?
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/19 10:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


Area 2A/2D Week 43 4 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook
Area 2A/2D Week 44 4 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook



So the commercials get to keep hatchery chinook in 2A/2D and sports don't? What a F'n crock.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/15/19 08:08 AM


Forwarded your question Ron.

On the Chinook keep total NT Commercial Chinook impact is 106 with 24 being hatchery. Keep in mind that the hatchery Chinook are broodstocked Satsop from the supplementation program to maintain the Satsop and not a true hatchery program as found in places such as Willapa. The Rec harvest utilizes its share in C&R vs kill which from my seat is proper as the policy dictates it and frankly if allowed to do a Chehalis kill fishery we would blow the numbers in record time and be off the water. The NT Commercial season will be primarily Chum 12,655 and Coho 4239 with the few Chinook impacts very low and incidental.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/15/19 09:51 AM

Originally Posted By: ronnie


Am I not reading it right, because I don't read what happens between South Elma bridge and Porter. Is it closed or should the line say from South Elma bridge to the high bridge instead of from Porter?


Ron:

Here is what I have: April 2, 2019

Chehalis River

Lower River(South Elma Bridge) August 1, ---- September 15....This is a fought for "jack fishery".


Lower River(Porter Bridge to 101 Bridge) Sept. 16 - Dec. 31....This is the normal opening...… Yes I know there were years where adult Coho were allow before this date...… but its not going to happen this year....what we have is a fishery that many enjoy, allow to Dec. 31


Upper River(Porter Bridge upstream) Oct 1 -- Dec 31, covers all the plants in upper basin.


Bottom line....2018, above S. Monty....We lost Sept 16 - Sept 30, only jacks and hatchery Coho, AND the season ended Nov 30.


For those of us that enjoy the Chehalis River fishery, this is a much better season than 2018......yea, I know, Chinook have to be released BUT that is true of all the tributaries that flow into the Chehalis.


Oh, to answer YOUR question, if a person likes to fish between Porter bridge and South Elma bridge....Sept. 16 - Dec. 31 covers that.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/15/19 09:57 AM


Mike got right back and here is the info.



Attached is a summary of the seasons. I’ll send this out to the distribution list in a little while. The Chehalis River from the mouth to South Elma Bridge will be open Aug 1 through Sept 15 for jacks only, then from the mouth up to Porter from Sept 16 through Dec, and from Porter upstream from Oct 1 through Dec. Let me know if this helps.


2019 Grays Harbor basin Recreational Salmon Season package, April 15, 2019
Quinault River
• July 1 – Sept 30: release adult salmon.
• Oct 1 – Nov 30: 2 adult bag, release Sockeye and Chum
Queets River Basin
• Clearwater River
o Sept 1 – Nov 30: 1 adult bag.
• Queets and Salmon rivers
o Sept 1 – Nov 30: 2 adult bag, only 1 Chinook, release wild Coho.
Copalis, Moclips, Joe Creek
• Sept 1 – Dec 31: 2 adult bag, release Chinook.
Grays Harbor Marine Area 2.2
• North Bay
o Aug 1 – Sept 15: 1 adult bag, release wild Chinook and wild Coho.
• East Bay
o Sept 16 – Nov 30: 2 adult bag, release Chinook.
Humptulips River
• Sept 1 – Sept 30: 2 adult bag, release wild Chinook and wild Coho.
• Oct 1 – Nov 30: 1 adult bag, one may be a Chinook, release wild Chinook and wild Coho.
• Dec 1 – Dec 31: 1 adult bag, release Chinook and wild Coho.
Chehalis River
• Lower river (South Elma Bridge)
o Aug 1 – Sept 15: release adult salmon.
• Lower river (Porter Bridge) (2-pole only up to South Elma Bridge)
o Sept 16 – Dec 31: 2 adult bag, release Chinook.
• Upper river (Porter Bridge upstream)
o Oct 1 – Dec 31: 2 adult bag, release Chinook.
Hoquiam, Wishkah, Wynoochee, Satsop, Johns, Elk, Van Winkle
• Oct 1 – Dec 31: 2 adult bag, release Chinook.
Skookumchuck and Newaukum
• Oct 16 – Dec 31: 2 adult bag, release Chinook.
Posted by: ronnie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/15/19 01:18 PM



Thanks, River Guy

The above clears up the ambiguity in the first reg posting.

And I agree. Chehalis season much better than last year.
Posted by: J. T. Piscator

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/19 08:14 AM

Rivrguy, Is the summary you posted yesterday morning the final approved seasons? The North of Falcon website announcement yesterday was seriously lacking in information. THANKS FOR ALL THE HELPFUL AND DETAILED INFORMATION YOU POST!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/19 08:22 AM


I think so but as in all things the QIN must agree and I lost track of that part. Minus a big hiccup I think that is it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/01/19 07:14 PM


Kim sent this out in response to questions during NOF. I think some might find the information interesting.


To All Interested Parties:

During some of the 2019 Grays Harbor NOF and advisory group meetings, constituents inquired about climate and pinniped issues effecting salmon management. Below I included some links to presentations given by WDFW employees pertaining to these issues during the 2019 NOF meetings.

The first link is a climate presentation given by Marisa Litz at the statewide forecast meeting held on February 27, 2019. Marisa’s presentation begins around the 42 minute marker.
http://hostedevents.invintus.com/WADeptF...ntID=2019021004

The second link is a pinniped management presentation given by Nathan Pamplin at the NOF meeting held on April 3, 2019. Nathan’s presentation begins around the 47 minute marker.
http://hostedevents.invintus.com/WADeptF...ntID=2019041000

Hope you find these presentations informative regarding both of these issues.

Enjoy the rest of your week,

Kim Figlar-Barnes
Fish Biologist – Grays Harbor
WDFW Fish Program – Region 6
48 Devonshire Rd.
Montesano, WA 98563
360-249-4628 ex 235
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/19 11:51 AM

Some folks asked me if this is worth doing. Well if you feel compelled to object I guess so but not really. The agency dumped everything into one big run rather than area by area as we are used to seeing. After that it was up on the website that the rules would be adopted around the 26th which translated means it is all done already. Now how this is possible is what The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy legal challenge to the NOF not complying with the APA process ( CR 101 / 102 / ect to set a WAC ) that Bay Wolf has been putting up in other threads is about. You might want to pay attention to this as this is not about " I don't like the season " but rather a challenge to the complete violation of legal statute by WDF&W in how they set season in private minus a record while running out the NOF dog & pony show.




The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing rule changes for recreational salmon fishing. The agency developed these changes through a pre-season planning process known as “North of Falcon” that includes a series of public meetings with federal, state, tribal and industry representatives and other concerned citizens. Rules based on the North of Falcon planning process change from year to year to reflect resource availability and achieve conservation goals.

The CR-102 and proposed WAC can be viewed and downloaded at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development#19-03-137a.

In accordance with RCW 34.05.320, a public hearing will be held on:

Wednesday, June 25, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., at the Natural Resources Building, Room 682, 1111 Washington St., SE, Olympia, WA, 98504 (Puget Sound Marine and Freshwater)

Thursday, June 25, 2019, at 1:00 p.m., at the Region 5 Office, Room 102, 5525 S 11th Street, Ridgefield, WA, 98642 (Columbia River)

Thursday, June 26, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., at the Region 6 Office, Large Conference Room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA, 98563 (Coastal Marine)

Thursday, June 26, 2019, at 11:00 a.m., at the Region 6 Office, Large Conference Room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA, 98563 (Coastal Freshwater)

In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing, you may submit written comments to WDFW’s rules coordinator, Scott Bird, at PO Box 43152, Olympia, WA 98501; via e-mail at Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov; or via fax at (360) 902-2155.

WDFW must receive comments by June 24, 2019.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/19 03:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Some folks asked me if this is worth doing. Well if you feel compelled to object I guess so but not really. The agency dumped everything into one big run rather than area by area as we are used to seeing. After that it was up on the website that the rules would be adopted around the 26th which translated means it is all done already. Now how this is possible is what The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy legal challenge to the NOF not complying with the APA process ( CR 101 / 102 / ect to set a WAC ) that Bay Wolf has been putting up in other threads is about. You might want to pay attention to this as this is not about " I don't like the season " but rather a challenge to the complete violation of legal statute by WDF&W in how they set season in private minus a record while running out the NOF dog & pony show.




The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing rule changes for recreational salmon fishing. The agency developed these changes through a pre-season planning process known as “North of Falcon” that includes a series of public meetings with federal, state, tribal and industry representatives and other concerned citizens. Rules based on the North of Falcon planning process change from year to year to reflect resource availability and achieve conservation goals.

The CR-102 and proposed WAC can be viewed and downloaded at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development#19-03-137a.

In accordance with RCW 34.05.320, a public hearing will be held on:

Wednesday, June 25, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., at the Natural Resources Building, Room 682, 1111 Washington St., SE, Olympia, WA, 98504 (Puget Sound Marine and Freshwater)

Thursday, June 25, 2019, at 1:00 p.m., at the Region 5 Office, Room 102, 5525 S 11th Street, Ridgefield, WA, 98642 (Columbia River)

Thursday, June 26, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., at the Region 6 Office, Large Conference Room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA, 98563 (Coastal Marine)

Thursday, June 26, 2019, at 11:00 a.m., at the Region 6 Office, Large Conference Room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA, 98563 (Coastal Freshwater)

In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing, you may submit written comments to WDFW’s rules coordinator, Scott Bird, at PO Box 43152, Olympia, WA 98501; via e-mail at Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov; or via fax at (360) 902-2155.



WDFW must receive comments by June 24, 2019.


Isn't June 26th a Wednesday? Bob R
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/19 04:44 PM


I just got a correction.

Corrections to the days of the week.

From: NorthofFalcon (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 11:15 AM
Subject: Washington State North of Falcon Recreational Fishing Rules Public Hearings Information

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing rule changes for recreational salmon fishing. The agency developed these changes through a pre-season planning process known as “North of Falcon” that includes a series of public meetings with federal, state, tribal and industry representatives and other concerned citizens. Rules based on the North of Falcon planning process change from year to year to reflect resource availability and achieve conservation goals.

The CR-102 and proposed WAC can be viewed and downloaded at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development#19-03-137a.

In accordance with RCW 34.05.320, a public hearing will be held on:

Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., at the Natural Resources Building, Room 682, 1111 Washington St., SE, Olympia, WA, 98504 (Puget Sound Marine and Freshwater)

Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 1:00 p.m., at the Region 5 Office, Room 102, 5525 S 11th Street, Ridgefield, WA, 98642 (Columbia River)

Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., at the Region 6 Office, Large Conference Room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA, 98563 (Coastal Marine

Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at 11:00 a.m., at the Region 6 Office, Large Conference Room, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA, 98563 (Coastal Freshwater)

In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing, you may submit written comments to WDFW’s rules coordinator, Scott Bird, at PO Box 43152, Olympia, WA 98501; via e-mail at Rules.Coordinator@dfw.wa.gov; or via fax at (360) 902-2155.

WDFW must receive comments by June 24, 2019.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/19 04:48 PM


Now this is interesting!!!!!!!!!!

From: Susewind, Kelly (DFW) <Kelly.Susewind@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:02 AM
To: Susewind, Kelly (DFW) <Kelly.Susewind@dfw.wa.gov>
Subject: WDFW Director’s Office structure

WDFW Colleagues:
As I near the close of my tenth month as your director, I continue to be impressed by the breadth of our mission and the quality of the work that you all accomplish. I learn something new every day. I hear stories from our external partners about how we interact and affect their quality of life. I continue to be thrilled to be leading this agency, an agency that does so much for fish, wildlife, and the citizens of the state.

I’ve taken some time to assess our challenges, our leadership team, and how that aligns with my own strengths and weaknesses. I have taken time to get to know the agency, and understand what works well, and where our vulnerabilities are.

I am writing to share an update on changes I am making in the Director’s Office that reflect that thinking and will go into effect next month.

After 12 years as your Deputy Director, I have asked Joe Stohr to serve as the Assistant Director (AD) of our Technology and Financial Management Program and also lead our Modern Workforce Initiative. I want us to have 21st century technology, work spaces, records management, and workforce policies that attract and retain talent. Joe will lead this important initiative and set us up for success.

Amy Windrope, our Region 4 Director, served as the Acting Deputy Director during the spring of 2018. Her energy, passion, and ability to connect with and lead staff is admirable. She has been with the agency since 2011 and she excels at bringing programs together to solve tough natural resource challenges. I’ve asked her to serve as the Deputy Director. She’ll start in this new role next month. She’ll also be the lead for coordinating our executive management team. I plan to ask regional program managers to serve as the Acting Region 4 Director on a rotational basis while the recruitment for a permanent replacement is underway.

An area where I think we need additional emphasis is working across programs to enhance our delivery of conservation outcomes. I’ve asked Jeff Davis, currently the Habitat Program Assistant Director, to serve as the Director of Conservation. He will be our lead for establishing a conservation vision and working across programs to support implementation. In this new role, Jeff will also serve as the executive sponsor of our strategic planning effort and will lead the Lean Transformation Office. I’m going to appoint Margen Carlson as the Acting AD of the Habitat Program while we recruit for this vacancy. She is a great leader, has helped in building the program and has a solid grasp on the operations and policy issues. I am confident that she will excel in this role.

Another area where I want to invest additional emphasis is the co-management of fish, with a focus on salmon. I’ve asked Ron Warren, the Fish Program Assistant Director, to be a new Director of Fish Policy. In this role, Ron will lead our work with US v Oregon, US v Washington, and coordinate our Commission’s fish and hatchery policies. This additional capacity will allow a new Fish Program Assistant Director to focus on implementation of the program. I have appointed Kelly Cunningham, the Deputy AD of the Fish Program, to serve as the Acting AD while we recruit for a permanent AD. Kelly has been with the Fish Program since 2012. He is a solid member of our executive management team, lives and breathes fish, and is a strong champion of staff.

Nate Pamplin who is currently our Policy Director will continue in his role, although I’m changing some of the portfolio of his work. We’ve recently centralized budget management in the agency, and I’m moving that newly created work unit from TFM and placing it under Nate. Nate will continue to oversee state and federal legislative affairs and public affairs, but as indicated above, the work he was previously doing associated with strategic planning and executive management coordination are being moved to Jeff and Amy, respectively, to free up some of his capacity to be our executive lead on budget.

As you’ve read, there are a lot of changes coming. I recognize that it is challenging to make these changes while balancing a budget with a significant shortfall. The changes I’ve proposed create two new FTEs. I have also done the calculus. If we don’t address key areas, like making strong improvements on salmon co-management, improving our conservation focus, and working across programs, we will continue to struggle to dig out of what seem to be perennial lean budget years.

There are many more details to sort through to implement the plan I’ve described. I wanted to share my latest thinking, and initiate some of these structural changes. I’m excited about the new team in the Director’s Office that will be able to help partner on our high priority areas.

Please congratulate those in their new positions and support the acting positions while we fill the vacancies created.

Sincerely,

Kelly
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/19 08:23 PM

Does this mean that Ron Warren is not only getting a big raise, he is also the guy in charge of coordinating the Co-management process?

Boy, you would think after eating $hit from him doing the Ten Year Chinook Management Plan behind the Commission's back, and hanging Unsworth out to dry, they would have had their fill of ol Ron.

I guess I should not be surprised that in an organization that rewards bad behavior, Ron Warren would get a promotion at the very time the department is embroiled in a lawsuit over the North of Falcon, which he oversees!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/19 09:01 PM

One of my mentors used say that one should not look at what the Legislature says, but where they actually put money.

Same thing here. Don't look at what they say, who do they promote? That is a clear expression of intent and direction.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/04/19 09:28 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen, we would now like to introduce bumbling, tie waving, Oliver Hardy as Director of Fish Policy.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/19 04:40 AM


I think you are insulting Mr. Hardy. I think your on the right track though but I will go with Inspector Jacques Clouseau
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/19 05:35 AM

Solid. Invest more in all the people and things the public hates most about WDFW. That'll get their appetites up for fee increases!
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/19 08:41 AM

Whew! I was having a hard time keeping track, but Kelly says only two new FTEs in the upper management tier. Is the new Director circling the wagons and doubling down on the worst attributes of the agency?

WDFW is broken, and manages with a business plan based in the mid-20th century. Susewind says he wants to ". . . have 21st century technology, work spaces, records management, and workforce policies that attract and retain talent." But he omitted having a 21st century business model and plan.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/19 09:18 AM

I don't know how there rest of you feel about Ron Warren, but I can tell you from my experience that I don't trust nor respect him. This is personal from my direct dealings with him. I have heard from others that have said the same thing.

As I said, this is MY experience with him, and others may feel different. I had some very close interactions with Warren and Carpenter during the preceding three years when working on the Open Meeting Campaign, and through the revelation and release of the Ten Year Chinook Salmon Management Plan, and there were some very strong feelings exchanged about trust.

I've decided to send a letter to Director Susewind and Chair Carpenter to let them know that I believe the Directors choice to promote Ron Warren is counter productive in as far as his desire to build better relations with the constituents.

Perhaps if any of you have had the same experience with Ron, you could let Director Susewind know.

I want to give Dir. Susewind the benefit of the doubt that he is trying to make things better, but I also believe he is falling into the same trap that Dir. Unsworth fell into, and that is relying on Ron Warren to be an honorable man. We know how that ended up.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/19 10:20 AM

As promised, I sent this letter a few moments ago to Director Susewind and Chair Carpenter:


Director Susewind, Chair Carpenter,

I am writing you to express concern on the planned appointment of Mr. Ron Warren to the position of Director of Fish Policy.

Although the job description is not yet public, the title indicates that Mr. Warren will be assuming a larger leadership role in the process of Co-management and the crafting of negotiations and agreements which ultimately become policy and law.

As you recognized a need to better the relationships with your constituents I thought I would take a moment as your constituent to relay how your announcement of appointing Mr. Warren to a Directorship was received by many in the community.

Frankly, the response has been greatly negative.

At a time when the Department is in litigation for violations of both the Open Public Meetings Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act for actions in the North of Falcon process (NOF), the promotion of Mr. Warren, who oversee’s the NOF seems untimely if not reckless.

The crafting of the Ten Year Chinook Salmon Management plan, which Mr. Warren was lead in, was done behind the backs of the Commission and the public, and is still fresh on the minds of those you're asking to support this decision.

Unfortunately, over his tenure, Mr. Warren has earned a very poor track record and reputation with the recreational population at large. Frankly, he is not trusted.

I’m sure there are some within the advisory groups that will chime in support for Mr. Warren, and I do not wish to condemn their support. I just wanted to bring to your attention how a great many of the “Joe Fishermen” feel about your decision regarding Mr. Warren.

We do believe you are looking forward, and want to lead the Department into better times, and you are well supported in this effort. We hope you consider taking the pulse of the citizen sportsmen as part of the plan.


With respect,
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/19 11:05 AM

The reason Warren keeps getting promoted is that he is a "company guy," to his core. He has spent years lying and delivering bad news to sport fishers, then taking the brunt of the angry reactions. Taking heat for the top brass has proven a very successful career path for Mr. Warren.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/19 01:29 PM


Flea I am not sure within the agency culture they regard it as lying. For staff it is a manner of doing business and the best I have ever gotten in thought is this. They believe it is perfectly acceptable to with hold information or provide misleading information that leads you to a conclusion they desire. Now I know what my Mother thought when I tried that but all can draw their own conclusions.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/10/19 08:44 PM

Originally Posted By: bob r
Melanie nailed a 21 1/4 coho on Saturday, biggest silver I've ever seen. Bob R



this is the kind of stuff that gets me going on a big coho prediction year. Any chance you have a pic you could share? It's going to be a long summer!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/10/19 09:35 PM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
Originally Posted By: bob r
Melanie nailed a 21 1/4 coho on Saturday, biggest silver I've ever seen. Bob R



this is the kind of stuff that gets me going on a big coho prediction year. Any chance you have a pic you could share? It's going to be a long summer!

Unlike other forums I cannot post photos here. Don't have that problem on ANY other local fishing forum. Bob R
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/11/19 10:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

Flea I am not sure within the agency culture they regard it as lying. For staff it is a manner of doing business and the best I have ever gotten in thought is this. They believe it is perfectly acceptable to with hold information or provide misleading information that leads you to a conclusion they desire. Now I know what my Mother thought when I tried that but all can draw their own conclusions.


I agree "lying" is an ugly word, but as regards fisheries issues, I'm calling a spade only by its proper name from now on. The gloves are off.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/19/19 03:59 PM

OK folks this is interesting. If you are following the thread on the Advocacy legal challenge on transparency you will be amazed at this one. In a effort to blunt this WDFD changed how you can track the WAC / APA process. If you go to the website and type in RULES in the search box you current rule making page, then click on the one you want Grays Harbor, Willapa, ect to get to pages with a absolute document dump. This link is for Grays Harbor Commercial and the REC part is mixed in. Here is the link and more later. Oh, it is 777 pages.


https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/2019%20GH%20NOF%20Rules%20File.pdf
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/25/19 08:48 AM


Had a question this morning as the rumor mill has it that changes are happening in Region 6 Fish Program staff. ( harvest ) Ah well I have word from some that was happening but I do not know and I am not going to ask. With the Ron Warren move and other things it would not surprise me as some sort of restructure is underway, how much how far time will tell. Remember folks some years back a senior staffer was asked to take a job at R-6 and reacted with a strong NO followed by " they still eat their young down there " . Tuff neighborhood the coast is, not for the weak of heart !
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/25/19 11:07 AM





And the answer is..................….I heard that Annette Hoffman is going over to the Dept of Ecology. Mike Gross and Randy Cooper are both going to retire. Both of them work up here on the NOP end of Region 6
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/02/19 05:47 PM

My thought to Mr. Herring.

Mr. Herring,

With the forecast below 500 this is sorta expected. That said the use of flows for the Chehalis below South Monte is pure BS. Springers stage up above the South Elma bridge ( mostly above Porter ) and flows have just plain zip to do with anything as unless you have a DO problem the difference in the size of the holding changes is in inches. It is not a issue.

Now hooking mortalities are a real issue and with the small run could have a impact. If you asked Mike he would tell you that impacts in years with a season are minimal. ( 4 or so ) South Elma Bridge down would have solved 99% of the issue instead you chose to drive a nail with a sledge hammer and place a undue burden on trout fishers. Conservation yes but it should be done in a manner that inflicts the least restrictions on the fishers to accomplish the goal.

A little honesty would be helpful but is seldom but as usual was not used.. One could call and bitch you out Chad but I see little reason to think that would be useful. Frankly internally another staffer has been sniping around this issue on the Skook for some time but he really does not come out in the open very often. More of the same, business as usual.

Dave

Chehalis River and tributaries to close to fishing
Action: Closes Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, North Fork Newaukum River, South Fork Newaukum River, and Skookumchuck River to fishing.

Effective date: Immediately until further notice.
Species affected: All species.
Location: Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, North Fork Newaukum River, South Fork Newaukum River and Skookumchuck River.

Reason for action: Streams and rivers where spring Chinook hold and stage through the summer are experiencing lower than normal stream flows. Spring Chinook hold and stage in the Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, north and south forks of the Newaukum River and the Skookumchuck River. Low stream flows decrease holding and staging refuges and elevate vulnerability and pressure on these Chinook. Any encounters of spring Chinook could subject these fish to stress, injury, or death.

Additional information: Please see the 2019-20 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet or visit the WDFW website at wdfw.wa.gov for additional fishing opportunities and regulations.

Information contact: Chad Herring, Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor Fishery Policy Lead Region 6, 360-249-4628, ext. 299.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/02/19 07:03 PM

This kinda the same actions as was taken on the Stilly. There are many ways to protect salmon and fish trout. Hook size restrictions, circle hooks, floating fly lines, and so on. There are probably ways to allow spiny ray fishing that protect salmon, too.

It could be done if WDFW was interested in providing the non-salmon angler with fishing. IF.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/03/19 08:56 AM

WDFW continues driving headlong over the cliff of anadromous fish irrelevancy. Close everything all the time. And in all your spare time, will you sport fishermen please contact your Legislators and ask them to fully fund WDFW with an increase in the General Fund appropriation, reinstate the Columbia River Endorsement fee, and increase fishing license fees so we can continue this status quo?
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/03/19 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
WDFW continues driving headlong over the cliff of anadromous fish irrelevancy. Close everything all the time. And in all your spare time, will you sport fishermen please contact your Legislators and ask them to fully fund WDFW with an increase in the General Fund appropriation, reinstate the Columbia River Endorsement fee, and increase fishing license fees so we can continue this status quo?


When you look up "Incompetence" in the dictionary, Salmo's post should be the example of the definition!! Well done!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/03/19 10:06 AM

I have gotten some questions on the closure so I will try to get a bit clearer without writing a book. Springers in July are pretty much through tidewater from the South Elma bridge down. There are still always a few coming but they are moving and do not hang around much. Above South Elma bridge to Porter some stop and start staging up but the number is small and last time I tried to get the information on that subject I was stone walled and referred to the Chehalis Flood Authority. Oh Region 6 has the information as they let it slip at a NOF meeting this year. Thing is using a good fish finder running hole to hole you will find the fish so with holding the information is simply silly.

Now above Porter it is a bit of different story as they do start to park ( stage ) and your really in the areas particularly on the tribs and upper mainstem. Above Porter is always closed to later in the fall salmon season compared to Porter down stream for this reason. Thing is the trout fishers do not come into contact with Springers very often if at all as you have to bait up for Chinook not a small spinner or trolling a worm. Flows have zip to do with this and it is more about a staffer being ticked that some folks screw with springers on the Skook while fishing other species. Then you have the bandits but frankly a snagger is not going to be in tide water or even below Porter on Springers. That being the case one might casually suggest that enforcement actually do their jobs. Just easier to put out BS on flows screw everyone I guess.

Adding a little, yes low flows effect salmon in the juvenile rearing areas. Adults yes but only if the rains do not show until late in the third week of November or later, resulting in the Chinook spawning lower in the river. As to the Skook, unless the lake behind the dam went dry flows are not a issue. In fact the reason Springers were not mitigated for was that the augmented flows the dam would provide in summer months would produce a vibrant Springer population. Like I said honesty is in short supply.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/06/19 05:41 PM

The dam proponents have totally written off the importance of springer use above the upper Chehalis dam site. Over the past 30 years, I almost always could see a few chinook adults holding between Fisk Falls and Pe Ell this time of year. The styrofoam shrimp containers and snagger-related garbage up there (and in a few other nearby upper watershed tribs) suggest that the locals are well aware of this fact. The illicit springer fishery has been going on in the upper watershed for many many years.

Sad to see this last remnant wild portion of Chehalis springers being written off. Hope the dam gets stopped.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/06/19 07:53 PM

I am not as anti dam as many, I like electricity, but we have two dams in the Chehalis Basin that are mitigated for. The Wynoochee which after over 25 years WDFW has still not complied with the mitigation and even tried to get out of the Steelhead component. In the case of the Skook they released the mit Coho at Bingham which violated the mitigation contract and only stopped when some upper basin folks found out buried in the mitigation contract was a clause that said the releases had to be above the Chehalis Reservation and were going to sue. The weir for Springers protection was abandoned by WDFW and generally about everything I have seen was just BS.

So I think your correct as every mitigation agreement in the Chehalis Basin has been violated by every signatory on the agreement. On the Nooch it was WDFW (includes old Game Dept), City of Aberdeen, QIN, Chehalis Tribe, Tacoma City light. The Skook I do not recall but all the powers to be have been silent on all aspects. So yup I think your right.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/19 08:07 AM


Recently WDFW closed the Chehalis for all fishing for Spring Chinook protection and I have some real objections to how Region 6 did this. The issue needs to be done in a forward thinking manner fully engaging all stakeholders and citizens of the Chehalis Basin. That is not what happened. I will do this up in two post.


Attached is a letter to the Director and Commission outlining my opposition to the closure of the Chehalis River and tributaries to all fishing for the purpose of protection of Spring Chinook. Let me put forth up front that Spring Chinook do need protection and not just a temporary band aid approach but a long term strategy with public buy in is critical.

The closure actions taken by Region 6 ( R-6) staff do nothing to address the issue long term and in my view intentionally were designed to limit public input. The simplest way to explain this without writing a book is to look at the 2019 NOF process and the use of the emergency rules. Three meetings were held for 2019 NOF , one public on March 5 and two GH Adviser meetings on April 8 and April 23. The issue of low Spring Chinook returns was briefly discussed but nothing in great detail. On May 13 R-6 announced the complete closure of the Chehalis for game fishing with a Emergency Rule. The use of a Emergency Rule does not require public input as does the APA ( rule making process ) and I believe limiting public input was the intent of staff.

Additionally the three NOF meetings could have been utilized to fully engage the public and Advisers for including what actions were necessary in the 2019 / 2020 fishing rules. R-6 chose not to engage the stake holders and on July 2 again imposed a emergency closure which again limited any public input. As the May 13 closure had a ending date of June 30 a Emergency Rule would have been required to fill in the gap to the formal adoption of the 2019 / 2020 rules in late July when the Director formally signed off on the seasons.
Bottom line is this, WDF&W uses time by not addressing issues to create a emergency. They do this to limit the public's ability to be involved and provide input.

So my reasons for objecting to the Chehalis closure are outlined in my attached letter to the Director.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/19 08:08 AM

July 12, 2019

Director Susewind
WDF&W Commission

Director Susewind I am writing to express concern regarding the recent actions by WDF&W to close the Chehalis River to all recreational angling opportunity under the premise of conservation of Spring Chinook due to low predicted returns on May 13, 2019 and July 2, 2019. The following rational was given in the WDF&W press release May 13, 2019.

Reason for action: Low predicted spring Chinook returns make them more vulnerable to fishing pressure. Spring Chinook stage in the Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, North and South forks of the Newaukum Rivers and the Skookumchuck River. Any incidental encounters of spring Chinook during game fishing could subject this fish to stress, injury, or death, which during a year of low predicted returns could harm future runs.

With the low forecasted returns this appears to be a reasonable action as this was the primary time frame that Spring Chinook enter the harbor and migrate upstream. What is not reasonable is the failure to fully vet this issue in the NOF meetings in Montesano and the Grays Harbor Adviser meetings at Region 6 offices. I realize the new LOAF process was time constraining but in my view staff went out of their way not to discuss the evolving issue of low Spring Chinook returns. The issue could have been presented at NOF and the GH Adviser meetings with full public participation to form a consensus rather than blind side the public by utilizing a Emergency Rule to limit public input. Director your goal of transparency was the first victim. Additionally I have been told that the Quinault Nation ( QIN ) and Chehalis tribal government agreed with this action. Frankly this is a good thing and the public should have been made aware of this cooperation rather than just a press release.

On July 2, 2019 WDF&W again took the action of closing the Chehalis River and tributaries to all angling opportunities to further notice identified in the press release for Spring Chinook conservation with the following rational.

Reason for action: Reason for action: Streams and rivers where spring Chinook hold and stage through the summer are experiencing lower than normal stream flows. Spring Chinook hold and stage in the Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, north and south forks of the Newaukum River and the Skookumchuck River. Low stream flows decrease holding and staging refuges and elevate vulnerability and pressure on these Chinook. Any encounters of spring Chinook could subject these fish to stress, injury, or death.

While supportive of the conservation objectives and actions taken on May 13, with the exception of the complete lack of transparency and public involvement, I find the closure of July 2 to be one of the most misleading to uninformed decisions I have seen WDF&W make in some time. To better understand my objections one must look the justification of low flows and angler contact with the returning adults. To fully understand my objections I will start at the Highway 101 bridge located at Aberdeen on work upstream.


• From 101 bridge to South Montesano bridge is tidal exchange water and the low flows have zero effect on returning adults in this reach of the river. Additionally this reach what is known as big water and frankly the QIN have difficulty harvesting Spring Chinook with a gillnet. Spring Chinook move but do not hold or stage.
• From South Montesano to Fuller Hill bridge near the mouth of the Satsop River is again in tidal exchange water and flows have zero effect on the Spring Chinook. Within this reach an area does exist where the river narrows that allows some success angling for Spring Chinook but the success rate is very low and about zero success with trout gear.
• From Fuller Hill bridge to the South Elma bridge reach is above tidal exchange but Spring Chinook move but do not hold or stage to any great degree. Flows do play a role but it is due to Dissolved Oxygen ( DO ) levels not volume which normally come into play in September or October and almost never in recent times. Additionally except for a short section near the Fuller Hill boat launch the river parallels a county road making it very difficult to fish illegally.
• From South Elma bridge to the Porter bridge Spring Chinook do begin to hold and stage but as this closure is in July the numbers have greatly decreased as the returning adults continue to move upstream. Additionally access for anglers in summer months is limited as the Porter boat launch is nearly unusable due to river elevation. The only access from the South Elma bridge is downstream at Fuller Hill and the river narrows below South Elma bridge limiting boats to jet boats only and is so treacherous that few attempt to run the narrows. Additionally any bank angler on the North side of the river must walk across the river bottom farms making a poacher rather obvious. The same applies to the South side of the river with a few exceptions but this in no way would be considered a poachers paradise. DO levels can play a role but again it is September or October but again not in recent years.
• From Porter upstream to Newaukum is a reach utilized by Spring Chinook and the fall salmon seasons start after October 15 to protect Spring Chinook. A better option here is gear restrictions rather than closure. Something like a bait ban ( eggs / shrimp ) and floating lures ( plugs ) with a hook size limitation would be effective. In simple terms simply restrict fishing to spinners and flies and problem solved. Again DO levels can play a role but again it is September or October and it is not water volume.
• The tributaries outlined in the press release are areas of concern but volume and DO levels again are a not concern until very late summer. That some anglers ( as with any harvester ) will violate the rules is a given but well thought out restrictions better serve the fish and angling public rather than the draconian approach chose by WDF&W staff. You do not remove a gillnet fleet off the water due to one gillnet boat using the recovery box for a trash can rather than reviving non targeted species. The examples are many to this double standard WDF&W applies to fresh water fishers vs marine and commercial fishers. This double standard is not acceptable.
• Finally the Skookumchuck River and the use of flows as a just cause for a closure. At the time the Skookumchuck dam was built Region 6 argued and carried the day with the argument that the augmented flows the dam reservoir provided would provide for flows robust enough that mitigation hatchery production would not be necessary for Spring and Fall Chinook only Coho and Steelhead needed mitigation. This brings forth the question, is Region 6 staff now saying that assumptions made for mitigation when the dam was constructed are wrong? That we now need to mitigate for Spring and Fall Chinook as the augmented flows the dam provides are not as once thought? It is unfortunate that former hatchery lead Mr. Harry Senn passed away recently because this and what WDF did with the Governor Dan Evans fisheries enhancement package with the Skookumchuck facilities coupled with the Skookumchuck dam mitigation not treating Chehalis basin citizens fairly was a subject he was passionate about. Needless to say the Chehalis Basin communities were misled and it appears to be continuing today.

The next issue I wish to address is the emergency rules implemented May 13 and July 2 and how an average citizen would be aware of and actually find out they exist. The average angler would go to the rules pamphlet that is available either at retail outlets that sell licenses or online at WDF&W website. That said the two closures were emergency rules requiring a citizen to know how to find these rules which require the following steps.

• You must go to WDF&W's website here: https://wdfw.wa.gov/
• You must then choose fishing and shell fishing: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing
• You must then choose Emergency Rule Changes https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations
• You must then choose Fresh water rules: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/
• You must choose river or stream: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/freshwater_select.h
• You must choose:
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/rules_freshwater_river.j?body_of_water_id=1100

These actions will bring one to this press release.

July 2, 2019
Chehalis River and tributaries to close to fishing
Action: Closes Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, North Fork Newaukum River, South Fork Newaukum River and Skookumchuck River to fishing.
Effective date: Immediately until further notice.
Species affected: All species.
Location: Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, North Fork Newaukum River, South Fork Newaukum River and Skookumchuck River.
Reason for action: Streams and rivers where spring Chinook hold and stage through the summer are experiencing lower than normal stream flows. Spring Chinook hold and stage in the Chehalis River, South Fork Chehalis River, North and South forks of the Newaukum Rivers and the Skookumchuck River. Low stream flows decrease holding and staging refuges and elevate vulnerability and pressure on these Chinook. Any encounters of spring Chinook could subject these fish to stress, injury, or death.
Additional information: Please see the 2019-20 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet or visit the WDFW website at wdfw.wa.gov for additional fishing opportunities and regulations.
Information contact: Chad Herring, Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor Fishery Policy Lead Region 6, 360-249-4628, ext. 299.
Fishers must have a current Washington fishing license, appropriate to the fishery. Check the WDFW "Fishing in Washington" rules pamphlet for details on fishing seasons and regulations. Fishing rules are subject to change. Check the WDFW Fishing hotline for the latest rule information at (360) 902-2500, press 2 for recreational rules. For the Shellfish Rule Change hotline call (360)796-3215 or toll free 1-866-880-5431

To my question, whatever would make WDF&W staff think that every fisher would know how to find and use these links? That they would have the proper electronic device to access and utilize WDF&W's website? That they would have any idea that each time they go fishing they would need to take these steps or risk be issued a citation for a violating rule that is not in the fishing pamphlet? To even consider that a game fishery that primarily uses worms & spinners, sucker bait, or flies would be closed for Spring Chinook conservation that fishers utilize a completely different gear type under the ruse of low flows? I could go on but I think my point is clear the average fisher would not know. I realize that agency staff have a difficult job but this manner of rule notification is both lacking in clarity right down to be intentionally misleading as to rationale let alone meet the standards required by the APA process and Open Meetings Act.

In closing Director I urge you to review the actions taken by Region 6 staff in the two Chehalis River Basin closures and take the necessary remedial actions. Second I urge you also review the manner in which the Rules Pamphlet does not reflect the actual rules in place at any moment in time due to the use of emergency rules that the general public has little to no knowledge that have been put in place. The following notification, Check the WDFW "Fishing in Washington" rules pamphlet for details on fishing seasons and regulations. Fishing rules are subject to change. Check the WDFW Fishing hotline for the latest rule information at (360) 902-2500, press 2 for recreational rules. For the Shellfish Rule Change hotline call (360)796-3215 or toll free 1-866-880-5431, is a woefully inadequate manner of proving anglers notification of rules changes.

Bottom line is the Dept could have provided the protection needed for Spring Chinook without closing the near entirety of the state's second largest stream. It chose to block out input from the citizens who live and fish the river and replaced that knowledge with an inaccurate blame on low flows. This manner of doing business is simply unacceptable.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/19 12:07 PM

Love to see their response. Does seem that they would prefer that freshwater trout fisheries would just go away.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/19 12:11 PM


You will as everything I do is a open book, no secrets. On that note I also filed a PDR as this back room bs is getting out of hand.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/19 01:14 PM

Rivrguy:

You know that we think alike, I agree with your 2 emails to the Director and to other WDFW staff.

Chehalis River closure is not the 1st, 4 years ago WDFW did the same thing, closed the Chehalis River, the Wynoochee, the Satsop....the closing was a "fire from the hip" response to less fish in the QIN and NT fisheries....so the easy way was to use the conservation bit, and shut down the sport fishery for Coho....Now there could have been a fishery for summer run steelhead, on the Wynoochee and a legal fishery for Chum, on all the rivers......nope, take the easy way....shut it all down...….grrrrrrrr

I paid my money and don't even get OPPORTUNITY, like Ron Warren is always talking about...…..grrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/19 06:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Love to see their response. Does seem that they would prefer that freshwater trout fisheries would just go away.

I'm convinced you're right. Trout are not "money fish." If there aren't any money fish in the river to manage, they'd just as soon close it.

Department of Salmon Harvest Opportunity would be a better name....
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/19 07:50 AM

Welcome to the new developing management paradigm! With a variety of wild salmon stocks in trouble it is becoming more and more common to close freshwater seasons (game fish seasons) to prevent impacts on those wild stocks. This has been common in the north Puget Sound area and now appears to be spreading.

An interesting aspect is if there are co-mingled harvest salmon species/populations available then folks may once again gain access to various game fish opportunities. In that north Sound area once those game fish opportunities are lost it has proven to be difficult to regain them. I supposes such closures given the appear to the non-fishing public that active steps are being taken to save the various salmon resources that are in "trouble". This even though in nearly every case the root cause of the salmon stock in question declines are in order habitat lost, impacts in marine mixed stock fisheries, climate changes and lowest on the impact tree freshwater game fish seasons.

It has become abundantly clear that for the vast majority of Washingtonians salmon recovery is not really about recovery the fish but rather creating the appearance of doing something for the fish while not impact to any significant degree the average citizens' lives or the ability of large business's to make money.

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/19 08:43 AM

Spot on! Notice that the major problem with SRKWs is lack of food; they're starving. The solution? Keep people away so they can die in silence, unobserved. We support resource recovery as long as we are not inconvenienced.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/19 11:11 AM


Ron Warren sent this out so I thought I would get it out.


Fishing Rule Change
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
July 25, 2019


Lower Chehalis River to reopen Aug. 1; upper river and tributary openings also set

Action: Opens the lower Chehalis under permanent rules, as listed in pamphlet.

Effective date: Aug. 1, 2019.

Species affected: All species.

Location: Chehalis River, from the mouth (Highway 101 Bridge in Aberdeen) to the South Elma Bridge (Wakefield Road).

Reason for action: Staggered openings are necessary to protect spring Chinook returning to the Chehalis system. The abundance of spring Chinook is far below the escapement goal of 1,400 fish. As returning fish move farther upstream, it is possible to begin opening lower sections to angling while upstream and tributary closures achieve conservation objectives by protecting staging spring Chinook from fishing pressure.

Additional information: Closed sections of the upper Chehalis and tributaries will reopen under permanent rules as described in the 2019-20 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet on the following dates:

· Chehalis River, from South Elma Bridge (Wakefield Road) to Black River, including all channels, sloughs, and interconnected waterways: Sept. 16, 2019.
· Chehalis River, from Black River upstream: Oct. 1, 2019.
· Chehalis River, South Fork: Oct. 1, 2019.
· Newaukum River, including South Fork and North Fork: Oct. 16, 2019.
· Skookumchuck River: Oct. 16, 2019.

Anglers are reminded to always check for emergency rule changes prior to fishing. Rule changes can be found online at https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/ or by calling the fishing hotline at 360-902-2500.

Information contact: Chad Herring, Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor Fishery Policy Lead Region 6, 360-249-4628 ext. 299; Mike Scharpf, District Biologist, 360-249-1025

Fishers must have a current Washington fishing license, appropriate to the fishery. Check the WDFW "Fishing in Washington" rules pamphlet for details on definitions and regulations. Fishing rules are subject to change. Check the WDFW Fishing hotline for the latest rule information at (360) 902-2500, press 2 for recreational rules. For the Shellfish Rule Change hotline call (360)796-3215 or toll free 1-866-880-5431.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/01/19 04:09 PM


With the Chehalis now being opened I thought I would share some things. To the ones who ask " what h--- are you going to do about this ? " Lord folks I am not in big guys good graces to be able to wave a magic wand. I will say this, they really pi---- me off this time. For those in the upper basin & twin cities I am going do everything I can to see this charade does not happen again. For those of you that want to just go back to the time the locals just ignored Montesano & Olympia and pretty much set their own seasons, please don't but may I say I don't blame you for feeling that way. This is not the past where WDF&W set 90% of the harvest within 5 miles of Aberdeen and the GHMP guarantees the upper basin a fair share of harvest.

What the GHMP cannot do is protect you folks from agency stupidity. I and others are working to try and create some change the insure this does not happen again so hang in there but don't be shy let the Director & Commission know how you feel.

I received this e mail from a gentleman in the twin cities and I think he captures the utter frustration the folks in the Chehalis Basin have with WDF&W.


I read your articles often. Saavy. I’m a 63 yr old who owns and has lived on the Chehalis River all my life and have never seen such lousy absurd idiotic so called running/ruining of our fishery for decades by WDFW. Or in other words. Washington Department of Failure and Waste! Sooo simple to fix the problem of not enough fish. BAN all gill nets, run effective small hatcheries, limit sea lions, and well, cant do much about tribes . I can’t believe that when my grandkids come over and want to go sit on our beach on our 30 acres farm in Chehalis by the golf course to fish for bass or chub, etc with a worm and bobber that I have to tell them no because our lousy wdfw closed it and won’t take responsibility for that being their fault from years of stupidity on ruining the best fishing potential in the US! I can’t even relax on my 30 acre farm and have neighbors come down for a fun visit evening of catch chubs or bass this year!!! Why do I even buy a license! I’m also a CCA committee member and am in disbelief at what our politics do to end fishing!! Running out of time and energy to fix such a problem with simplistic ease. Thanks for your work. I just wish someone would think about helping the fish and be able to fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/03/19 08:52 AM


The following is the response to my objections to the Chehalis Closure. It is missing the graphs but unedited .

July 31, 2019

Dear Mr. --------,

Thank you for your e-mail and comments regarding the closure of all fishing in the Chehalis, South Fork Chehalis, Newaukum, and Skookumchuck Rivers. The Department values public input and transparency and works to implement those comments into fisheries management for the Grays Harbor watershed.

This closure is a conservation measure to protect spring Chinook in the Chehalis River basin. Spring Chinook in the Chehalis system are a true “wild” stock, in other words, there is no hatchery supplementation of spring Chinook in this watershed therefore, all returning adults are produced by the natural environment. The forecasted return of spring Chinook to the Chehalis River watershed for 2019 is predicted to be quite low, at 581 fish it is less than 42% of the established escapement goal of 1,400. Compounding the concern is that the preliminary estimate of spring Chinook spawner escapement for 2018 in the Chehalis River system is 495 fish; merely 35% of the goal. With these points in mind, and consistent with Fish and Wildlife Commission Policy on Grays Harbor Salmon Management (C-3621) which directs the Department of maintain fisheries impacts below 5%, staff sought to limit impacts on this stock for the 2019 fishery season from terminal fisheries (either directed and non-directed) to near zero.

As you mention in your e-mail, this closure is not unexpected given this year’s forecasted return but you disagree with the “lower than normal stream flows” as a justification for the emergency regulation closure dated July 2, 2019. Unfortunately, the “reason for action” in the Fishing Rule Change form dated July 2, 2019 inadvertently omitted language referencing the forecasted return of spring Chinook in 2019 combined with small population sizes typical of spring Chinook populations in the Chehalis. The forecasted return in relation to the spawner escapement goal is the primary justification for this closure. The environmental conditions referenced in the “reason for action” are accurate, however, this closure is a necessary conservation measure to protect spring Chinook.

Another point raised in your comments is that the closure is too expansive and indicated that implementation of alternative management strategies such as shifts in time, area, and gear may limit impacts to spring Chinook to acceptable levels. This argument is not without merit and was discussed as part of the Agency’s deliberation around how to best implement effective conservation measures for the Chehalis River spring Chinook stock in 2019. While indirect mortalities on spring Chinook resulting from the prosecution of gamefish fisheries is likely low, the Department does not have data that would indicate the impact would be zero. To the contrary, the available data on spring Chinook run timing in the Chehalis River watershed would indicate there is some probability of encountering spring Chinook during gamefish fisheries. Figure 1 (below) shows the average monthly Catch Record Card (CRC) harvest estimate of Chinook in the Chehalis River from 1986-2016. The CRC harvest estimate for the Chehalis River shows, when spring Chinook directed fisheries were open, 24 spring Chinook were harvested on average in July. Spring Chinook directed fisheries in July make up 13% of the total annual spring Chinook harvest when open. Figure 2 (below) shows the average weekly Chinook catch in Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) fisheries from 1996-2015. The QIN prosecutes sturgeon directed gillnet fisheries in the spring and summer; spring Chinook are encountered and harvested during these fisheries. These QIN fisheries occur in their usual and accustomed fishing areas, from the mouth of the Chehalis River (Hwy 101 Bridge in Aberdeen) to the confluence of the Wynoochee River. From the graph you can see the average QIN harvest of spring Chinook for the years listed is 12 fish. Quite simply, these two data sources would suggest spring Chinook are present during the prosecution of gamefish fisheries and do have a probability of encounter. Specific quantitative data around that probability of encounter and any associated mortalities is unavailable.

The Department considered all the data and factors above in relation to reaching a management objective of a near zero impact. Given the lack of specific information around the number of impacts likely to occur in gamefish fisheries, forecasted runsize, recent year abundance trends, and environmental conditions the Department decided upon a conservative approach and closed all fishing where the probability of a spring Chinook encounter was likely.

As mentioned above, the Agency had a management objective of near zero impact to Chehalis River spring Chinook for 2019. During the 2019 North of Falcon process, beginning with the public meeting held on February 26, 2019 at the Montesano City Hall, agency staff gave a presentation on performance of Grays Harbor’s fisheries for 2018 and forecasts for the 2019 salmon return. In that presentation on Grays Harbor fisheries, slide 12 (Figure 3 below) identified spring Chinook as a constraining stock for 2019. During the forecast meeting and other successive NOF meetings there was discussion that the directed spring Chinook fishery would need to be closed given the forecast in relation to the spawner escapement goal and the objective per Commission policy of having less than a 5% impact. During the month of May, agency representatives meet separately with representatives from QIN and the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (CTC) around the shared conservation concerns regarding spring Chinook in the Chehalis River Basin. These discussions resulted in the shared management objective between all the management entities of near zero impact to this stock in 2019. Both the QIN and CTC spring and summer fisheries that could have direct and non-direct impacts to spring Chinook have been closed with the exception of one adult spring Chinook harvested by CTC for ceremonial purposes. As described above, the action WDFW took around this shared management objective was to close all fishing where encounters of spring Chinook may occur until July 1, 2019. This was the first emergency regulation that was put in place on May 13, 2019. The co-managers (QIN and WDFW) had some follow-up discussion at the end of June over the conservation concern for spring Chinook. During that discussion, conversation centered on the lack of information to update spring Chinook runsize as well as worsening environmental conditions that would only exacerbate the conservation concern. This discussion, our associated data and the information described above was what led the Department to file the emergency regulation closing all fishing effective July 2, 2019.

It is of critical importance that the public be fully informed of the rules and regulations that the Department utilizes to reach conservation and management objectives associated with managing natural resources. It is also important that the rules and regulations that are adopted and translated into Washington Administrative Code (WAC) are easy to understand and are enforceable. The Department encourages an open dialogue with the public to ensure that the WAC’s adopted meet the desired outcome in terms of the conservation and management objectives for those specific natural resources. The Department manages natural resources for the public benefit and it is vital that the public have a say in how they are managed in order to have trust and support in the Department’s actions. The Department recognizes that in order for the public to trust and support our actions those decisions must be made in a transparent manner. The Agency is always looking to improve on the transparency of our decision making processes as well as making fishers aware of emergency actions that have taken place.

As we look to strengthen our commitment to transparency and information sharing, your comments will be considered.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/19 08:14 PM

I have been working on something around the Chehalis closure and history of what, why, and how works its way in. I thought I would put up piece of the conversation as frankly I doubt many have any idea of how decisions made years ago drive issue of the present.

I believe the problem started in the mid-80s. Kinda convoluted, but.....

Up until then, the state (WDG/WDF) had sole conservation responsibility. The state filed and enforced regulations that closed fisheries for exceedence of EITHER share or total harvestable. Shares were 50:50. The state (at least WDF, where I was then), contrary to conventional wisdom, won most of the challenges with the Tribes.

Then came the US/Canada Treaty. WA and OR really wanted it, because Canada was hammering our fish in hopes that e would have some influence on AK. Nobody else catches their fish, they catch everybody elses. But, the Tribes were threatening to file what was called the All-Citizen lawsuit. At that time, the 50:50 sharing was in Washington waters. They wanted it expanded to include harvests by non-Indians (of WA stocks) in AK. That would effectively close lots of WA fisheries or make AK manage for WA allocations. They said that if the Tribes filed the suit, they would not support the Treaty in the Senate. AK Senator Ted Stevens. So, WDF (Bill Wilkerson) offered co-management in trade for dropping the suit. Plus, the WA business community realized that Boldt II, the part where the Tribes were gyuaranteed dead fish in the boat (habitat) got their attention as habitat protection kinda interferes with profit.

So, the conservation ethic was dropped and replaced with "You manage your half, we'll manage ours". The State also agreed not to take the Tribes to court. Now, they run the show. It's not all bad, because without the Tribes there would be no wild fish as the State has shown little interest in conservation.

Most of the hunters and anglers are older and have lived through at least some of the Boldt implementation. They have seen 50:50 go away and be replaced by something that isn't even publicly presented; at least not clearly. ESA has further complicated things, as has the burgeoning pinnipeds, and crashing SRKWs and other fish species.

The Agency made a choice, in the recession, to go strongly away from GF monies so that they could be used elsewhere and return to getting money from the hook and bullet crowd, DJ and PR plus the mitigation monies designed to replace harvest lost through dams and such. This loss of funding is occurring in many states. I think CA may be down by 50% or some such.

When I started, most employees hunted and/or fished. Opening Day was an "all hands work"; Fish folks covered and reported on all the lakes, Wildlife folks did check stations. Now? I'll bet that there are leaders in the Fish program who have not done an Opening Day, much less actually fish. The resource used to be more than a job.

The agency has a very difficult job because the majority of folks in WA don't fish. don't hunt, don't pay to support the Agency, but have strong opinions as to how conservation should be conducted. The Agency, I think, really doesn't know what to do. The Tribes are the main political force in the State; they can't be challenged. The agency depends on access to private lands for hunting, yet they can't provide programs that satisfy the landowners.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/19 07:19 AM

This a rather long paper that myself and other long time fishing advocates came together to produce. It is about WDF&W use of rules and the habit that the agency has of avoiding public involvement. I think it will take multiple post. The pictures in the document I will not post and hopefully I get this readable with the formatting. If anyone wants a copy of the document just shoot a PM at me.


Using Grays Harbor and the Chehalis River as an example-


HOW THE PROCESS USED BY WDFW TO SET ANGLER SEASONS AND MANAGE FISHERIES FAILS THE PUBLIC AND THE RESOURCE

Introduction: This project is a joint effort by a group consisting of retired or former government fish managers or biologists and others with decades of experience in volunteer fisheries enhancement projects. The purpose of this paper is to review how rules that guide the fresh water angling public are utilized to govern and promote the public's access to freshwater game fish and salmon. Additionally, to showcase how past and present management decisions of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife ( WDF&W) can drastically influence or effect current angler opportunity set forth in annual season setting rules adopted by the Department. The subject is a complex issue governed by state law that is applicable to all regions of the state of Washington. While anticipating that the public will recognize similar conditions exist in their areas throughout the state, we have chosen to address the subject by utilizing examples within the Chehalis River Basin. The 2019 closure of the Chehalis River to all fishing was the catalyst for this paper, which is intended to simplify the process in an effort to assist the average citizen in understanding the impacts that decisions made by WDFW, has on recreational fishing opportunities throughout the state.

Permanent rule process: After laws are passed by the state Legislature and signed by the Governor, they are compiled in the Revised Code of Washington (RCWs) and commonly referred to as “statutes”. The statutes often provide authority to a Department to adopt “Rules” to carry out the intent of those laws. Adopted rules carry the weight of law and are filed as Washington Administrative Code and commonly referred to as “WACs”.

WACs (fishing seasons) are adopted by WDFW under the Washington’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA sets out exactly what steps an agency has to follow to adopt rules. Different processes are provided for different kinds of rules. The same basic process is used to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule. It has three formal steps requiring public notice and opportunity to comment: 1) Notice of intent to change, adopt, or repeal a rule (CR101), 2) the proposed new or revised rule language (CR102) followed by a public hearing providing stakeholders an opportunity to comment, and 3) if adopted, the language of the rule is filed with the Code Reviser (CR103). The CR103 must be accompanied by a “Concise Explanatory Statement” (CES) that shows the rationale of the Department and the public comments it received during the process.

Emergency Rule Exception: The exception is what is known as the “emergency rulemaking process,” commonly known as simply an Emergency Rule. Emergency rules are used significantly by WDFW to close or open fisheries each year. Use of an emergency rule is limited by the APA and can only be used “If an agency for good cause finds:
(a) That immediate adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and that observing the time requirements of notice and opportunity to comment upon adoption of a permanent rule would be contrary to the public interest;
(b) That state or federal law or federal rule or a federal deadline for state receipt of federal funds requires immediate adoption of a rule;

Emergency rules do not require public notice or hearing. They usually take effect when filed with the Code Reviser. Emergency rules can remain in effect for up to 120 days after filing. An agency can re-file the emergency rule if the agency has started the permanent rulemaking process.

While the APA sets a rather high standard for using the emergency rule option, WDF&W staff uses the process nearly daily during fishing seasons even if the “emergency” is created by WDF&W staff, either by failing or by intention, to be prepared to perform within the timelines of the normal rule process required. Issues long ignored and not addressed can be expected to create the same “emergency” year after year.

The most important thing for a citizen to recognize is that the Emergency Rule allows an agency staffer within WDF&W to create law (season rule) that can result in fines, forfeiture of personal property or even imprisonment without any public input, participation, or oversight.

Salmon and Game Fish, Two different processes: WDF&W uses two very different processes for season setting for game fish and salmon. For game fish every two years the rules are opened for review and change with the off year being one of small or incidental adjustment. An honest assessment of this process is that average citizen cannot and will not have much of an effect on any particular rule. It requires someone representing an organization of substantial influence or has contacts within the agency structure to support and help with the effort.

For salmon, WDF&W utilizes a totally different approach. Each year state, federal and tribal fishery managers gather to plan the Northwest's recreational and commercial salmon fisheries. This pre-season planning process is generally known as the "North of Falcon" (NOF) process, which involves a series of public meetings involving recreational and commercial interests appointed to “adviser committees” and the public at large around the state. Numerous private meetings are held behind closed doors wherein WDFW, tribal co-managers, and other federal agencies meet out of the sight of the public. As you will see shortly, it is important to note that NOF is not the process wherein seasons are set in a WAC. It is the APA process that sets the actually season and most of that activity is not known to the public who are constantly directed by WDFW to NOF proceeding when inquiring about input into seasons.

The North of Falcon planning process coincides with the March and April meetings of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PMFC), the federal authority responsible for setting ocean salmon seasons from 2.5 out to 200 miles off the Pacific coast. In addition to the two PFMC meetings, the states of Washington and Oregon and the Treaty Tribes sponsor additional meetings to discuss alternative fishing seasons that meet conservation and allocation objectives. Fishery managers generally refer to the entire set of pre-season meetings as North of Falcon (NOF). The name refers to Cape Falcon in northern Oregon, which marks the southern border of active management for Washington salmon stocks.

In this time frame WDF&W utilizes the same NOF process to set the terminal bay and river salmon season. Open to the public and utilizing Advisers selected by the Director, meetings are held by regional staff around the state for a preseason forecast presentation and preliminary discussions about possible seasons that year. In accordance to the APA process outlined previously, following the preliminary discussions, the public is supposed to have input into development of the seasons that are to be set forth in the CR 102 that will be scheduled for public hearings. Many argue such is not the case as the seasons have already been announced at the PMFC meeting, posted on the Federal Register, and inserted into the season pamphlet and sent over to the printer prior to the filing of the CR102. Since the season shown in the CR102 has already been adopted and published, few bother to provide comments or attend hearings on the CR102. The Concise Explanatory Statements filed with the adoption of the season WAC often state the Department received receive little, if any, input from the public leaving the impression the public didn’t really care about fishing seasons. As an example, the CES in 2018 stated: “No verbal and/or written comments were submitted during this comment period or at any of the public hearings.”

This year WDF&W changed the CR 102 hearing format to include both game fish and salmon seasons in one CR 102 with hearings at different locations in the state. The effect of this action is confusion on the public’s part as commenting on the entire state game fish and salmon rules effectively dilute a citizen’s ability to address a local issue in a meaningful way.

The Fishing Pamphlet Fiasco: While recognizing that WDF&W staff is not clairvoyant and management is a tough job, the Departments reliance on last minute changes to the season using Emergency Rules confuses the public and discourages fishing. In many cases, adoption of an Emergency Rule is appropriate but just as often the Emergency Rule is simply used as a tool to avoid interaction and accountability with the public. To compound the problem, WDF&W sends out press releases and posts on its website Emergency Rules which change day to day. The following steps are required for a game or salmon fisher each day before taking out a rod to find out what the rules are for particular stream as the pamphlet may or may not reflect the current rules in place. If you do not have a smart phone or computer you must call the WDF&W hotline. Using a smart phone or computer you must do the following.


• You must go to WDF&W's website here: https://wdfw.wa.gov/
• You must then choose fishing and shell fishing: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing
• You must then choose Emergency Rule Changes https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations
• You must then choose Fresh water rules: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/
• You must choose river or stream: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/freshwater_select.h
• You must choose: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/rules_freshwater_river.j?body_of_water_id=1100

The unnecessary use of Emergency Rules as a means to avoid public input is a violation of trust between WDF&W and citizens and contrary to the intent of the APA. This use also removes from scrutiny issues that require long term well vetted out solutions. WDF&W’s reliance on Emergency Rules and its refusal to allow outside ideas into the process has denied the Department and the public meaningful resolutions.

Example 1: This year, WDF&W utilized two Emergency Rules to close the Chehalis River , which is the second largest watershed in the state to all recreational fisheries for conservation of Spring Chinook. Protection of the low number of returning Chehalis Spring Chinook was appropriate but the reliance upon Emergency Rules is short sighted in that it does not address the issue over the long term. A better approach in our view is to develop options that can be used that are easily understood and accepted to protect the Springers without shutting down recreational fishing for other species throughout the basin.

Additionally such options should take into account that similar circumstances exist for other salmon stocks in the Chehalis as with Fall Chinook. Broodstocking efforts in the 1990's found that when capturing Chehalis Fall Chinook that the male's survival was above expectations but female Chinook at times was near zero. The cause in the end was determined to be the females physical condition was poor due to the needs required for egg development and warm water temperatures. The risk factor was drastically reduced with the cooler water temperatures in October allowing efforts to resume within the Fall Chinook staging areas. In reviewing how to structure rules that both protect the fish and angling public we utilized the Skagit rule as template to accomplish both. These gear restrictions both protect the fish and allow common sense angling effort.


May 1 to August 1 the Chehalis River from 101 Bridge located at Aberdeen upstream to South Elma Bridge. May 1 to October 15 South Elma Bridge upstream.

"Selective gear rules, except anglers fishing for sturgeon must use bait. Anglers may not use hooks that measure larger than 1/2" from point to shank except anglers fishing for sturgeon may use single -point hooks of any size."

As an example of things not considered for the Chehalis Closure, back of the envelope calculations would indicate that game fish seasons as we have discussed here would have minimal impacts on Chinook. With the “new and improved WDFW web site” we cannot find any of the old sport catch reports so for this example I'm going to assume that the recreational target spring Chinook fishery was able to catch 10% of the in-river run. With a salmon season closure and the banning of bait with the small hook size it would not be unreasonable to assume at least a 75% reducing in Chinook encounters. Thus reducing encounters to 2.5% of the run.

Generally the co-managers assume a 10% release mortality lowering the impacts to 0.25%. However, utilizing a bait ban and barbless, we should expect a further decrease in the release mortality. As an example, in the recent 2017 co-manager Puget Sound Chinook Plan the table of non-landed mortalities show that in the Buoy 10 fishery requiring the use of barbless hooks lowered the release mortality from 10% to 8%). I think one could expect that the combined requirement of no bait and barbless hooks would reduce the release mortality by at least 50% (maybe as much as 90% that is found in trout fisheries). Reducing that 0.25% impacts to 0.125%.


It has been noted that once the Chinook have been in freshwater and their scales have set they become much more durable. A couple examples are Skagit summer Chinook captured up river for brood stock with drift gill nets, transferred to the hatchery and held through spawning over a 10 year period showed an annual mortality of only 2%. The Stillaguamish Tribe collects Chinook brood stock using seines in river and in even the elevated temperatures typically have a capture to spawning mortality of 10% - in both cases well below mortality rates expected in marine or estuary fisheries. Further in a upper river bright Chinook brood stock capture program using sport gear (above tri-cities) had a capture to spawning mortality of 2.5% agree well with the 2% mortality in Canadian brood stock captures on the upper Fraser river using sport gear. Again it might not be unreasonable once the Chinook have become "water hardened" based on this information to see an additional reduction in handling mortality by 2/3 reducing our impacts to 0.084%.


Often rules have good intentions addressing a state wide issue but are simply ill conceived for some streams. This seems the case for the substantial use of Emergency Rules by WDF&W which avoid public input. An excellent example is the recent Chehalis River closure and the closure several years ago when after a full marine season, tribal netting, and commercial non tribal netting WDFW closed the Chehalis River and tribs except small reaches for conservation. Not only is this completely unfair to the terminal angler, the reality is in the Chehalis Basin it is not unusual for the runs to be outside what the harvest model timing predicts. Also, it normally rains the first week in November resulting in what is known as a brown out with drastically increased flows and huge portion of the runs moving in mass. During this time debris and conditions do not lend themselves to commercial or recreational fisheries and the Chehalis Basin makes escapement. Emergency Rules should only be used as a last resort and never as a means evade public input and not to mirror reactions to problems in other streams in the state that are not present in the Chehalis.

Example 2: To further explore the use of rules and how this influences agency and citizen behavior, the Wynoochee River serves as an excellent example. Currently WDF&W has two hatchery game fish programs on the Wynoochee River which are a sport angler Summerrun Steelhead and Wynoochee Dam Winter Steelhead mitigation production. Broodstock are taken at the dam trap and from the Aberdeen Lake Hatchery which is serviced by a pipeline from the Wynoochee River, prodigy reared. Smolt are trucked from the hatchery and planted at various locations from river mile 8 to 50 which is the trap downstream from the dam. The upper reaches of the river above White Bridge mile 16 has very limited public access and is mostly accessed by drift boat fishers. Below mile 16 and particularly below mile 11 and 8 has the greatest public access.

The Summerrun Steelhead program has the best cost benefit ratio of any hatchery program in the Chehalis Basin but it is not without issues. Anglers under the ruse of fishing for Summerrun targeted Fall Chinook for catch and release resulting in the following regulations in the upper reaches of the river.

7400 Line Bridge (337) ALL SPECIES Aug. 16-Sept. 15 Single-point barbless hooks required.
Sept. 16-Nov. 30 Bait prohibited. Single-point barbless hooks required.

TROUT Sat. before Memorial Day- Mar. 31 Statewide min. size/daily limit, except cutthroat trout and wild rainbow trout: min. size 14".
OTHER GAME FISH Sat. before Memorial Day-Mar. 31 Statewide min. size/daily limit.


END PAGE 6
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/19 07:24 AM

PAGE 7

As a rule this is reasonable but fails to bring forth agency actions that if did not create the Fall Chinook impacts most certainly exacerbated it. Summerrun and Winter Steelhead smolt are planted at miles Dam Fish trap 50, 7400 line bridge 30, White Bridge 16, Industrial Intake 11, Black Creek 8. The reach of the river below Industrial Intake at mile 11 has substantial public access and the further upstream one goes access is greatly reduced. Logically the vast majority of the Summerrun Steelhead would be planted at river miles 8 and 11 but in 2019 only 19000 smolt were planted with an additional 16250 at mile 16. The upper reaches of the river with the least amount of public access received 29900. By utilizing the upper reaches planting sites to service a small portion of the angling community reduces the overall public angling quality. This is a short sighted rational as the returning adults will continue to work their way upstream but the fishes natural behavior is to return to the areas planted and stage up for some time before slowly working their way upstream. By planting the Summerrun Steelhead smolts at river miles 8 and 11 greater angler access and harvest would be achieved yet still create angler opportunity upstream be it later in the season.

Genetic cross breeding with the hatchery Summerrun Steelhead is not an issue as the Wynoochee River, or any other stream in the Chehalis Basin, does not have a native or composite natural Summerrun Steelhead stock. Genetic cross over is not a concern as Summer Steelhead run spawn first part of December, while Wynoochee Winter Steelhead start spawning late January. Also after many years of Summerrun Steelhead plants fishers seldom catch an unmarked Steelhead in the Summerrun Steelhead season. Simply put the Summerrun Steelhead stock utilized by the Aberdeen Lake Hatchery is many generations away from natural spawning and has a very low to zero success rate spawning in the river naturally.

This a excellent example of good intensions gone wrong with very viable hatchery program then requiring a rule that addresses it which in this case was a small percentage of anglers harassing Fall Chinook. The rule referenced prior is appropriate but the failure to address the short comings of the hatchery planting sites compounds the problem. It is the planting site selection that created the problem by creating the expanded opportunity in the upstream reaches where the ability to monitor and enforce regulations is the most difficult.

Example 3: The Wynoochee Winter Steelhead program is a mitigation production required for the Wynoochee Dam. Brood are taken at the trap and transported to Aberdeen Lake Hatchery, held & spawned, fry reared to smolt, then planted into the Wynoochee River at river miles Dam Fish trap 50, 7400 line bridge 30, White Bridge 16, Industrial Intake 11, Black Creek 8. Due to facility limitations the mitigation does not utilize 100% native but rather the early returning composite portion heavily influenced by years of mitigation production. The mitigation Winter Steelhead do crossbreed with the natural composite and remaining portion of the Native Wynoochee Winter Steelhead run.

The use of the release sites are perfect examples of agency efforts to produce substantial angler opportunity gone wrong. Genetic considerations should require that all the Wynoochee Mitigation Winter Steelhead be released at the Dam Fish trap at mile 50 so that the returning adults can be captured at the trap and prevented from interbreeding with the natural Winter Steelhead population. In 2019 43,000 Winter Steelhead smolt were released at mile 50 Fish Trap with the remaining 89,150 smolt dispersed at the planting sites downstream. While creating angling opportunity to what degree is questionable. If released at mile 50 the fish would all pass through the lower reaches but not stage up which does reduce angler harvest somewhat.

Examples 2 and 3 are stark examples of agency actions that in the desire to achieve angler opportunity directed toward specific reaches of the river and a small portion of the angling public also created and exacerbated the need for a rule to protect another species. That by doing this creates genetic concerns within the Wynoochee Winter Steelhead natural population that are not acceptable.

Example4: Rules can create opportunity In many areas of the state opportunities exist for the for smaller quality fisheries. The process WDF&W utilizes inhibits the development of these fisheries as WDF&W focus is on large fisheries with many anglers compressed into a very narrow time frame. A prime example of this is the East Fork Satsop River. The Satsop River trout and salmon fisheries are well established with salmon limited to the mainstem to the closure line at Schafer State Park which is located at river mile 11. From River mile 11 to river mile 17.5 near Bingham Creek Hatchery the following game fish rules apply but the river is closed to salmon angling except for a 400 ft reach below the hatchery which anglers with disabilities can utilize.

From bridge at Schafer State Park upstream to 400' below Bingham Creek Hatchery dam (329)
ALL SPECIES TROUT Sat. before Memorial Day- Oct. 31
Aug. 16-Oct. 31 Night closure. Single-point barbless hooks required.
Statewide min. size/daily limit, except cutthroat trout and wild
Rainbow trout: min. size 14".
OTHER GAME FISH Sat. before Memorial Day- Oct. 31 Statewide min. size/daily limit.

The opportunity here is that a specialized fishery fly salmon fishery that can be created that is low risk and caters to a limited segment of angling community. As a general rule this would be something that most anglers should not support with good cause. The difference is the East Fork Satsop is very rural, has a private road open to the public that parallels the river, private residences are few and scattered, and river flows through timber land, and has a substantial hatchery Coho run that returns to Bingham Hatchery. Simply put an angler is going to hike to the river to fish or utilize a small pontoon craft to float down stream which would be an adventure in itself. One of the casualties of the population growth in Washington State is rural quality isolated fisheries. Not wilderness but something as close as one can get that requires substantial effort and is very rewarding to those who undertake such endeavors. The East Fork Satsop concept is lacking data but data would not show the Coho harvested are hatchery Coho just a few miles from being clubbed in the head, thrown in a tote, and shipped out as surplus at Bingham Hatchery.

For Law Enforcement abuse by the angling public is a concern for some agency staff but frankly is unwarranted. Snagging with a fly rod is not very productive and those who do poach would have difficulty claiming a treble hook with two ounces of lead attached is fly fishing. Another issue would be spawning Chinook which are present but are fully staged up and holding or spawning. They can be encountered by a fly fisher but seldom as bait is normally needed. Bait normally used to catch Chinook in the reaches below Schafer Park is roe, shrimp, combinations of both, plugs with a herring wrap or spinners. Another factor is the reality that fly fishers are more or less purist and of all the harvesters which includes commercial, recreational, and tribal fishers. The fly fishing portion of the angling public is the least prone to violating fishing or conservation rules. The added benefit is the average angler detest poachers and with cell phones have the ability to help Law Enforcement as more eyes on the water is a huge deterrent to poaching of salmon or game fish.

I'm sure another "concern" raised is more money will be needed for enforcement. It seems like every time changes that might liberalize things are considered enforcement costs come up as a fall back concern. This seems especially prevalent when co-managers are involved. To be able to counter that possibility, another area to get information (and based on previous requests unless the data collection/availability has been improved) would be to ask for the LE history on fishing tickets written/successfully prosecuted in the basin and what charges were filed (i.e. no license, illegal take to include snagging, out of season, illegal gear, species taken, etc.) and how many license suspensions have been handed out.

Over the years, it's been our impression that some in the Dept do not trust the sport angler and restrictions are a way to control what probably isn't happening. It's been our experience that most folks will try to do the right thing and if they make a mistake, it can be attributed to "being dumb in public" for not keeping up with the regulations, which isn't easy with the emergency closures/changes that are often dropped on folks. Somewhere around 60% of the cases are this kind. The "bad guys" can be broken down into two classes. Intentional (30%) and those with more of a commercial intent or just plain bad (10%). The 10% need to be removed from the field. The 30% will change their actions with appropriate handling. The 60% probably won't do the same thing again.

If WDF&W processes allowed a reasonable change that could implement a fly fishing area on the East Fork Satsop the best time frame would be October 15 to December 31. Coho bag limit to be determined and in the month of December would require release wild unclipped fish as this is the timing of the late timed wild Coho mixed with the hatchery late timed Coho. Chinook release under all circumstances.

Rules can be used to create opportunity where none exist at little or no cost and have substantial benefit. It is the failure of WDF&W to utilize its Advisers and knowledgeable members of the public that has limited the development of opportunities in many streams.

Example 5: Rules are angler opportunity, angler opportunity are rules, and both are driven by past decisions that the public is not aware of creating false expectations The Skookumchuck Dam and the mitigation required for the lost natural production is perfect example of what happens when WDF&W actions are implemented without public knowledge.

Built by a private power company its purpose was to be a source of water for the coal fired power plant near Centralia but it also provides substantial flood control to the downstream residents in the twin city area. In development of the mitigation required the view put forth within Washington Department of Game (WDG) and Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), this was prior to the combing of the two agencies, that only Coho and Winter Steelhead were needed was the view that prevailed. WDF determined that Spring Chinook mitigation was not required as the augmented cooler water temperatures would create ideal spawning and rearing conditions producing adults for a vibrant recreational fishery. This would result in any hatchery supplementation of Spring Chinook not being needed in the future for harvest or conservation. One could argue the recent closure of the Chehalis River and up river tributaries for low Spring Chinook that this is not the outcome. Also the vast majority of the public were not aware then or now that this was the decision of WDF.

The two agencies then took two different approaches to mitigation. For Steelhead WDG had constructed a conditioning pond, visible in the photograph, and invested the remaining funds provided for mitigation in a out of the river basin facility to rear steelhead prodigy to near smolt and then place them in the conditioning pond for a period of time prior to release.

WFW utilized the Coho mitigation funds to build rearing ponds at what is now Bingham Hatchery on the East Fork of the Satsop. These ponds are located near the staff residences utilizing pumped water from the East Fork and were seldom used. Then in a bit of a book keeping gimmickry WDF included the Skookumchuck Coho mitigation into hatchery's existing production and released mitigation smolt from the facility into the East Fork of the Satsop. This method of producing the Skookumchuck Mitigation Coho went forward until the early 1990's
when a group of citizen advocates became aware of the requirement that the Coho mitigation be released above the Chehalis Tribal reservation located near Oakville. To resolve the issue rather than have it litigated the Deputy Director instead opted for a volunteer and agency partnership. The agency would release 100k at the Skookumchuck Rearing Pond, Onalaska School aquaculture program 52k on the Newaukum, and the remaining smolt from a volunteer operated site on 8 Creek in the upper Chehalis. This partnership continues to this day but some have expressed concerns that the release totals is short of 300k required by the mitigation agreement.

Example 6: How legislative intent and harvest opportunity, both non treaty and tribal, is limited or removed by WDF&W actions out of the public view effect Chehalis River harvest If one was to ask the average citizen what is the purpose of the Skookumchuck Hatchery most think it is part of mitigation for the dam and that is absolutely 100% incorrect. During the tenure of Governor Dan Evans a package of hatchery improvements and additions state wide was approved by the legislature. For the Chehalis Basin it provided for the additions of Satsop Springs on the East Fork Satsop and the Skookumchuck rearing ponds. Both had one defining characteristic, very low operating cost. Satsop Springs is spring fed and operated for a few years then was abandoned by WDF. In the late 1980's local volunteers rebuilt the facility and assumed operations that continue to the present time and are part of the Chehalis Basin Regional Fishery Enhancement Group's programs.

The Skookumchuck water source is the dam reservoir which is delivered to the hatchery via a pipeline. With a very low operating cost it is one of the premier salmon rearing facilities in Washington State.

It was not closed but rather WDF redirected the facilities production toward producing fish for South Puget Sound, primarily the Squaxin Net Pens. In recent years the facility has been modified and upgraded for some local production but is primarily producing salmon smolt for South Puget Sound. In 2018 WDFW transferred 1,650,000 eyed eggs SKYKOMISH R 07.0012 stock from Marblemount Hatchery, reared and shipped 810,000 smolt for South Sound Net Pens and 710,000 for the Squaxin Net Pens. After ocean harvest upper Chehalis River Coho releases return at approximately 2% of the smolt reaching adulthood. For Grays Harbor fishers this is a loss to Chehalis Basin of around 30,400 returning adults. If one considers the nearly 1,000,000 smolt reduction of Coho production at Bingham & Satsop Springs hatcheries which average 3% smolt to adult return to Grays Harbor, the loss of adults for harvest the grows to over 60,000 hatchery Coho adults in an average year.

In many meetings the word opportunity frequently used but the truth is opportunity without harvestable fish is a hike to the river or boat ride. Rules provide you the opportunity to pursue catching a salmon but if the fish available to catch have been drastically reduced without public knowledge it is betrayal of the public trust. In the Chehalis River the most likely target of recreational anger is tribal fisheries yet the tribal fisher has lost opportunity just as the recreational angler has. Rules can and are used by WDF&W to create false expectations of harvest opportunity as the citizen angler perceptions is based upon past success that may or may not represent the opportunities that presently exist.

Example 7: Actions & rules made in the past seldom keep current with change The Grays Harbor Bay fishery is an example rules made to address circumstances that existed at the time implemented but circumstances have changed over time. When WDF&W put in place the Grays Harbor Bay recreational fisheries the Humptulips hatchery production was vastly greater than at the present. It was not supposed to negatively affect traditional commercial or fresh water recreational fisheries only provide additional opportunity. To accomplish this the Humptulips River was separated from the Chehalis for the purpose of harvest management as escapement goals of one stream often restricted the other for harvest and by separating the two streams this issue was removed. It is our understanding that this action was taken without the co-managers concurrence and is not recognized to this day by the co-managers which still manage harvest within the aggregate of harvestable in both streams for harvest per the Boldt decision.

When the Humptulips hatchery was sited its primary purpose was to supplement the available ocean Coho harvest pool. The Humptulips River was a modest Coho producer that enters the bay separately from the mainstem Chehalis River. Lacking a weir straying was acceptable at the time as genetic damage was limited to this stock as it was a minor portion of the Chehalis Basin as a whole and hatchery straying was limited to the Humptulips River.

The implementation of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group ( HSRG ) created new standards for hatchery production and the Grays Harbor Management Policy ( GHMP ) created a frame work for harvest in the non treaty fisheries. These factors dramatically altered the reality of how harvest is to be managed presently than it was at the time the Grays Harbor Bay recreational fishery was implemented as now the Humptulips River was to be managed as a standalone stream rather than part of the Chehalis Basin. These actions dictated a reduction in hatchery Coho production to limit straying, budget cuts, and in recent years the investment in installation of Stevens Creek pipeline to better attract returning adults.

HSRG standards while well thought out often do not address hatchery and wild spawning populations in a pragmatic manner. With the substantial straying of hatchery Coho since the 1970's the Humptulips Coho natural population was simply a hatchery fish with a fin. Interbreeding between the hatchery and wild production resulted that genetically both were the same fish be it as stated prior one has a fin and the other is clipped. While HSRG objectives are admirable how they were applied in the Humptulips is questionable as to recovery of the natural production, which is driven by the decision to separate the Humptulips River from the rest of the Chehalis Basin to create a new rule for angler opportunity.

Coho are resilient creatures and when the time comes and the Humptulips hatchery ceases to operate within three generations the fish will sort themselves out and some level of natural production will be present be it genetically very similar or the same as the existing hatchery production. Natural selection processes, if harvest is managed properly, in 20 to 30 generations will create a true wild naturally produced Coho run in the Humptulips River is an absolute fact but at what cost? The only reason that the straying in the Humptulips River required such action was the separation by WDF&W staff of the two rivers to enable a recreational bay fishery. While this action can be viewed favorably or unfavorably it had little to do with the genetic health of the Humptulips Coho. That with the implementation of HSRG and the GHMP harvest guidelines WDF&W did little to nothing to address of the division of the two watersheds driven by the desire by past staff to create a recreational harvest opportunity in the bay.

The unintended consequences of this rule making exercise have been huge with the passing of time, some positive some not. The area in the bay adjacent to Westport has been permanently closed to the recreational angler to protect the Humptulips wild Coho which is in reality a hatchery Coho with a fin. The GHMP the area of the bay adjacent to the Humptulips River has a designated percentage of harvest impacts for both Coho and Chinook that is proportional with the fresh water angler and non treaty commercial fisher. From the Johns River mouth due North to the Brackenridge Tripod is the West boundary of what is now know as Area 3 that ends East or upstream, at the Highway 101 Bridge located in Aberdeen.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/19 07:29 AM

While designated as Area 3 by WDF&W and the GHMP in reality it is two distinctly different fisheries. Separated by Rennie Island the South channel, commonly known as Johns River, is natural channel with modest tidal surges. The North Channel is a deep dredged channel to accommodate ships to Port of Grays Harbor and subject to strong tidal influences.

As distinctly different as the two channels are so is the manner salmon and recreational fishers utilize them. Coho travel the North Channel from the Eastern Johns River boundary of Area 3 with some Chinook but do not hold or stage but simply move right upstream. The North Channel fishers are primarily local small boat fishers targeting Coho and this fishery is commonly called a mom & pop fishery. The Johns River channel is just the opposite as mostly Chinook travel this route with some Coho both do have a tendency to hold before the continuing upstream. This fishery is primarily fishers from outside the local area, is utilized by those with larger boats, and is the premier Chinook catch and release fishery on the Washington Coast.

Both these fisheries are governed by the GHMP 5% of the run size impact limiter for all non treaty fishers and WDF&W opens and closes both areas at the same time. The issue is simply sooner or later the Coho run will be down which would limit both sides of Rennie Island even though the Southern Johns River side is primarily a Chinook fishery. In a year of a depressed Chinook runs it would limit the North Channel mom & pop fishery even though Chinook impacts would be very minimal. Both these fisheries are excellent for the anglers but the North Channel Coho fisheries opens later than the Chehalis mainstem fisheries as the South Channel Chinook impact governs both. The manner in which Chinook move through the South Channel is such that the low release mortality is simply about as good as it gets. It could be reduced further by requiring bait with barbless hooks and requiring that the fish not be netted but rather cut the leader for release. In the North Channel the fish are just a few miles out of the ocean and moving resulting in a very low release mortality.

When this concept was briefly brought forward by a Grays Harbor Adviser the staffer lamented he did not have any data. True but WDF&W did not have data on the effects of separating the Humptulips from the Chehalis to manage harvest. It did not have data when it implemented the GH Bay fishery. Data and statistics can be used to help a process or used as shield for WDF&W to do nothing. In the GHMP is a provision called 4 / 3 which requires 3 days a calendar week for the Chehalis River to be net free. Deeply disliked by WDFW Region 6 staff and non treaty gillnetters it prevents 7 days a week gill netting and guarantees equitable harvest sharing for the inland communities and Chehalis Tribe. It also is a major safety net preventing over harvest of the fish. Any error in an estimate of Coho harvest would be more than covered until data could be developed.

For the South Channel the GHMP has a directive that if a stock fails to make escapement 3 out of 5 years harvest is limited to 5% of the runsize and Chehalis Chinook are under this provision. Again any error in an estimate of angler impacts would more than covered protecting escapement objectives. The fact is that CWT's estimate 50% of Grays Harbor harvestable Chinook are harvested prior to entering Washington waters, NOAA estimates the number could be as high as 86% of harvestable Grays Harbor Chinook if all associated impacts are calculated in. Terminal it is only the Quinault Nation fishers that have directed harvest of Chinook. The Chehalis River recreational and non treaty commercial fishers have the least impact of any harvester on Chinook a fact the lack of data argument conveniently ignores.

Reality is in this case data is being used as a shield to inhibit and deny innovation .The purpose of using the Grays Harbor Bay fishery as an example is simply this, rules can be proactive. By using a well known and established standard accepted by the angling public years of depressed runs does not need to totally remove angling opportunity. Rules can be flexible and the rules making process does not need to be a hidden secret but rather opportunity to protect both the fish and recreational anglers. Emergency Rules are seldom proactive but rather reactive to circumstances of the moment and are often used to avoid APA and OPMA requirements to engage the public. In these days of declining revenue for WDF&W and the lost of trust with the angling public WDF&W should build bridges within the angling public rather than continue to offend the angling public on every manner imaginable. There need not be a Emergency Rule closure for the Chehalis River to protect Spring Chinook but rather a rules modification that was outlined prior in this paper that protects both Spring and Fall Chinook.

Let's be honest here; the agency is facing an active revolt from long time anglers that are fed up with the continuing reduction in opportunities. Many of those anglers are taking their recreational dollars out of state which ultimately will compound the agency budget problems. The agency is in dire need for a paradigm change that preserves opportunity not take it away.

Solutions and opportunities exist but the question is whether or not WDF&W have the will to look at another way of doing business. That question still begs an answer.


Acknowledgement- As the “prime author”, I would like to recognize the effort and values provided by all of those who contributed to the creation of this paper. If they had not invested their time to share their educational knowledge and personal experiences on the water, this project could never have been completed.
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/19 12:59 PM

Thank you, Dave, for your efforts in putting the information together.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/19 01:07 PM


Good to be done, finally. Somewhat amusing they failed to mention that this was supposed to be done 25 years ago.



NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
September 3, 2019
Contact: Larry Phillips, 360-870-1889
Media: Michelle Dunlop, 360-902-2255

Agreement reached to benefit coho salmon, steelhead in Wynoochee River basin

OLYMPIA – State and tribal leaders have agreed to a plan that will enhance coho salmon and steelhead populations diminished by the Wynoochee Dam in Grays Harbor County.

A public meeting on the plan is scheduled at 6 p.m., Sept. 24, at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) regional office, located at 45 Devonshire Road in Montesano.

Under the agreement between WDFW and the Quinault Indian Nation, roughly 500,000 coho salmon and 60,000 winter steelhead will be released annually as mitigation for the Wynoochee dam.

“This historic agreement benefits both wild fish populations as well as state and tribal fishers,” said Ron Warren, fish policy lead for WDFW. “Despite some obstacles along the way, the state and tribe have worked collaboratively over the years to find a path forward for fish in the Wynoochee basin.”

Under the agreement, WDFW annually will release:

100,000 coho into the Wynoochee River;
400,000 coho into the Satsop River;
60,000 winter steelhead into the Wynoochee River.

The 60,000 winter steelhead to be released in the Wynoochee and the 400,000 coho bound for the Satsop River will all be marked with clipped adipose fins, making them available for anglers to retain during years when sufficient numbers of fish are forecast to return.

The 100,000 coho released into the Wynoochee River will be tagged with a coded wire but will not be marked (with clipped adipose fins) for the first five years of the plan. As unmarked fish, these coho have a better chance of making it back to the spawning grounds in the Wynoochee River since the retention of unmarked coho is prohibited except in years when high numbers of wild fish are expected to return, Warren said.

“The intent of this plan is to re-establish a healthy coho population in the Wynoochee River while providing coho and steelhead fishing opportunities within the basin,” Warren said.

The first release of these fish into the basin could take place as early as 2021. Anglers could then expect to see coho and steelhead returning as soon as the fall of 2022.

The steelhead and coho slated for release into the Wynoochee will be raised at WDFW’s Lake Aberdeen Hatchery while the coho planned for release into the Satsop will be raised at the Bingham Creek facility.

The most recent licensing agreement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 1991 required mitigation for damage to fish populations as result of the Wynoochee Dam, owned by the city of Aberdeen. A new hatchery was planned but not constructed, due to site location difficulties. Funds intended for the new hatchery were put into a trust now held by Tacoma Power, which operates a powerhouse near the dam.

Without a new facility on the Wynoochee, there is limited capacity to raise more fish for release into the Wynoochee River, said Larry Phillips, WDFW regional director.

“Releasing more coho into the Wynoochee will help offset years when natural production is low and could ultimately lead to more opportunities for anglers,” Phillips said. “In the meantime, anglers can look forward to what’s sure to be improved coho and steelhead fishing within the entire basin in the next few years.”

The state and tribe have sent the signed draft agreement to Tacoma Power for review before the utility forwards it to FERC for consideration. If approved by FERC, the mitigation plan will run through 2037, when the dam’s federal license is up for renewal.

WDFW estimates the cost of implementing the plan over the next 18 years (until 2037) is about $2.6 million, which is the amount in the trust fund.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see https://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/19 01:15 PM

So, are we ever going to get a hatchery on the Wynoochee Or is the end game? I understand the lower river isn't suitable, but below the dam? Does Tacoma Power control that area? Bob R
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/19 01:17 PM


This is the end game.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/19 02:57 PM

Got this question PM but it does not show in the PP PM mail box so here is the question: Is this in addition to the already planted coho smolts on the Satsop and steelhead on the Wynoochee?

I do not know. I asked the question of Mike & Larry at Region 6 if the 60k Steelhead were in addition to the 70K required presently. Old Mit was 70k and they owe a additional number for the past 25 years that is in addition to those. Same on Satsop as is this an additional Coho production or a paper shuffle. Then the question are they spending Wynoochee Mit funds on the Satsop? Until I get a response I know only what the press release says.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/19 04:22 PM

The gentleman that the following e mail was written by has been one of the strongest advocates on the issue of Wynoochee Mitigation. He has been involved with the Wynoochee Mit forever and has a real memory of things. Then this, he has a mountain of documents from the beginning of this thing so I doubt he is wrong on any of the facts.

The email:

Larry, just got this from an adviser. It does not speak to what you stated to me prior to this date in a phone conversation. You were going to try and have a meeting at Montesano city hall on Sep. 9. I know you stated later via email that that date would not happen. Now it is dated to happen on Sep. 24 ( corrected date ) at region 6 office, I suggest you make arrangements for Monte. city hall, as I expect the building to be filled with concerned citizens that fish.

Now lets talk of the proposed agreement.

1. Annual releases.

a. 100K Coho into the Wynoochee tagged but not clipped, unavailable for harvest by recreation in river fishers, when unmarked Coho are to be released, but by commercial is not a pay back for the licensed sport fisher of Washington. These fish will be targeted by both commercial fishers and sport fishers in the Bay, and Commercial fishers in the Chehalis River. Marine Area 2A by state managed commercial fishers.

b. 400K Coho into Satsop,I surely hope this is not coming out of the Wynoochee Mitigation funds. If so it will be a violation of the mitigation itself, agreed to by all interested parties involved in original mitigation. Plus, would this be in addition to Satsop brood obligations? As far as I am concerned, and mitigation requirements, these funds can only be spent on mitigation for the Wynoochee. So who will foot the cost for the additional coho on the Satsop?

c. Winter Steelhead on Wynoochee. Will the 60K be in addition to the now requirements on brood documents? If these are not in addition, WDFW and all signed parties to this idea will be in violation to the original mitigation for the Dam as well as the Hydro. WDFW is obligated to the original mitigation due to funds being spent by WDFW to improve Aberdeen Lake Hatchery in the mid 1980, I believe !987 and 88. This was met with WDFW obligating to continue the mitigation for the life of the dam. I ask Ron Warren, how will this help reestablish wild Coho and wild Steelhead in the Wynoochee when they will be harvested prior to entering the Wynoochee. How does WDFW expect to violate their opposition to hatchery fish spawning with the wild population? The Wynoochee has met it's wild Coho escapement over the past decade by having all wild Coho released on the Wynoochee. Ron's science flies in the WDFW's wild fish policy.

With this being said. I ask Who will be at the proposed meeting? Will TPU have a representative there to answer questions? Will QIN have a representative there to answer questions? Will FERC have representative there? Will ACHE have representatives there? Without these people in attendance, how will be able to substantiate their views as to what the requirements are, and how to impose the requirements? I believe the requirements shall prevail as written in so many documents, and not to what WDFW and QIN wish to happen. Take WDFW's word? I think not. Also I hope Chad Herring will be absent from this meeting. I have zero faith in this man.
Now I wait your reply. Next week, 7 days from now I will send another letter to the Daily World if you do not respond with some positive answers.

Now lets speak of the Hatchery at the base of the dam. The hatchery was dead prior to the Hydro mitigation, as far as ACOE. The hatchery was then passed to the owners of the dam, without ACOE. The cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma.

April 1992, Wynoochee Lake Project, Fee_Title Transfer to the city of Aberdeen, DRAFT Environmental Assessment.
US ARMY CORPS of ENGINEERS Seattle District April 1992.
Agreement for Mitigation and Enhancement at Wynoochee Dam. bullet 2. Resolution of past mitigation issues on the Wynoochee Project Pages 1 and 2. Signed by State of Washington Department of Wildlife 11/15/91, State of Washington Department of Fisheries, 10/18 91, Confederated Chehalis Tribe, not dated, Quinault Indian Nation, 12/21/91. City of Aberdeen Department 0f Public Works, 9/23/91. And City of Tacoma Department of Public Utilities Light Division, 10/19 91.

Also as far as a hatchery. US Forest Service offered WDFW use of land at the base of the dam, documented.. All WDFW needed to do was fill out proper request forms as well as other documents, and permits. WDFW failed to do so and US Forest Service pulled the offer back since WDFW seem to be not interested. The dam failed due to WDFW, as far as I can see.

Larry, I have more documents, files, letters, and other items related to the Wynoochee Mitigation than you could read in a month. I have fought hard to get the requirements met, and yet WDFW, and others, want to utilize the Mitigation funds for other projects, and not for what they were meant for. I will express all these concerns in my next letter to The Daily World on the 11 of this month.

Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/19 05:17 PM

wow, looking forward to seeing where this one goes.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/19 11:15 PM

I'm confused, is the public meeting on the 24th as per the state release or the 29th, as the letter above states? Melanie and I are tuna fishing on a charter that day (Tuesday the 24th) but the state doesn't have meetings on Sunday (the 29th). We certainly would attend the meeting if it's on the 29th, let us know if you can. Otherwise our comments will be on line or (God forbid!) letter writing!. Bob
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/04/19 06:25 AM


Meeting is:

"A public meeting on the plan is scheduled at 6 p.m., Sept. 24, at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) regional office, located at 48 Devonshire Road in Montesano. "

Have a good time Tuna fishing.....
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/04/19 08:24 AM

Since the gentlemen who wrote the original letter has said he will go public to the press on the 11th if his letter is not responded to, I hope he is willing to do more than one paper.

These details are exactly the type of thing that shows how mis-managed our fisheries are, and yet, how little can really be done to correct the problems.

WDFW has become a huge black hole of incompetence, corruption and political cronyism.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/04/19 09:15 AM


Oh he will make things public. The questions need a response, that said WDF&W has developed a habit of not being forthright right down to restricting staff communications. So we all wait to see if they step forward with the information.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/19 09:11 AM

Some folks have expressed concern over the dry conditions and the effect of the low flows on this falls salmon seasons. The low flows can and will have a dramatic effect on the juvenile rearing areas for trout, Steelhead and Coho. This normal as the conditions be it a wet year or dry year do have a substantial effect on juvenile survival to smolt.

As to returning salmon adults not much. The Chehalis tidal reach is nearly 20 miles long and the adults will simply stage up in those areas and slowly work their way upstream but most will hold simply waiting for rain. If we do not have substantial rainfall by the 3rd week of November then things get a little dicey for Chinook as they tend to spawn lower down the river making the redds subject to scouring.

So it works like this. If you fish South Monte down you do not want it to rain before October 15th and ideally first week of November. South Elma down you want a good rain bump ( no brown out ) which moves the fishes staging areas upstream to this reach. If your a trib fisher the sooner it the rains produce a brown out the better you are.

The fish react to the flows always but they do not spawn until November so water conditions simply move them upstream to stage up. You can have the Satsop full of fish to a couple of miles above Schafer Park and nothing at Bingham Hatchery until serous rains. Last year the rains were early and as luck would have it in the two week conservation shut down for fishing a huge portion of the run went right through the tidal water to over twenty miles upstream. Great for East County fishers, really sucked for tidal fishers.

It is all about when and how much it rains as who gets the bonanza and who gets the shaft. Mother nature is fickle!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/19 01:27 PM

Some confusion on rules around jack fishery release adults then after September 15th keep Coho & Chum adults but release all Chinook. Checked with Mike and his response is below. So the rule book means just that no retention of Chinook jacks after September 15th. In this process always the issue of how to limit the impacts on the wild adults and meet the GHMP objectives. I do not recall the conversation but it is on tape.

From Mike:

You are correct that Chinook jacks are not part of the bag limit after Sept. 15. This was presented in the April 8th meeting. All the info from that meeting is on the WDFW site at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ghsag#meeting-calendar. Let me know if you have any more questions.

I’ll be out of the office the following dates: tomorrow, and Sept. 13-20.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/19 01:42 PM

Washington State needs to follow Oregon example on "jacks", limit 5 a day, no need to record.....I was told, Oregon wants NO JACKS in the spawning grounds......would sure make it easy on fishermen. Coho jacks, Chinook jacks have caused lots of misunderstanding for fishermen that fish them....jacks that make it to the hatchery, get killed.....what a waste!!!!!

12 -14 silver jacks, fill a "Big Chief smoker"...excellent to smoke and the eating is very good....
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/19 08:23 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
Washington State needs to follow Oregon example on "jacks", limit 5 a day, no need to record.....I was told, Oregon wants NO JACKS in the spawning grounds......would sure make it easy on fishermen. Coho jacks, Chinook jacks have caused lots of misunderstanding for fishermen that fish them....jacks that make it to the hatchery, get killed.....what a waste!!!!!

12 -14 silver jacks, fill a "Big Chief smoker"...excellent to smoke and the eating is very good....


I agree Bill, 5 a day, no record, any jacks. This would make a lot of sense, there is no reason to have to fill cards with jacks.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/19 04:27 AM

With so many questions on the Wynoochee Mitigation and the dry weather I put this together to get everything grouped up. I have some double ups on previous post but this gets things gathered up in one post. Hopefully it helps.

Wynoochee Mitigation:

I have had a lot of questions on a couple of issues. First up is the recent Wynoochee Mitigation package agreed to by WDF&W and the Quinault Nation. I know my first reaction was " what the -----" also some really strange things are in this press release. So by the numbers from the press release:

The most recent licensing agreement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 1991 required mitigation for damage to fish populations as result of the Wynoochee Dam, owned by the city of Aberdeen. A new hatchery was planned but not constructed, due to site location difficulties.

This is a bit misleading as it was a 100% screw up by WDF&W that resulted in the hatchery not being built. Difficulties? How about and all out effort by many inside WDF&W to prevent it is more the truth. A long time advocate (who is my neighbor) has been on this since the day the dam was built and has a room full of documents so I am certain he will not go for WDF&W being, ah... less than truthful.

For those of you that question the concept that Aberdeen Lake Hatchery can pull off the additional Steelhead and Coho numbers, I do not know, I have asked but no response. So here is the quick down and dirty layout of the land I did up for folks from memory.

Well a number of questions raised are good but this is the simple fact. Aberdeen Lake Hatchery is pretty much maxed out as to space. To get 60K more Winter Steelhead and 100k Coho to net pens you would have to get rid of something and the only something available is the Rainbow Trout and Summerrun Steelhead. Do that and you have room.

Lake Aberdeen Net Pens performed poorly in the past predators from birds to Otter just plain everything including storms breaking them loose to hang up on the bottom. The staff was as good as it gets but it was a mission impossible. If they do net pens in the dam's lake substantial difficulties exist with cold water retarding growth and location.

Then this, the Coho reared at the facility are really vulnerable to Columnaris. Aberdeen Lake Hatchery is just not a Coho facility and over the years the Pathologist has fought this fight over and over. If they rear them at say Bingham one would be lucky to get back 50% of the adults to the Wynoochee as Coho imprint on the rearing home water source at the front of their life cycle not the final freshwater time as Steelhead do. Net pens in the dam lake would help but only help get some of the returning adults to the Wynoochee.

So until Region 6 decides to be forthright and define just what they are going to do everything is conjecture. Except this, the numbers put forth in the press release and Larry Philips do not fit in the current Aberdeen Lake Hatchery facilities capabilities unless you move something out.

I know some are hyperventilating over the very thought of losing the Summerrun program but let us wait to see and then fight that fight. That said with all the factual errors and conflicting information in the press release and from Larry Philips I and many others are watching this issue.

Dry Conditions Low Flows:

The dry conditions have some concerned that WDF&W will go off the deep end like the Spring Chinook Closure. I would certainly hope not but again I cannot fathom how they come up with some of this stuff. So here is a bit I did up for folks on low water conditions and what they mean.

The low flows can and will have a dramatic effect on the juvenile rearing areas for trout, Steelhead and Coho. This is normal as the conditions be it a wet year or dry year do have a substantial effect on juvenile survival to smolt. As to returning salmon adults, not much. The Chehalis tidal reach is nearly 20 miles long and the adults will simply stage up in those areas and slowly work their way upstream but most will hold simply waiting for rain. If we do not have substantial rainfall by the 3rd week of November then things get a little dicey for Chinook as they tend to spawn lower down the river making the redds subject to scouring.

So it works like this. If you fish South Monte down you do not want it to rain before October 15th and ideally first week of November. South Elma down you want a good rain bump (no brown out) which moves the fishes staging areas up stream to that reach of the river. If you are tributary fisher the sooner it the rains produce a brown out the better you are as all the fish move upstream all at once to the tributaries.

The fish react to the flows always but they do not spawn until November so water conditions simply move them upstream to stage up. You can have the Satsop full of fish to a couple of miles above Schafer Park and nothing at Bingham Hatchery four miles further upstream until serous rains arrive. Last year the rains were early and as luck would have it in the two week conservation shut down for fishing a huge portion of the run went right through the tidal water to over twenty miles upstream. Great for East Grays Harbor fishers not so for tidal fishers. It is all about when and how much it rains as who gets the bonanza. Mother Nature is fickle!

Our Walk Down Memory Lane:

Finally I, with the much needed help of others, did a paper on decisions within the Chehalis Basin by WDF&W and how they affect us today. (I attached it again to this email) Many have asked is that all and nope is the answer. So we will do HOW THE PROCESS USED BY WDFW TO SET ANGLER SEASONS AND MANAGE FISHERIES FAILS THE PUBLIC AND THE RESOURCE VOLUME 2 . I for one think this is important because if the old geezers like me in every watershed in the state were taking their neighbors on a look back in time at WDF&W decisions all would be a little.....horrified comes to mind. I will try to get this done in November after fishing season folks, one has to have priorities!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/09/19 06:35 PM

I would like to see these questions put directly to Larry Phillips without all the drama , just ask specific questions. The meeting is on the 24th, Melanie and I will be there if our boat comes in early enough, it's on our way home and if we can try to make it after TUNA fishing I'm sure most of you can as well. Bob R
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/09/19 07:23 PM


Larry has the questions Bob but someone else on vacation has the answers. Larry is at a disadvantage as he came to the issue late in in game and does not know the history that surrounds this issue. For over 25 years the local community and QIN have been at the issue and for whatever the reason WDF&W has done everything but meet its obligation. Hopefully your right and the answers are forth coming. Then you always have the but word.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/09/19 08:25 PM

I agree about him being a latecomer to the game, but that's the point. You cannot hold current employees responsible for decisions made before they came onto the scene anymore then you can hold them responsible for salmon problems that are beyond their control (i.e. current ocean conditions, over fishing by Alaska and Canada on WA. stocks , past logging practices, etc.etc.). To do so would be similar to holding children responsible for their parent's crimes. It's just not done. How long ago was the ball dropped on the Wynoochee hatchery? Who is still around to blame? My understanding was that it was a long time before the tribe had a positive outlook on cooperating on this project? All I am saying is that you need to be specific and have some knowledge about who and what to ask. My interactions with Larry have always been positive and as you all know I'm a real P.I.T.A. Bob
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/19 06:56 AM

There are, to mw, two aspects of this situation. While you can't blame the current folks like Larry for what happened in the past, he (the Royal He) must be responsible for explaining why it happened and assuring folks it won't happen again.

There are too many times (ask Rivrguy) where WDF/WDG/WDFW has made a commitment in that watershed and then the gone back on it. The new guy says "that wasn't me, don't bring it". It might not have been you, but if you don't come through you are perpetuating the problem.

The locals who have been working on Wynoochee or any other of a myriad of projects there (and probably statewide) know the history better than WDFW-who seems to not want to even recognize it.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/19 07:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
There are, to mw, two aspects of this situation. While you can't blame the current folks like Larry for what happened in the past, he (the Royal He) must be responsible for explaining why it happened and assuring folks it won't happen again.

There are too many times (ask Rivrguy) where WDF/WDG/WDFW has made a commitment in that watershed and then the gone back on it. The new guy says "that wasn't me, don't bring it". It might not have been you, but if you don't come through you are perpetuating the problem.

The locals who have been working on Wynoochee or any other of a myriad of projects there (and probably statewide) know the history better than WDFW-who seems to not want to even recognize it.

Well, we'll see how Larry handles it at the meeting, have those questions ready, I'll talk to him later today to tell him to be prepared.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/19 09:47 AM

This is certainly interesting. Was discussing this with a few board members the other day. The way they are doing this opens up all sorts of speculation around how the production will be achieved and who will reap the benefits. My dim view, based solely on my observations of how fish allocation works, is that it won't do much to benefit in-river fisheries, and worse, it will do even less to mitigate the losses the Wynoochee drainage incurred when the dam went in. This looks a lot more like "Satsop supplementation" than Wynoochee mitigation to me.

There are several reasons for my pessimism:

1. I haven't seen any mention of increased spawning escapement goals in the basin. That means these fish are being lumped in with everything else that goes to the Gulf of Alaska to forage, and there is no good reason to expect that they won't be allocated the same way. That means 80% will go to commercial and sport ocean quotas, leaving the last 20% to be fought over by the Tribes, sports, and NT gillnetters in terminal areas. Assuming an unrealistic return rate of 5% adults to smolts planted, 25,000 new, harvestable fish would be created. 20% of that number is 5,000 fish. That leaves the state share at 2,500, which then gets divided between recs, NT gillnetters, and the Chehalis Tribe. Not much to go around... Maybe another 1,000 fish for lower basin sport crowd, and that's a high estimate.

2. It's been rumored (and is apparently true) that the Skokomish Tribe is going to be netting Satsop fish moving forward. Their share SHOULD come out of the QIN share, but I have serious doubts that will be the outcome. The way the Tribes own our Legislature now, we should only expect intertribal disputes to end in our allocation being reduced (if they don't just shut us down altogether, as they've already done on the Skokomish).

3. Most obviously, the problem is that 80% of the salmon component of the "Wynoochee mitigation" is going to the Satsop and downstream fisheries not named Wynoochee. That won't do much to mitigate anything on the Wynoochee.

4. That the 100,000 Wynoochee coho smolts will be unclipped tells you all you really need to know about sport salmon benefit on the Wynoochee: There will be none, because we can't retain unclipped coho on the Wynoochee. Steelhead may improve slightly, but as poor as the return rates are on hatchery summer steelhead, I wouldn't expect the difference to be much.

Should be interesting (if not just maddening) to hear answers to the questions that need to be asked. I will plan on going to the meeting. It will also be interesting to see if this is actually WDFW seeking public input or if (like North of Falcon) it's just an opportunity for us to find out how we've been screwed after the fact....
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/19 09:51 AM

Just realized I forgot to account for escapement in my calculations above. That's probably okay, though; the goals are so low that they almost don't factor in. Rest assured the in-river sport fishery will pay that bill, as always, reducing our benefit from this action just that much further....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/19 10:32 AM


The 400k on the Satsop are not part of the required mitigation only the 100k and 60k Steelhead. Where did the 400k number come from? No idea but it emerged from the QIN / WDFW talks.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/19 11:26 AM


Here's my take on the "build a wild run of "wire coded" Coho on the Wynoochee......grrrrrrrr

3 sportsmen from Grays Harbor have been a "pain in the ass, of WDFW not doing what they should have been doing for more than 25 years".

This "wire coded marked Coho, with no sport caught, non-clipped allowed" is just another way of WDFW thumbing their noses at Wynoochee salmon fishermen.

To allow all the fisheries, Alaska, Canada, ocean, GH Marine, 2 gill net fisheries and all the Chehalis in-river before the fish have a chance to even get to the Wynoochee...…..THEN TO ALLOW NO WYNOOCHEE SPORT CAUGHT COHO FOR A ADDITIONAL 5 YEARS, IS A RON WARREN PAY BACK, yep I can believe he would do that.

If a larger "wild run" was a WDFW goal, why wasn't more of the current unmarked Coho, NOT TRUCKED, above the dam thus being forced to spawn in the lower river/streams below the dam???????

In years past, there was even a Chinook fishery and for many years a Coho fishery allowed until January 31...…

We'll never really know.....closed meetings, and the closed meetings never really included all the "parties that supposedly need to sign off" on the final Wynoochee Mitigation.....something smells!!!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/19 03:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

The 400k on the Satsop are not part of the required mitigation only the 100k and 60k Steelhead. Where did the 400k number come from? No idea but it emerged from the QIN / WDFW talks.


Which would seem to lend credence to suspicions that the 400K Satsop fish are intended to provide a larger 50% to divide between the QIN and the Skoks (whose fisheries would, in theory, cut into the QIN's Treaty allotment).

We must remember also that WDFW and its largest stakeholders don't recognize the Wynoochee's fish as distinct in any meaningful way from Humptulips, Satsop, Wishkah, Chehalis, Black, Skookumchuck, or Newaukum fish. They're all dollar signs with fins, 90% of which can be harvested in open ocean and lower Chehalis gillnet fisheries. They are far more interested in mitigating lost ocean harvest opportunity than they are in mitigating wild salmonid habitat loss in any single drainage, and this "plan" proves it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/19 03:38 PM

It is a interesting issue. In the end it will be in the tribal 50% of that I am sure but then Chehalis tribal comes out of the states 50%. When this finally is finished in the courts and IF the Skoks prevail the question will reside in the boundaries. Many years back the Skoks fishers used to drop nets in the East Fork Satsop but only until spotted and removed. Never in mainstem Chehalis so if the boundaries were to include the mouth of the Satsop that would be the food fight of the century as to % to Skoks vs QIN down stream low holing them.

Like I said it will be the courts call so not much to go on except one thing, what a epic food fight over the tribal share.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/19 04:48 PM

Actually, the Courts will decide U&A. That is a legal issue. QIN and Skok could negotiate, but even that would have to filed with the Court unless QIN issues an invitation.

That shares are to Indians, not even to a specific Tribe. QIN could cork them and Skok would have to take them to court. Fortunately, the State has no authority in this issue. They could, out of the goodness of their desired campaign donations, offer up some of the NI share. The parties cam agree to whatever they want to.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/19 03:08 PM

Here is the proposed Wynoochee Mitigation agreement. This is a PDF file converted so formatting is off and typos are present. If you want a clean copy PM me. Notice the plan is to pay for 500k smolt on the Satsop River with Wynoochee Mitigation funds.

Recommendations for the use of the
Wynoochee Dam Salmon and Steelhead Trust Fund
Draft October 12, 2018

Summary
The "Agreement for Mitigation and Enhancement at Wynoochee Dam" ("Agreement'') of 1991 established the Wynoochee Dam Salmon and Steelhead Trust Fund ("Trust") to enhance the fishery resources of the Wynoochee River. The Agreement envisioned the construction and operation of a hatchery near the base of the Wynoochee Dam. However, for a variety of reasons the hatchery was never constructed and the funding provided through the Agreement remains largely unexpended. The Trust balance has grown to approximately $2.6 million dollars.

This document provides a proposal to increase fish production in the Wynoochee and Satsop Rivers to expend the Fund through the remaining 18 years (through 2037) of the Agreement. The proposal includes the following components:

1) 500,000 increase in early timed coho salmon yearlings; of which 100,000 are released into the Wynoochee River at the trap and 400,000 released into the Satsop at Bingham Creek Hatchery.
2) 60,000 increase in winter steelhead smelts;

The preliminary projected cost of the proposed project over the remaining 18 years of the Agreement is
$2,569,870.

Mitigation History
In 1991the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Chehalis and Quinault tribes, and the cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma signed the Agreement for Mitigation and Enhancement at Wynoochee Dam ("Agreement"). In the Agreement, the Cities agreed to create a fund for a hatchery to mitigate for continuing impacts to downstream migrants.

The fund was to support the construction and operation of a small hatchery and acclimation facility downstream from the dam on land owned by the US Forest Service. However, for a variety of reasons the hatchery was never constructed and the funding provided through the Agreement remains largely unexpended. In a letter dated July 9, 1993, the directors of the Washington Department of Fisheries, and Washington Department of Wildlife requested the cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma to continue to hold funds set aside for the hatchery facility, until an alternative plan was developed. The Trust is currently held by Tacoma Power and has grown to approximately $2.6 million dollars.

Project Proposal
The proposed project provides an increase in fish production for the Wynoochee River and includes the following components:


1) 500,000 increase in coho salmon yearlings;
2) 60,000 increase in winter steelhead smolts;
3) Sample 100% of adults returning to the trap; Each of these components is discussed In detail below.
Coho Salmon Production Enhancement
The objectives of the proposed coho salmon program are to Increase the number of coho salmon available to fisheries. Each year the production of 500,000 coho salmon yearlings would be funded by the Trust. 100,000 Wynoochee natural l ori gin eggs wo uld be incubated and rearing woul d occur at the Lake Aberdeen Hatchery; 400,000 Satsop eggs would be incubated and reared at Bingham Creek Hatchery and fish released into the Satsop River at 17 fish per pound. The coho released into the Wynoochee will be 100% CWT'd but not AD clipped for 6 year s. All coho released from Bingham Creek will be AD clipped funded by WDFW.

Projected costs of the coho salmo n project for the next 18 years are summarized in Table 1. All cost projections assume an average annual inflat ion rate of 3%.

Table 1. Projected costs for coho salm on program over 18-year period of proposed project.

Source Cost Comments
Three Netpens at Lake Aberdeen $112,485 Includes T Dock repairs
Trucking Juveniles and Adults $16,902
CWTTags $97,800 6 years of tagging for
Feed $586,844
Miscellaneous Goods & Services $109,030 Includes replacement of pen netting at 5-10 year intervals.
Planting Truck $175,000 Designed to couple with fish handling facility hopper. Used for transport of both adults and
juveniles.
Staffing $664,749 6 months of staffing for trap operation and net pen rearing.
Indirect @30% on all Items except Feed
and Planting Truck $300,290
Total $2,063,100



Winter Steelhead Production Enh ancement
The objective of the proposed winter steelhead program is to increase the number of steelhead available to fisheries. Each year the production of 60,000 winter stee lhead smolts would be funded by

the Trust. Eggs will be incubated and rearing would occur at the Lake Aberdeen Hatchery released at the Wynoochee trap at 5 fish per pound. All steelhead would be 100% Ad clipped.

Projected costs of the steelhead project for the next 18 years are summarized in Table 2. All cost projections assume an average annual inflation rate of 3%.

Table 2. Projected costs for winter steelhead program over 18-year period of proposed project.


Source Cost Comments
Planting Truck - Included in costs for coho program.
Staffing - Included in costs for coho program.
3 ½ stacks of incubators $3,600
Trucking Juveniles and Adults $20,591
CWTs 20K for 6 years $19,560
Mass Marking $117,000 Life of project
Feed $244,543 60,000 winter steelhead
Miscellaneous Goods & Services $40,970
Indirect @30% on all items except Feed and Planting Truck $60,516
Total $506,770

Proposed Fish Trap Enhancements
The current fish trap, which is located about 2 miles below the Wynoochee Dam (Figure 1), offers only a rudimentary ability to collect and sort returning adults. Live fish must be dip-netted from the flume, handled and examined individually while in the dipnet. Adults are then sorted to one holding tank, individual fish transferred to a transport tank manually, or marked and returned to the river. It doesn't prevent fish from cycling through the facility multiple times, and is rough on fish and fish handlers.
Handling adults in this manner causes damage and potential mortality due to slime and scale loss caused by the net material and fish handlers' gloves.

The facility upgrade will require installation of an elevated platform (false floor), modification to the flume, installation of holding/anesthetic tanks and a braii system (lift system) to transfer adults to transport tankers.

The projected costs for enhancements to the trap are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Projected costs for facility enhancements.


Source Cost Comments
Wynoochee Dam Trap Enhancements $200,000 Tacoma cost estimate.
30% Contingency $60,000
Total $260,000 Not to be funded by Trust Funds






Figure 1. Map of the Wynoochee Dam and Fish Trap.



Adaptive Management
Substantive uncertainty exists regar ding the expected performance and cost of this project. To provide for management flexibility, the performance and cost of the fish production programs will be reviewed at 5-year intervats. The fish product on programs may be modified by the Parties to more effectively address the goals of the Agreement provided that suffi cient funds are availabl e within the Trust.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/19 03:12 PM

Slate of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
P.O. Box 43200 Olympia, Washington 98504-3200
Phone: (360) 902-2200
www.wdfw.wa gov


Quinault Indian Nation
P.O. Box 189 Taholah, WA 98587
Phone: (360) 276-8211
www.quinaultindiannationcom




This is the joint letter on from WDFW & QIN for the Wynoochee Mitigation plan to Tacoma Power.

July 12, 2019



Mr. Keith Underwood Natural Resources Manager Tacoma Power
3628 South 35th Street Tacoma, WA 98409-3192

Dear Mr. Underwood:

In 1991, the Washington Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife (now merged into the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), the Quinault Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis, and the cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding fisheries mitigation and enhancement to address certain impacts resulting from the Wynoochee Dam. In the MOA, the cities agreed to create a fund for a hatchery to mitigate for continuing impacts to downstream migrants. The MOA parties' original plan was to build and operate a hatchery and acclimation facility downstream from the dam. The plan for the hatchery was terminated in 1993, when the United States Forest Service declined to issue a land use permit for the facility. Subsequently, the cities created a trust fund, and City of Tacoma (Tacoma Power), who had acquired Aberdeen's interest, has since held the fund. The fund is called the Wynoochee Dam Salmon and Steelhead Trust Fund (Trust Fund).

This joint letter of the Quinault Indian Nation and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Co-Managers) proposes a plan to use the Trust Fund. The Co-Managers have agreed to the attached plan (Plan) for expenditure of Trust funds. The Plan proposes to fund needed upgrades, equipment, supplies, and staff in existing facilities to produce the entire mitigation expected in the remaining years.

Further, the Co-Managers, upon joint signature, request that Tacoma Power take actions to join or approve the Plan, and take necessary actions to fund it by use of the Trust Fund, including such actions as may be necessary to inform or obtain the approval of any other necessary entity, including, but not limited to, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Keith Underwood July 12,2019
Page2

Quinault Indian Nation and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife believe the Plan will bring resolution to the longstanding need to use the Trust Fund to address impacts of Wynoochee Dam. Further, these two parties are optimistic and hopeful Tacoma Power will join in the Plan and help bring it to implementation.

Sincerely,



Date
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/19 09:53 PM

30% for contingencies? YGTBFK, right?

How does any thinking man construe this as WYNOOCHEE MITIGATION when the lion's share of the production accrues to Satsop?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/19 06:50 AM

A key point to remember is that there is ZERO mention of increasing escapement goals anywhere in the basin as a result of this "mitigation." That proves, without question, that WDFW intends for whatever additional, returning fish that come from this to be harvested. We all know who's most efficient at harvesting, and it's not in-river sport fishers. These fish are, first and foremost, intended to increase opportunity in the ocean (for recs and commercials). Next at the table will be the Tribes. QIN and the NT gillnetters will get a few additional gillnet days in 2A-2D.

I'll concede that it makes sense to produce the smolts at Bingham if the capacity already exists. What doesn't pass the sniff test is releasing 80% of them in the Satsop under a guise of "Wynoochee mitigation." That's the part that is most curious. Assuming as much as 10-15% of those Satsop plants will be managed to return to the Satsop (just basing that on how the basin is managed overall), it will lead to a "surplus" of harvestable hatchery fish bound for the Satsop (and, conveniently, piling up below the mouth of the Satsop until the water gets high/cold enough to get them moving). That leads me to believe there is a new stakeholder in the mix (the Skoks, who will presumably be gillnetting on the Brady flats and absolutely hammering the early run). It's the only thing that makes any sense to me. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Great Bender

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/19 09:33 AM

Hope you're wrong, too...but in the event you're right, this would amount to just one more example of how Ron Warren connives to add "opportunity" to the Tribal Treaty side , while once again denying same to the Rec fishermen. He's made promotion, longevity , salary and benefits along the way.

Anybody else see a pattern here?
Posted by: blackmouth

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/19 04:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Great Bender
Hope you're wrong, too...but in the event you're right, this would amount to just one more example of how Ron Warren connives to add "opportunity" to the Tribal Treaty side , while once again denying same to the Rec fishermen. He's made promotion, longevity , salary and benefits along the way.

Anybody else see a pattern here?


Drain the swamp? rofl
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/19 06:46 PM


Some of the questions I asked have been answered. With the construction of the pipeline across the lake and the ability to use Wynoochee water direct, the additional 60 k Steelhead will be mixed with the original 170K . The higher density in the raceways is now possible with pipeline water where as the prior usage of lake water did not allow high densities.

The net pens are to be a emergency stand by thing. Not sure I get this one but this will be clarified the 24th I think.

Accommodations for the 100k Coho will be made by altering the rainbow program.

Now the 400k in the Satsop? What I have outlined prior is about maximum loading for Aberdeen Lake. For myself it is unacceptable. The hatchery staff should be able to find a way to rear substantial portion of that 400K in a manner that they can be released in the Wynoochee and return to the Wynoochee. This gets into fish behavior and the Grays Harbor complex capabilities so this is something only the hatchery staff can do. So game on but 400k in the Satsop does not fly. They need to find a way to get 150k to 175k of the Satsop fish back to the Wynoochee to get its release to 250k to 300k.

Harvest wise I understand what staff told me but I will let them explain it. That one I have reservations about so I will not touch it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/19/19 08:22 PM


Heads up folks the Wynoochee Mit meeting has been moved to Grays Harbor College.

Wynoochee Agreement meeting - venue change


Grays Harbor (DFW)
<graysharbor@dfw.wa.gov>
3:04 PM


FYI – Please forward below information to all interested parties represented by advisors.


NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
September 19, 2019
Contact: Larry Phillips, 360-870-1889

WDFW announces change of venue for meeting on Wynoochee agreement

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is moving the location of its Sept. 24 meeting about a plan to enhance salmon and steelhead populations diminished by the Wynoochee Dam.

The public meeting is scheduled at 6 p.m., Sept. 24, at the Grays Harbor College (Aberdeen Room 4134A and B), 1620 Edward P Smith Dr., Aberdeen. WDFW changed the location of the meeting to ensure adequate meeting space for the public.

At the meeting, WDFW staff will discuss details of an agreement with the Quinault Indian Nation to mitigate for damage to fish populations as a result of the Wynoochee Dam in Grays Harbor County.

Under the agreement, WDFW annually will release:

100,000 coho into the Wynoochee River;
400,000 coho into the Satsop River;
60,000 winter steelhead into the Wynoochee River.

More information about the agreement is available at https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/agreement-reached-benefit-coho-salmon-steelhead-wynoochee-river-basin.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see https://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/30/19 09:51 AM

The recent Wynoochee proposal has some folks wondering just what the h---. So for the newbies to the issue are to documents from 2015 that are a proposal worked out. This proposal is pretty much to the one developed the early 90's with the exception of the use of funds for Summerrun Steelhead. The 90's proposal that was reworked and supposed to move forward several times. WDFW did not so here we are and the differences revolve around net pens location and the 400k reared at Bingham with Wynoochee mitigation moneys. The Summerrun option never gained much traction.

Results from the meeting on Wynoochee Mitigation.
July 30, 2015.
Attendees. Jim Scott, Steve Theisfeld, Mike Sharp, Ken Issacson, John ?? WDFW
XXXX XXXXX , Sports, Conservation.

WDFW, Jim Scott presented a document, Recommendations for the use of the Wynoochee Dam Salmon and Steelhead trust Fund. DRAFT JULY 30, 2015,

After some discussion, and review, and with sports input, we decided the document will meet Mitigation requirement. Other discussion followed. With $400,000 plus remaining some other options could be possible. Joe Durham Proposed, since so many feel a pay back is due, due to the fact that nothing being done in 20 plus years, an additional 15% for both species be included in the proposal. Ken will do calculation, and determine if space is available, but first reaction was that it would be workable.

Discussion followed as to what QIN is so insistent on, and further discussion needs to take place with them. Also to get Chehalis Tribe to sign on to any agreement.

TO DO LIST BY WDFW
1. Check on 15% addition, and add to proposal.
2. Hold a conference call with Grays Harbor Advisory Group.
3. Meet with QIN, and Chehalis Tribe on proposal, and their comments, and concerns.
4. Hold public meeting for comments, and to advise public of plan, and options,
5. WDFW to meet with cities involved with Mitigations.
6. Wynoochee Technical Committee to discuss, and sign of on proposal.
7. Present to FERC for their approval, and sign off on the proposal.
A review of trap modification will need to be reviewed, and cost adjusted for modification.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/30/19 09:54 AM


This is the proposal from 2015 and mirrors the 1990's work.

Recommendations for the use of the
Wynoochee Dam Salmon and Steelhead Trust Fund
Draft July 30, 2015

Summary
The “Agreement for Mitigation and Enhancement at Wynoochee Dam” (“Agreement”) of 1991 established the Wynoochee Dam Salmon and Steelhead Trust Fund (“Trust”) to enhance the fishery resources of the Wynoochee River. The Agreement envisioned the construction and operation of a hatchery near the base of the Wynoochee Dam. However, for a variety of reasons the hatchery was never constructed and the funding provided through the Agreement remains largely unexpended. The Trust balance has grown to approximately $2.5 million dollars.

This document provides a proposal to increase fish production in the Wynoochee River and fully expend the Fund through the remaining 22 years (through 2037) of the Agreement. The proposal includes the following components:

1) 55,700 increase in coho salmon smolts;
2) 25,000 increase in summer steelhead smolts; and
3) Improvements in fish collection facilities at the Wynoochee Dam and at the Lake Aberdeen Hatchery to support these programs.

The preliminary projected cost of the proposed project over the remaining 22 years of the Agreement is $2,035,773.

Mitigation History
In 1991 the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Chehalis and Quinault tribes, and the cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma signed the Agreement for Mitigation and Enhancement at Wynoochee Dam (“Agreement”). In the Agreement, the Cities agreed to create a fund for a hatchery to mitigate for continuing impacts to downstream migrants.

The fund was intended to support the construction and operation of a small hatchery and acclimation facility downstream from the dam on land owned by the US Forest Service. However, for a variety of reasons the hatchery was never constructed and the funding provided through the Agreement remains largely unexpended. In a letter dated July 9, 1993, the directors of the Washington Department of Fisheries, and Washington Department of Game requested the cities of Aberdeen and Tacoma to continue to hold funds set aside for the hatchery facility, until an alternative plan was developed. The Trust is currently being held by Tacoma Power and has grown to approximately $2.4 million dollars.

Project Proposal
The proposed project provides an increase in fish production for the Wynoochee River and includes the following components:

1) 55,700 increase in coho salmon smolts;
2) 25,000 increase in summer steelhead smolts; and
3) Improvements in fish collection facilities at the Wynoochee Dam to support these programs.

Each of these components is discussed in greater detail below.

Coho Salmon Production Enhancement
The objectives of the proposed coho salmon program are to increase the number of coho salmon available to fisheries. As originally envisioned in the Agreement, each year 55,000 coho salmon smolts would be funded by the Trust. Eggs would be incubated and initial rearing would occur at the Lake Aberdeen Hatchery. To maximize survival rates and returns to the Wynoochee River, smolts would be reared in net pens in the Wynoochee Reservoir for up to 6 months before release immediately below the Wynoochee Dam.

Projected costs of the coho salmon project for the next 22 years are summarized in Table 1. All cost projections assume an average annual inflation rate of 3%.

Table 1. Projected costs for coho salmon program over 22-year period of proposed project.

Source Cost Comments
Netpen at Wynoochee Reservoir $13,595
Trucking Juveniles and Adults $17,255
Mass Marking $61,498
Feed $120,128
Miscellaneous Goods & Services $79,374 Includes replacement of pen netting at 5-10 year intervals.
Planting Truck $200,000 Designed to couple with fish handling facility hopper. Used for transport of both adults and juveniles.
Staffing $785,856 6 months of staffing for trap operation and tending of net pens.
Indirect @28% on all items except Feed and Planting Truck $271,928
Total $1,549,634



Summer Steelhead Production Enhancement
The objective of the proposed summer steelhead program is to increase the number of steelhead available to fisheries. Each year the production of 25,000 summer steelhead salmon smolts would be funded by the Trust. Eggs would be incubated and initial rearing would occur at the Lake Aberdeen Hatchery. To maximize survival rates, returns to the Wynoochee River, and to facilitate the collection of adults, smolts would be reared in net pens in the Wynoochee Reservoir for up to 6 months before release immediately below the Wynoochee Dam.
Projected costs of the steelhead project for the next 22 years are summarized in Table 2. All cost projections assume an average annual inflation rate of 3%.

Table 2. Projected costs for summer steelhead program over 22-year period of proposed project.

Source Cost Comments
Planting Truck - Included in costs for coho program.
Staffing - Included in costs for coho program.
Net Pen at Wynoochee Reservoir $13,595
Trucking Juveniles and Adults $7,745
Mass Marking $27,602
Feed $117,892
Miscellaneous Goods & Services $35,626
Indirect @28% on all items except Feed and Planting Truck $23,679
Total $226,139


Fish Trap Enhancements
The current fish trap, which is located about 2 miles below the Wynoochee Dam (Figure 1), offers only a rudimentary ability to collect and sort returning adults. Live fish must be dip-netted from the flume, handled and examined individually while in the dipnet. Adults are then sorted to one holding tank, individual fish transferred to a transport tank manually, or marked and returned to the river. It doesn’t prevent fish from cycling through the facility multiple times, and is rough on fish and fish handlers. Handling adults in this manner causes damage and potential mortality due to slime and scale loss caused by the net material and fish handlers’ gloves.

The facility upgrade will require installation of an elevated platform (false floor), modification to the flume, installation of holding/anesthetic tanks and a brail system (lift system) to transfer adults to transport tankers.

The projected costs for enhancements to the trap are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Projected costs for facility enhancements.

Source Cost Comments
Wynoochee Dam Trap Enhancements $200,000 Tacoma cost estimate.
30% Contingency $60,000
Total $260,000






Figure 1. Map of the Wynoochee Dam and Fish Trap.


Adaptive Management
Substantive uncertainty exists regarding the expected performance and cost of this project. To provide for management flexibility, the performance and cost of the fish production programs will be reviewed at 5-year intervals. The fish production programs may be modified by the Parties to more effectively address the goals o
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/19 08:20 AM

Sorry about not keeping all up to date but it is fishing time. So what have I seen on the river? Well both Coho and Chinook are coming right through the bay and upstream bright silver, scales not set but no sea lice. So best I can tell is they are simply slowly going upstream and not staging in tide water. Chinook appear to be late and not sure about that at all so as in all years it rains early things are weird in fish world. Early rain upstream benefits and tidal fisheries suffer is the rule.

To the question of the new Region 6 Fish Program Director James Losee and his style, no idea. We must remember that in the recent past Grays Harbor and Willapa harvest responsibility were put under a policy staffer. So Mr. Losee interaction with the South Coast areas may or may not change as that is a internal WDF&W decision. He seems to be a descent enough guy but then most staffers are. All will have to wait to see just what his philosophy on management is and if his areas of authority will include the South Coast.

Now about questions on Wynoochee Mitigation. This issue is a bear for me. Having literally set through meetings that number in the hundred of hours I have concerns. The recent proposal by WDFW and flies in the face of former staff positions and what the requirements are for the mitigation. It proposes utilizing Wynoochee Mitigation funds to rear fish at Bingham on the Satsop which for over 25 years was a no go. Several fish health issues exist also at Aberdeen Lake with the proposal which were discussed in detail many times in the past.

So for my part I will help put together documents that the local communities can use to insure past actions are not lost in time. To that end I will post a Public Records Request for fish health records and a letter outlining some of my concerns to the Director and Commission.



October 1, 20019

Director Susewind and Commissioners,

On September 30, 2019 I submitted a Public Records Request to WDFW ( attached ) for fish health documents for Aberdeen Lake Hatchery. I attempted to keep the scope as narrow as possible to limit the burden on staff. That said the need for the request is driven by the recent proposal by Region 6 staff for Wynoochee Mitigation Funds. Several elements of the proposal are troubling and simply ignore previous agency thoughts and actions. It is possible to develop a proposal that meets or exceeds Wynoochee Mitigation needs utilizing Aberdeen Lake Hatchery and other Grays Harbor Hatchery Complex assets but the recent proposal does not meet that standard. The following thoughts briefly touch on some concerns for the proposal outlined September 24th.

The use of net pens in Aberdeen Lake in the past was rejected by staff as they described the lake as a cesspool for fish, in particular Coho. That issues from predation to storm damage made net pens in Aberdeen Lake unworkable. Water temperatures were of particular concern as anything over 69 degrees resulted in disease outbreaks.

The current proposal relies upon the pipeline for direct Wynoochee water to overcome these concerns but it has limitations. First it must be shut down and the hatchery utilize lake water in winter periods of siltation in the Wynoochee River. Additionally in summer months the pipe line cannot supply the hatchery enough water for the entire facility first use water requiring reuse of water for nearly half the raceways. To further complicate matters in summer months Wynoochee water utilized regularly exceeds 70 degrees which is the temperature that the disease Columnaris becomes a major issue for Coho. At the meeting on Sept 24th staff identified an eggtake of 250k would be needed to produce the 100k Coho smolt which is overage of 150% just to overcome the fish health issues.

The use of Wynoochee Mitigation funds to rear fish in the Satsop is simply unacceptable. Couple this within the past WDFW utilized Skookumchuck Mitigation funds to build rearing vessels at Bingham Hatchery ( then Simpson Hatchery ) that were seldom used and simply utilized the Mitigation funds to pay for a portion of the existing Simpson Coho production. This violation of the Skookumchuck Mitigation Agreement ceased only after citizen's threatened legal action. That issue was solved by a public / agency partnership that still exist today to release the smolt above the Chehalis Tribal Reservation as required by the Skookumchuck Mitigation Agreement. I see no reason to doubt that if allowed to use Wynoochee Mitigation Funds at Bingham to rear Coho that the agency would then reduce or eliminate current Coho production and simply subsidize Bingham Hatchery Coho production with Wynoochee Mitigation Funds.

My lack of faith in the recent proposal is further reinforced by statements by Mr. Warren to the press. In an article in the local news paper he is quoted "Despite some obstacles along the way, the state and tribe have worked collaboratively over the years to find a path forward for fish in the Wynoochee Basin." In an effort to be polite I must say this is a gross misrepresentation of the facts at a minimum. Until around 1993 WDFW blamed the failure to perform on Tacoma City Light but that ended when in a meeting Tacoma City Light confronted agency staff resulting WDFW staff admitting Tacoma City Light had nothing to do with the failure to perform. From that point forward the agency position was the Quinault Nation was the impediment and four different times a proposal was developed by local citizens and WDFW to be presented to the Quinault Nation but staff never advanced the efforts forward.

The Nations position has always stayed consistent that the hatchery agreed to previously was to be built at the Wynoochee Dam must be built. Again the failure build the hatchery resides with WDFW staff and records are available to confirm this if you feel the need for the documents.

In closing the purpose of the PRR is to seek documents that I, working with others, will add to a record for the public to use in the future. To be blunt we are up there in years and frankly likely do not have that much time left on this planet. It is our intention that the citizens of the Chehalis Basin have access to the information as I have little doubt that WDFW will not meet its obligations. I am reminded of an issue agency staff had previously agreed to a solution. When I asked why staff had went back on their word the response was simple, "circumstances have changed" and I have little doubt that in the future staff will likely feel circumstances have changed, again. That response was not acceptable then and is not now, the Wynoochee Mitigation needs to be done properly.





September 30, 2019

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDFW Public Records Officer
PO Box 43200 MS#4136
Olympia WA 98504-3200


This is a request for public records request ( PRR ) is for records regarding Aberdeen Lake Hatchery. In the operation of the hatchery WDFW Fish Health Pathologist regularly visits the hatchery to determine the health of the fish reared at the facility. The Pathologist results and comments are detailed on a form that is commonly called a Path Report. This Public Records Request is for all Pathologist reports for Aberdeen Lake Hatchery from year 2010 to the present date of September 30, 2019.

Additionally it is common for the Pathologist to take tissue and other samples that transported to the WDFW Fish Heath laboratory for testing. These results are recorded and results transmitted to hatchery staff. This request is for all laboratory test results for Aberdeen Lake Hatchery from year 2010 to September 30, 2019.

This is PRR request is very narrowly defined to limit agency staff time needed to comply. The Path reports are on file at the hatchery as are the laboratory with Fish Heath.








Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/19 02:10 AM

In recent weeks WDFW rolled out the latest version of a plan for the use of Wynoochee Dam Mitigation. As someone who sat through so many meetings, for Bill and his kick the can down the road visits to Commission meetings, and Joe with a mountain of files from 25 years of effort it was difficult to take. That said we were asked to look at things differently by Rep. Blake, to bring a team together to develop a alternate proposal which we did. The letter below and the proposal are the results of that effort.

Hopefully you folks can support our effort as from our perspective it honors the intent of Wynoochee Mitigation Agreement and has far greater benefits to the Wynoochee Ecosystem than the WDFW proposal.



Director Susewind, President Sharp, WDFW Commissioners

On September 24, 2019 WDFW presented it most recent plan for the use of the Wynoochee Mitigation Funds supported by Quinault Nation (the Nation). To say components such as the use of net pens and Wynoochee Mitigation funds to rear and release Coho smolts at Bingham Hatchery on the East Fork of the Satsop River caused emotions to boil over would be somewhat of an understatement.

For long time advocates with literally hundreds of hours sitting in meetings and file cabinets full of documents on the history of the issue it was particularly difficult. One long time advocate declared that this issue was going to be an "epic food fight."

It was shortly after the meeting that I became aware that Rep. Blake was concerned about the issue and contacted him. To be honest his take on the issue was different. While recognizing the failures of the past he advocated a different approach. Rather than reject the WDFW proposal out right based upon the failings of the past that we use the new proposal as a base to offer an alternative approach. An approach that may not and likely is not easier but would allow WDFW, the Nation, and the local communities to come together for the good of all and the resource. His point was we have accomplished this in the past with efforts such as Long Live the Kings on the Wishkah River, the grass roots efforts of East Grays Harbor volunteers on the Satsop River. The list is long so the question, why not again? Why not now on the Wynoochee River?

With Rep. Blake's encouragement we reached out to many to create an alternative proposal for the use of Wynoochee Mitigation funds. We ask that WDFW and the Nation consider our alternate not because it is simpler (which it is not) but it is best for the resource. To use the Wynoochee Mitigation issue to bring together all the citizens concerned about the future of the Wynoochee River and the resource.

For the team,
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/19 02:12 AM


Here is the proposal:

Wynoochee Dam Mitigation
An Alternative Approach to Traditional Mitigation




Introduction: On September 24, 2019 the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) presented a proposal for the use of the Wynoochee Dam Mitigation funds. Several elements of the proposal were of great concern to many local citizens. Recognizing that this was an issue Representative Brian Blake reached out to several citizens in an attempt to see if an alternative was available.

Working collaboratively local advocates and knowledgeable professionals the team developed an alternative proposal for review with the following defining elements.

• That the returning adults will be equal or exceed the WDFW proposal.
• That the returning adults would all return to the Wynoochee River. WDFW's proposal has the vast majority of the returning Wynoochee Mitigation adults returning to Bingham Hatchery on the East Fork of the Satsop River.
• That the additional fry production will provide fry to be placed in underutilized rearing habitat in the Wynoochee ecosystem.

Summary: From the original construction in 1972 of the Wynoochee Dam for flood control the mitigation for loss of natural production has been a contentious issue. Originally, Washington had two fish management agencies. The Department of Game managed steelhead and cutthroat while the Department of Fisheries managed salmon. Winter Steelhead and Cutthroat trout (later removed) were mitigated for but not salmon which raised considerable angst with many citizens. With the addition of the Tacoma Power power generation facility in 1994 an additional 25,000 Winter Steelhead and 55,700 Coho were required and funds set aside by Tacoma Power. Due to a number of issues throughout the years Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDF&W) was not able to comply with the mitigation requirements and the interest bearing fund has grown to over $2,600,000. Further, the loss of salmon available for harvest and ecosystem benefits has been un-mitigated for 28 years.

Currently WDFW has a new proposal and the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) have agreed to the proposal that not only included the required yearly mitigation and but also a payback for the years that the mitigation fish were not produced. The WDFW proposal would rear 60,000 additional Winter Steelhead at Lake Aberdeen Hatchery. (LAH) and100,000 Coho at LAH and 400,000 Coho to be reared and released at Bingham Hatchery which is located on the East Fork of the nearby Satsop River. While this proposal is a welcome step forward in our view it can be substantially improved by utilizing all Wynoochee Mitigation funds in the Wynoochee River ecosystem. Building off the WDFW proposal we would like to propose an enhanced vision of how to utilize the Wynoochee Mitigation funds. Our proposal is to better mimic the natural processes to Coho insure the greatest ecosystem returns on time and effort.

Broodstock: Wild Coho brood would be taken at the fish trap below Wynoochee Dam and transported to LAH. Using 2018 as an example records show that 789 Coho adults were passed upstream. This number of adults should allow for brood taken at the fish trap below the dam to be the source of brood for the mitigation Coho smolt of this proposal. A requirement exists for an undetermined number of Coho to be passed upstream of the dam, which could result in a shortage of wild brood. Shortages would be backfilled with fish from LAH Coho program to back fill the eggtake as long as fisheries are managed to meet eggtake and fish passage needs at the Wynoochee Dam. It should be noted that the LAH Coho is a fully integrated program with a high infusion rate of wild genetics.

The additional Winter Steelhead required would utilize current hatchery configuration and would be added to the current required production. The current choice of Winter Steelhead planting locations should be reviewed to ensure cross breeding between hatchery produced Winter Steelhead and Wild Winter Steelhead is kept to minimum.

Spawning, Eggtake & Incubation: Enough Coho adults to provide a 500,000 release plus an overage would be brought to LAH and held until spawning. Eggs would be incubated at LAH and fry ponded there. This might require additional incubation capacity to be added. The Grays Harbor complex has unused equipment that is not utilized due to budget cuts that could be brought to LAH. The incubator expansion would also allow for a further expanded egg take to rear fry for out planting outlined in the next section. If desired funding targeted by WDFW' for the net pens could be used for incubation improvements as the net pens are no longer necessary. Ideally, an additional incubation capacity of 1,000,000 Coho eggs is needed to meet the needs of our entire proposal.

Rearing At Fry Stage: Fry would be ponded at LAH and reared on Wynoochee water via the pipeline. The amount of time that the fry would remain at LAH will have to be determined as the volume of the rearing vessels, water flows, and loading capacities are not known by us to enabling offering a definitive timeline. As Coho imprint at the front of their life cycle it would be desirable to rear the Coho fry long as possible at LAH then transferred to Bingham Hatchery.

Our team would like to put forth for consideration that the 30,000 LAH Coho program be continued as backup and ideally expanded to meet the fry planting of our proposal. As our proposal would leave unused vessels at LAH after the transfer to Bingham in real terms it costs little other than feed as the hatchery is still fully staffed.

In addition to the previous proposal our team would propose an additional effort to rebuild Wynoochee Coho. When Chehalis Coho stocks crashed in the 1980's WDFW Montesano staff used Bingham Hatchery to produce fry for out planting at around 400 pp very successfully. The effort targeted underutilized habitat such as beaver ponds and off channel rearing areas.

It is often debated as to how effective the use of hatchery fry are in rebuilding Coho stocks. The volunteers from the Elma Game Club, (EGC) who later assumed operation of WDFW facility Satsop Springs Rearing Ponds, learned that success of fry plants was dependant on two elements. First the fry brood parents should not be multi generation hatchery stock. Due to the layout of nearby Simpson Hatchery (now Bingham) and prior to mass marking a substantial number of wild adults were incorporated into the eggtake due to the facility layout resulting in a hatchery fish that was genetically the same as its wild counterparts. A strong brood with strong wild genetics is necessary for success and the LAH brood meets that requirement.

The second element was the release sites. Realizing simply planting fry in a convenient stream is prone to failure so EGC volunteers identified and utilized release locations that had solid salmonids habitat. Their efforts were confirmed when they identified a stream on the Satsop / Wynoochee Boundary road that had a total culvert blockage and huge plunge pool just several hundred yards from the main river. (That culvert has since been replaced) The area above the blockage was a long series of beaver ponds that could be accessed by a Simpson Timber Co. road. The volunteers planted Coho fry reared at a project built on the Muller family farm on the Satsop River that incubated and reared 1,000, 000 eggs to fry to plant at a weight of 400 fpp to 40 fpp for the Satsop sub basin. Each year they planted this stream with Coho fry by accessing the area upstream. When the adults came back the volunteers were astounded to find the pool literally full of adult Coho where few had been seen before. When the EGC assumed operation of Satsop Springs the group continued to monitor the stream. After the returns from the final year of Coho fry plants returned everything went back to what it had been prior to the plants. Very few Coho adults were observed. For the EGC volunteers it was a valuable lesson, it is all about broodstock and habitat.
Work by various WDFW staff has shown that lakes such as Crocker, Capitol, and Steilacoom can take Coho from fry to 80mm migrants and in very short order produce high quality smolts. In situations where smolt-adult survival was measured, the lakes provided significant boost in marine survivals. Further, beaver ponds, wall-based channels, and other off-channel “ponded” habitats in the Clearwater basin (WADNR staff) have been shown to attract and overwinter good numbers of Coho.

Our team proposes that the integrated LAH Coho stock be used to rear fry for out planting to areas in the Wynoochee sub basin. Areas where habitat exists that is underutilized or simply has habitat available. The fry would be planted at a size to maximize survival with little effect on LAH capacity, loading issues and timing will come with size on the fish transferred to Bingham. The number of fry that LAH could produce would need to be determined as additional incubation would be required. Ideally the program would utilize the local community as it did in the past to out plant fry.

Rearing to Yearlings: The fry will be reared at Bingham Hatchery under protocols to a size to that is desirable for the next phase of our proposal.

Overall Rearing Protocols: Fry will be reared on Wynoochee River water to ensure early imprinting. The transfer to Bingham, and subsequent rearing, will be for the least amount of time concomitant with the production of smolts from the Conditioning Ponds (CP). The use of the CPs is based on the work of Cederholm (Clearwater River wall-based ponds WADNR) and Crocker Lake (WDFW) wherein Coho actively sought out these off-channel sites for rearing, especially overwintering, and produced significantly larger smolts that had higher survival rates than stream-reared congeners. The various sites will be evaluated for suitability, which would include outflow, temperature, and food abundance. Feeding is an option, but would require additional permitting and monitoring. At the minimum, Coho will be stocked into the ponds in late winter (probably February) at as large a size as is possible. Smolts will emigrate volitionally. Since the CP’s will be natural rearing and subject to predation, it is recommended that egg-take be increased concomitant with the expected length of rearing in the CP’s.

Conditioning Ponds: Several options exist for this phase of our proposal, which may or may not be feasible. Gravels pits exist in many places up and down the Wynoochee valley that can be used as conditioning sites. The issue of feeding the Coho after releasing them into a conditioning site if desirable has yet to be addressed as it is an issue of landowner acceptance of the use of the pits and regulatory issues about wastewater discharge. One characteristic of Coho is that they tend to go as far upstream as they can to spawn. A simple example given to us is that if one reared Coho at or near the mouth of a stream when the adults returned they would continue upstream as far as they could to favorable spawning areas as shown by WDFW work in the Snow Creek watershed. This makes the use of multiple release sites desirable. The WDFW work on County-line Ponds in the Skagit River watershed, wherein some off-channel ponds were more formalized for use as overwinter ponds, can be used as a guideline for evaluating sites

Our thoughts are that the landowners would embrace the concept and that multiple sites insure the greatest potential for success. If eggs were taken this fall we have nearly a year and half to get the release sites online.


• Briscoe Pit located off the Upper Donavan logging road mainline owned by Weyerhaeuser was a Grays Harbor College project site. Substantial data exist as to water quality and off channel rearing. It is our understanding that the abandoned pond may or may not have been compromised by the river.
• Northwest Rock (a Roglin Company) has gravel extraction site midway up the East side of the Wynoochee valley. The abandoned pit has an egress connecting it to the river that is a prime candidate.
• Several pits also exist in the vicinity of Sterling Park owned by the Port of Grays Harbor.
• With the expanded numbers that our proposal envisions, a member of our team expressed a desire to utilize a strategy of planting a number of the yearling release in Sylvia Lake. Lake planting will result in production of very large smolts that have shown to have significantly higher marine survivals. Note: at the same time, there were many lowland lakes whose OD “trout” fishery was supported by Coho pre-smolts as they will likely be of pretty good size and smolts have been seen to 400mm “smolts” and are very bright silver.
• Unnamed sites that could be utilized.
• The city of Aberdeen industrial intake area could be utilized to build a conditioning pond for a single release or ideally one of the multiple release sites. While our team lacks detailed knowledge of the site or property owned acceptance it is viable water source with a secured parameter. A single pond would offer more physical control but dispersed ponds will offer a wider range of smolting points, probably a wider range of smolting points, probably a wider range of timings given different temperatures and food resources, and probably better adult dispersal as there will be a variety of different places to at least initially home


Another Option: At the recent public meeting a former Tacoma Power employee stated that when the power generation facility was constructed a pipeline was installed to the proposed hatchery site. Not knowing the size or volume capacity limits our ability to fully vet this option. The potential exists to build a relatively inexpensive earthen pond to utilize as a conditioning pond. While not the hatchery that was originally intended that the QIN supported it does recognize their desires and is an option that should be considered. This option would place the greatest number fish higher in the watershed and reduce delays in gathering of adults.


Marking: Under the recently announced WDFW proposal the 100,000 releases on the Wynoochee was not to be clipped but the 400,000 at Bingham Hatchery would. As our proposal has no releases of Wynoochee Mitigation Coho at Bingham several options exist. Under our proposed 500,000 releases on the Wynoochee if clipped the numbers of returning adults would be vastly greater than the current WDFW proposal substantially expanding the potential success of the effort to rebuild the wild stock with mitigation production. Also if marked it would allow for the mitigation fish to be passed upstream and only true wild adults taken to LAH for brood. Another thought is to not mark the 100,000 the current WDFW proposal has and do mark all 500,000 smolt of our suggested program production. The harvest considerations that revolve around mass marking are for the co-managers to decide as user group harvest preferences are not part of this proposal.

In closing our team has attempted to present a proposal that meets the requirements of the Mitigation Agreement that is genetically sound, uses the funds available, and recognizes the effort WDFW and QIN staff put into the original proposal that our team utilized to expand upon.




Acknowledgement- Our team would like to recognize the effort and values provided by all of those who contributed to the creation of this proposal requested by Representative Blake. If they had not invested their time to share their educational knowledge and personal experiences this project could never have been completed. Bill Osborn, Joe Durham, Dave Hamilton

Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/19 12:46 PM

Thanks, Rivrguy and Co., for what looks to be a much better alternative, with far more potential to increase wild returns to the basin. You get my vote.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/19 04:28 PM


Tribal and Commercial numbers are up. Before anyone ask no I do not know why it took so long for the tribal numbers. I emailed the new R-6 harvest manager and asked a bit back but he did not respond. So they are up now be it a little slow to posting. The link.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/landings#chehalis

Here is the link to Commercial landings.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/gillnet#grays-harbor
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/19 05:36 PM

they had to cook the books!!!
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/19 09:17 PM

These results are way short of the model predictions.

Based on the total harvest of three species the tribe caught about 28% of the model expectation in 2A/2D and the NT nets in their first four days caught 45% of the model.

2C was even worse. 24% for the tribe and 10% for the NT nets.

On top of that the fish seem to be much smaller in size this year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/19 11:31 AM


It will be interesting to see how the numbers come out for the run size. Thing is it rained early and not just the usual bump in Oct but in Sept and following weeks big time. Everything that is " normal " left with Elvis. Inland fisheries prospered and tidal fisheries tanked. When the QIN went in they were fishing on just what was moving day to day as the early part of the runs were way upstream. That fish kept moving was apparent as the areas where they finally stopped would fill up with fish then fade then fill up again. The movement of Coho was a bit strange. All bright in tidal but no sea lice. So it was not a stampede or many would have lice but they were not hanging around either as no color. The old saying held true. Rain early the inland fisheries prosper but rain late tidal fisheries boom.

One thing that the models do not show is just how we make escapement. The peak weeks of any species is about peak based on harvest not the fish. The Chehalis is unique in that it almost always blows with rain in the first part of Nov to mid month. Mud logs just everything come ripping down the river and no tribal, NT commercial or Rec fisheries are possible and a huge portion of the runs move. So we wait but one thing for sure is a dream come true for inland fisheries and tidal fishers worse nightmare.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/19 12:23 PM

Inland fisher here. Fishing was quite good in the tribs for a few days following each of the major rains we've had, but it's been tough (pretty close to dead for new fish) when the rivers drop back to normal flows. Last time we had a really good run (2014), the fishing was really good in both tidewater and the tribs for most of the season (not just after significant rains). This has been my best season since 2014, but it hasn't been near as good as 2014 was. My observations lead me to believe the forecast was high (if not hugely).

Would be interesting to see how the hatcheries are doing on egg take. That might give us a better idea of just how many fish came up with the early rain than my anecdotal accounts.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/19 02:31 PM

Bingham Coho at 450 & Springs 1500 as of last week. Keep in mind Coho do not run to spawning grounds until rains make the areas available and / or time pushes them. River rising fish come, falling run slows way down and we still 2 to 3 weeks until spawning on a falling river that is below average flows. We do some nice Coho coming up the river right now. When it rains early the whole run does not come early but rather takes a 5 week window and stretches it to 8 or 9 weeks. Same amount of fish but stretched out over a much longer time especially the early and mid portion of the run.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/hatcheries/escapement#weekly-reports
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/19 03:35 PM

Thanks, Rivrguy!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/19 06:38 PM


Your welcome. One thing I would like to add is that I think the front part of the run was OK be a little smaller size as they came off ocean feed early and that makes a difference. That said none of this means the latter half of the run will be as large as expected. I have seen the front of the normal timed not show but the back half do and the back do a no show when the front does. Fish just do what fish do!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/19 06:09 AM


The follow is the WDFW web page for Chinook, Coho salmon that are being held at State hatchery's, 10-24-2019. There is lots of information in this document. Left hand column has the hatchery's by name, scroll down until you find a hatchery you are interested in.

I'll use the Satsop River for my example, and just Coho.

Satsop Springs---1500 Adult Coho, on hand
Bingham---------- 450 Adult Coho, on hand

Wish there was a column for the total goal, Chinook and Coho, for hatchery's, would be easy for the average person to check "Adults on hand vs. Total Adult needed"



https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/weekly_escapement_10-24-2019.pdf
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/19 07:34 AM

Long time ago, the hatchery report had that. Not only the fish goal bit the egg-take goal. Apparently that was TMI.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/19 08:19 AM


Eggtake & transfer numbers are in the Future Brood Doc and you must find the hatchery to get the information. It is organized by hatchery not species. This link is 2019 but you can years back by year also.


https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/02037/wdfw02037_1.pdf
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/19 09:17 AM

I vaguely recall that putting together a "Future Brood Document "was some sort of state-tribal comanager agreed-to requirement. The Future Brood doc in its current form of 1100+ pages is almost unusable without some level of summarization to the hatchery and/or hatchery complex level. True, the hatchery manager (and tribal comaager) needs to have things identified to this level for their operations but for general information purposes the layout and detail is clumsy at best. The Regional Fish Program manager should have ball park estimates of adult escapement and egg take goals by species for the state facilities. I suspect that putting these values in the weekly hatchery escapement report may not mesh with the layout of the weekly report (eg complex goals vs each hatchery goals vs retained and shipped etc).
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/19 11:31 AM

The weekly hatchery reports are what happens to each fish that the hatchery process encounters. Spawned, passed up stream, just everything. That data is then put into the escapement reports transmitted to Olympia that one sees week by week.

The production levels in the brood doc are Olympia decisions and are really not part of a day to day hatcheries operations. It is confusing for folks to be sure.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/19 10:49 AM

Well the NT net season is over and it looks like a disaster for the run size estimate. The model predicted a total NT Grays Harbor harvest of 17,566 fish (three species) after adjusting for net drop out and wild release. Actual total GH harvest was 5,409 or 30.8% of the modeled harvest. This is close to the tribal harvest so far at 28% of the model prediction. By species this is 10.4% for Chinook, 46.6% for coho and 26% for Chum.
This was a huge miss for the run size prediction! It is too late to hope for the run being late as the second week was much less than the first week of NT netting. I would have expected recreational harvest to be shut down by now.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/19 04:46 PM

Soft bite:

Are "you" fishing now???? There are fish to be caught by sports, up river, Chehalis, and in the tribs., there are lots of nice bright fish being caught.

I also noticed that the NT fleet did not fish all the hours they were allotted, maybe, well maybe

NOF set the season....leave it!!!!

Oh....All season, the areas I fish you'd think there wasn't a fish for a 100 miles, the fish were not staging where they have most years since I've been fishing, 50+ years.....they were headed up river, Fuller Bridge, Porter etc.

The rains are coming, brown out rains...…..Leave season as set....
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/19 07:58 PM

I agree with Drifter, plenty of fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/19 08:37 PM


I thought I would share this with folks.

I just heard that the new R6 Fish Manager is Jenni Whitney, coming over from R4. I have worked with her before and she is a pretty sharp person. Plus, she has shown the ability to work with at least some Stakeholders, like the Steelhead Trout Club. I'd at least introduce myself and give her a chance to show she ability to think outside the R6 Silo
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/19 07:57 AM

I think the discussion we're having about how many fish are out there is interesting. I suspect the reality is somewhere between the extremes, but I'm personally a bit concerned about the wild returns vs. projections. Seeing the Quillayute shut down is evidence that I'm not the only one. Obviously, the Quillayute system isn't the same as the Chehalis, so we can't draw straight parallels....

Managers have long used commercial catch as the key indicator of actual run sizes. As recently as a couple years ago, similarly poor gillnet catch was justification to close the sport fishery altogether. What was different that year? If memory serves, the reason given for the closure was concern that the hatcheries might not meet egg take goals (and after they did, the fishery was re-opened). Perhaps the reason we're still fishing is that the hatcheries got their fish early. If that's the case, it's a damned shame, because it suggests hatchery egg take is more important to managers than wild escapement.

As an upriver guy, I've done pretty well this year, but it's slowed down for me big time on the coastal rivers over the past couple weeks. Still catching, but the quality is less than ideal. Sounds like I should have been fishing the Middle Chehalis. Anyway, I'm glad to hear that folks are still finding bright fish. Even if I'm not, that's good news for the fishery.
Posted by: geljockey

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/19 07:58 AM

Actually, Jenni is the new District Fish Biologist for District 16. She is replacing Mike Gross who retired.

James Losee is the new R6 Fish Manager.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/19 08:42 AM

Mystery solved!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/07/19 07:50 AM

What a strange fall. September was wetter than I can ever remember, but it's been drier than I can ever remember since. Not looking like the rain headed our way this weekend is going to do much to river levels. It's been hard to figure out where to fish to find bright ones, but we sure are getting treated to a lot more fishable days late in the season than usual, which is great. I think I've only missed one planned day of fishing so far this season due to rain. As long as the fish keep moving, I'm digging this weather.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/07/19 11:12 AM

I have seen it not rain until the 3rd week of Nov in the dry early 90's but it did not rain early so I agree just plain strange. NOAA had rain in a few days at 4 plus in 4 days & more in Olympics then reduced it by half then down to a whimper. Now long range forecast has rain starting around the 24th and rains for the three weeks after that. That should be interesting.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/07/19 11:22 AM

First year working on our study creek was the massive 76-7 drought. Water was so low in the fall/winter that coho only accessed half the creek for spawning. That resulted in half the smolts that were produced of the next brood (normal flows). The steelhead benefitted from a small March freshet, so they got about 2/3 of the stream spawned. This does not look good for the '19 brood coho production if flows in tributaries remain low through the month.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/19 10:14 AM

With the Willapa closure ( it will be both Rec & Commercial ) the question is what about the Chehalis? Well the ocean harvest was not what was forecast, terminal tribal and NT Commercial the same. SB has it at 30% of forecasted catch.

Then the fact that it rained early resulting in no staging in the tidal areas as the fished moved right up 20 miles before stopping. No sea lice but scales not set at all which means it was around two days from the ocean to central Park which left all tidal fisheries hurting. Great fishing inland if you adjusted the way you fished to match up with the different fish behavior. In fact the two hatcheries on the Satsop have nearly 4 times the number of Coho on hand at the same week reported than in 2018. Also Chinook Broodstocking is 400% above 2018 but Chum not so. So one could assume that at the same place in time that the wild component is the same percentage but lot of Chum in the rivers but just stacking up with flows. With the river flows bottomed out again the fish in tidal are moving mostly on the incoming tide many with sea lice.

Redd counts on Coho at this time are a dream as the spawning streams are not watered up. The risk here is that if the NOAA weather forecast holds true and it does not rain until around the 24th of November that all three salmon species will have a substantial spawning in portions of the streams that they normally do not use. Add to the mix is when the rains come they are forecasted to be 3 weeks in duration will bring a flood event and gravel movement. This is normal but if the fish spawn down low because of flows the redds will take a hit to be sure.

For every bad indicator one can find the opposite with a good indicator as outlined above. The Chehalis Basin is unlike any other in the state, is totally rain driven, and harvest models show weeks of harvest but not the November brown out when nobody fishes and a huge portion of the runs come through. Last time they shut down the Rec fisheries off of harvest data the river made escapement ( Chinook no with old escapement goal but yes with the present goal ) on the brown out.

I do not envy Region 6 on this one. For myself the conflicting numbers and observations leave me clueless. Just plain no way no how to say with certainty just how the runs are performing. That is going to be Region 6's problem, they do not know. What to do you do when circumstances do not match up with historical data. It is a no win for staff no matter what they do!





Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/19 10:24 AM

"I do not envy Region 6 on this one. For myself the conflicting numbers and observations leave me clueless. Just plain no way no how to say with certainty just how the runs are performing. That is going to be Region 6's problem, they do not know. What to do you do when circumstances do not match up with historical data. It is a no win for staff no matter what they do!"

I think it means it's a good time to employ the cautionary principle. Which should be interpreted as meaning that harvest isn't the priority.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/19 11:16 AM

Well here is my take......Neither the QIN or the NT fished their complete schedule, all the hours they could have. We all know the rivers have lacked the normal rain fall, we don't know what's laying off the coast, just waiting for "Mother Nature" to get the rain fall necessary to move the fish.

Sports have always been told, "you're the least efficient" at having any real impact on the total run size.


WDFW is at the panic mode, "what to do ???? what to do ????", well the shut down the river mode has become one of the 1st items in the management plan.

I can tell you, there are fish moving in the Chehalis River, the Wynoochee, the Satsop and above Fuller Bridge, at this time !!!!!!

NOF and the model, set the in river season.....fish the model !!!!
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/19 01:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Soft bite
Well the NT net season is over and it looks like a disaster for the run size estimate. The model predicted a total NT Grays Harbor harvest of 17,566 fish (three species) after adjusting for net drop out and wild release. Actual total GH harvest was 5,409 or 30.8% of the modeled harvest. This is close to the tribal harvest so far at 28% of the model prediction. By species this is 10.4% for Chinook, 46.6% for coho and 26% for Chum.
This was a huge miss for the run size prediction! It is too late to hope for the run being late as the second week was much less than the first week of NT netting. I would have expected recreational harvest to be shut down by now.


I ran the combined commercial catch numbers against the pre-season 2019 NOF Model as well this morning.

COHO:
QIN at 27% of expected (4697/17293)
WDFW at 47% of expected (1995/4223)
Combined catches at 31% of expected (6692/21516)

CHUM:
QIN at 9.8% of expected (483/4931)
WDFW at 26% of expected (3315/12565)
Combined catches at 22% of expected (3798/17496)

If these catches are reflective of historic encounters by stat week, the actual runsize for coho is probably about one-third of forecast and the actual runsize for chum is probably closer to one-fifth of forecast.

If these runsize shortfalls are realized, the unfished wild coho run would NOT meet escapement goals with coho failing by ~8K and chum by ~7K

As a GH Advisor, I would have to agree with softbite and SalmoG conceding that the precautionary principle should probably rule the day.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/19 08:08 AM

Devils advocate time. As dismal as the commercial harvest numbers and tidal Rec season are the hatchery Coho & Chinook broostocking are 400% plus fish on hand above 2018 at the SAME point in time last year. So inland numbers say boom year but tide water say bust and I do not believe either one. One can reasonably assume that the early timed wild component performed the same as the hatchery and all simply cleared tide water weeks early which simply means the missing tide water harvest was way up river before the nets hit the water. Rained early and it screwed the tide water fisheries but inland was great. Until the November rains arrive and the fish hit the spawning reaches it is all a guessing game. Starting in five days NOAA has the upper Chehalis at about two inches over five days. The Olympic tributaries is forecast 3.32 for the same period. It is interesting how things work out.

Oh, all year it has been strange as I have seen few jumpers / rollers as I normally do. Bloody fish have been going right up the river not slowing until this past week at slack fish show along with seals and most of the movement on the incoming tide. In fact upstream the guys fishing will see them coming before they catch one.

Mother nature has a warped sense of humor. Rains early when we do not need it then does not rain when you do need it.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/19 11:38 PM

Your theory could very well explain the schizo coho numbers.

Chum, on the other hand, had not yet arrived in the basin with the early rains. Moreover, they have a habit of moving upriver regardless of rain or low water. They seem to just GO because that's what their internal clock says... and it should have happened in the week straddling Halloween. I believe in all probability that the poor commercial chum catches accurately reflect a run-size shortfall.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/19 01:05 AM

Now that I totally agree with Doc. The Chum seem to be hung up someplace.

They have Nov 7 up now and Coho hatchery numbers still twice 2018 but wild is 700 and 2018 it was 1500. Now on the Wishkah 2018 was 4500 H and 2019 is 1500. This is same point in time folks and these numbers change a lot in the last three weeks of Nov. It is all about stream flows that are never the same on a given date from year to year. So there is one certainty right now, nobody knows for sure just how the runs are performing.

When I began working with fish staff did not have lap tops or the mountains of data available now. They had to know the watersheds and all the interactions the fish have with the many environmental variables that are always present. With greater use of computer modeling those skill sets are mostly gone and that is not necessarily a good thing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/19 09:03 AM

Thought I should add this. Lots of fish upstream and many are likely the fish that the harvest model said both tribal & commercial would catch. SB & Doc pointed out those numbers rather well. This is one of those years that the three net free days and no targeted Chinook fisheries dictated by the GH Policy is paying dividends to be sure. Then you have the Chum thing unfolding, time will tell.
Posted by: stonefish

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/19 09:32 AM

Chum numbers seem to be down in a number of areas this year.
I haven't seen nearly the numbers in the south sound or canal that I normally due while searun cutt fishing.
Even the small creek near my house that school kids plant is way off the usual numbers for this time of year.
It will be interesting to see what shows up after the rain later this week.
SF
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/12/19 04:45 PM


Here you are folks the change that all were waiting to see.

Dear Grays Harbor Advisors:

Early indications show Coho returns to tributaries along the coast appear to be lower than preseason forecasts. Due to the low returns, the department is proposing to reduce the daily adult salmon limit to one adult salmon for the freshwater Grays Harbor basin and Marine Area 2-2. Please contact myself, Mike Scharpf or Chad Herring if you wish to further discuss this information.
Sincerely,
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/19 08:26 AM


Several folks asked me to see if the Humptulips changed with bag reduction and Chum was a concern. So I asked and this is the response from Kim. Might add this she got back like right now and I truly appreciate it as should all of you folks. Mike & Kim have done as good one could hope for in GH.

The Humptulips River regulations will remain as listed in the 2019-2020 Sport Fishing Rule pamphlet. Until Nov. 30 the regulations are: “Daily limit 6. Up to one adult may be retained. Release wild Chinook and wild coho”. Some concerns have been raised regarding Grays Harbor chum. To date the chum are returning to spawning grounds as expected. Fishing retention for chum is generally lower compared to coho. According to the 2017 catch record card data 513 chum were retained in the Grays Harbor freshwater basin (including the Humptulips River). For the same year and geographic area, coho retention was 7,970. Hope you find this information helpful and let me know if you have any further questions.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/19 12:37 PM

The latest flavor out and about.


Draft plan released to restore Chehalis River basin habitat
Public invited to weigh in on proposed aquatic species restoration plan.

CHEHALIS &#150; During the past 30 years, salmon runs have declined 80% in southwest Washington&#146;s Chehalis River basin due to habitat degradation, development, and climate change. By the end of the century, the basin&#146;s spring chinook salmon could become functionally extinct, with fish numbers dropping too low to sustain the population.
But scientists, researchers, and technical experts have developed a draft aquatic species restoration plan designed to protect and restore salmon and other native aquatic species in the Chehalis basin&#146;s 3,400 miles of perennial streams and rivers.

The public is invited to review and comment on the draft restoration plan now through Jan. 14, 2020 at http://chehalisbasinstrategy.com/asrp/asrp-phase-i-draft-plan/.
&#147;The Chehalis basin is one of the state&#146;s only major river systems with no salmon species listed as threatened or endangered,&#148; said Emelie McKain, the basin&#146;s aquatic restoration plan manager for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. &#147;We want to keep it that way by restoring and protecting their habitat.&#148;McKain said the basin is also home to Washington&#146;s largest diversity of amphibians such as frogs and salamanders, including the federally-threatened Oregon spotted frog.

Aside from lost and degraded habitat, climate change is causing more frequent and intense storms that scour aquatic habitat in the basin while droughts are becoming more common during the summer, keeping stream flows low and raising seasonal water temperatures to levels that can threaten salmon and other native aquatic species.

The science-based draft restoration plan&#151;with the voluntary cooperation of willing landowners&#151;identifies potential actions that offer the best chance to:

Support healthy, harvestable salmon populations.

Build robust, diverse populations of other native fish and aquatic species.

Foster productive ecosystems more resilient to climate change and human-caused stressors.

The team of technical experts from the Quinault Indian Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Washington departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology, and other entities who developed the draft plan worked with local farmers, foresters, and conservationists, other state and federal agencies, and local governments.

The team and the Chehalis Basin Board will use public comments to inform future phases of the plan&#146;s development and implementation. The board was established by the state legislature to provide long-term oversight of the Chehalis Basin Strategy.

The Strategy is an ambitious collection of potential actions designed to improve and restore aquatic species habitat now and for future generations, while also making the basin a safer place for families and communities affected by flooding.

Ecology&#146;s Office of Chehalis Basin administers legislative funding to put the combined fish and flood strategy in place and works closely with the board, local government representatives from Grays Harbor, Lewis, and Thurston counties, the Chehalis and Quinault Indian tribes, basin farmers and other landowners, and local conservation and salmon recovery entities. More information about the Chehalis Basin Strategy is available at https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Get-to-know-us/Our-Programs/Office-of-Chehalis-Basin/Strategy.
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/19 12:50 PM

I poked around the links in that Release and couldn't find anything integrating the proposed dam on the upper Chehalis. Not saying it isn't in there but if it is it is obscured......
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/19 11:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Larry B
I poked around the links in that Release and couldn't find anything integrating the proposed dam on the upper Chehalis. Not saying it isn't in there but if it is it is obscured......


I also "poked around"...and couldn't find any mention of "a dam" but I'm sure its on the minds of those that live in that area, that think the Dam is the answer to all the ill's of the Chehalis River in areas that were allowed to "build in the flood plain" .
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/23/19 08:19 AM

This past spring into summer the Chehalis Basin was closed for angling to protect Spring Chinook. I think we all can agree that our Springers need to be protected but the manner it was done and the standards applied were of concern. I filed a Public Records Request and this internal e mail ( and several others ) along with a letter from the Deputy Director, Fish Program raised some serious questions outlined below.

I will post up the Deputy Directors letter in a bit. Forgive the formatting but when posting information I do not alter anything from the source.


Good morning Kirt,



On July 12, 2019 I submitted questions regarding the closure of the Chehalis Basin to all fishing. Subsequently on July 31, 2019 I received the attached response from the Assistant Director, Fish Program which is attached. I chose not to respond as I had a Public Records Request submitted and frankly felt that issue could be best served by waiting until I had enough information to address the issue. Let me be clear I fully support the protection of Chehalis Basin Spring Chinook now and will so in the future but feel I must take issue with the manner your subordinates utilized to address the issue. The e mail below from Rob Allan and several others provided the information to allow me to again address the issue as I have several questions.



It is my understanding that Chad herring, South Coast Fishery Policy Lead, reports to you for the management of salmon harvest. What I and others did not know was that Mr. Herring is the individual with the responsibility for all sport angling opportunity. It was my understanding, along with most of the public, that the Region 6 Fish Program Director, currently Mr. Losee, utilizes another process outside of NOF to set game fish seasons. Simply put just who and what process governs the Region 6 game fishing rule making process?

The July 31 response stated that a near zero harvest impact standard was to be used for Spring Chinook management for 2019 for the Chehalis Basin. The Deputy Director identified that the 2018 Spring Chinook escapement as 35% of the goal and 2019 projected to be 42% as justification for the closure to achieve near zero harvest impacts. As this is a standard that I have not seen applied prior is it now the Quinault Nation, Chehalis Confederation, and WDFW South Coast Fishery Policy Lead that presently set game fishing regulations?

Is all game fishing to be closed in lakes and streams that a salmon stock is forecast to be between 35% to 45% of the escapement goal?

Is the near zero impact standard utilized by Mr. Herring a standard for the Chehalis Basin Spring Chinook a Chehalis Basin standard only or is the new statewide standard?

The Grays Harbor Management Policy (GHMP) clearly identifies a maximum of 5% harvest impacts as a maximum allowed under the circumstances that exist with Spring Chinook in 2019 but as identified in the July 31 letter your staff chose to utilize the most extreme interpretation of the GHMP, why? The closure affected mostly the local angling public identified by Rob's e mail below that has historically had the least impact on Chehalis Springers if measurable at all.

With ESA listed salmon stocks in many parts of the state why was the Chehalis Spring Chinook protections far more strident than those utilized for ESA listed stocks in Puget Sound, the Columbia River and tributaries, and in general the rest of the state or is this the new non ESA stocks statewide standard? Is this standard going to be applied to game fishing statewide? If so why? If not why?


I believe my questions and the issues raised by Rob deserve an answer.

Dave



Rob Allan e mail thread:

Thanks Chad.



A few concerns regarding closing the Chehalis mainstem. I thought we were looking for ways to say yes?



Prohibits a popular hook and release sturgeon fishery.


Prohibits a popular invasive species fishery on bass. We know what these do.


Poor spring Chinook runs opens the door to decrease fisheries every year. I’m not speaking about spring Chinook fisheries.


If we can find a way to open sturgeon and bass fishing at least below Black River our constituents may swallow this a little easier.


If poor escapement can close a river down to all other species fishing, we are out of business.




Ok done,







Rob







From: Herring, Chad J (DFW) < Chad.Herring@dfw.wa.gov>



Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 4:57 PM



To: Cunningham, Kelly J (DFW) < Kelly.Cunningham@dfw.wa.gov>; Adicks, Kyle K (DFW) < Vincent.Adicks@dfw.wa.gov>; Hughes, Kirt M (DFW) < Kirt.Hughes@dfw.wa.gov>; Burley, Craig C (DFW) < Craig.Burley@dfw.wa.gov>



Cc: Phillips, Larry C (DFW) < Larry.Phillips@dfw.wa.gov>; Allan, Robert C (DFW) < Robert.Allan@dfw.wa.gov>



Subject: Chehalis Spring Chinook







Kelly,



Just had a conversation with Tyler Jurasin from QIN regarding spring Chinook in the Chehalis system. Our forecasted return of spring Chinook to the Chehalis watershed is 581 fish compared to an escapement goal of 1,400 (41.5%). WDFW-managed directed Spring Chinook fisheries where closed in the Chehalis system, via e-reg on April 9th. As a further conservation measure all game fish fisheries were also closed, via e-reg on May 10th, where encounters with Spring Chinook were likely to occur (i.e. Chehalis mainstem, Newaukum and Skookumchuck rivers). This emergency regulation expired on June 30. QIN expressed their concern over the forecasted returns of Spring Chinook as well as the environmental conditions those fish will/are encountering could further reduce an already low forecasted return. QIN is considering a continuing closure of their sturgeon fishery on the Chehalis side of Grays Harbor throughout the entirety of their season. They would not prosecute any fisheries until the beginning of the fall season in statistical week 40 (week of Sept. 29th).



My recommendation is to immediately close gamefish fisheries in the mainstem Chehalis, Newaukum, and Skookumchuck Rivers until further notice as a conservation measure to protect Chinook. On August 1, the Chehalis mainstem from the mouth to south monte bridge is planned to be open for a directed jack fishery. This fishery takes place in the lower river and poses little to no risk of spring Chinook encounters. I discussed this fishery with QIN and we were in agreement that this fishery poses little risk to spring Chinook populations. So, after August 1 thru the end of the month, I would recommend below south monte bridge revert to rules as discussed in NOF 2019 but for mainstem above and relevant tribs (Newaukum and Skookumchuck rivers) remain closed through the end of the month.



Chad Herring



South Coast Fishery Policy Lead



Montesano Regional Headquarters



48 Devonshire Rd



Montesano WA, 98563



Office#:(360)249-1299



Cell #:(360)470-3410



Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov<mailto:Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov>







Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/23/19 08:25 AM

This is the letter from the Deputy Director mentioned in the previous post minus the graphs.

July 31, 2019


Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Thank you for your e-mail and comments regarding the closure of all fishing in the Chehalis, South Fork Chehalis, Newaukum, and Skookumchuck Rivers. The Department values public input and transparency and works to implement those comments into fisheries management for the Grays Harbor watershed.

This closure is a conservation measure to protect spring Chinook in the Chehalis River basin. Spring Chinook in the Chehalis system are a true “wild” stock, in other words, there is no hatchery
supplementation of spring Chinook in this watershed therefore, all returning adults are produced by the natural environment. The forecasted return of spring Chinook to the Chehalis River watershed for 2019 is predicted to be quite low, at 581 fish it is less than 42% of the established escapement goal of 1,400. Compounding the concern is that the preliminary estimate of spring Chinook spawner escapement for 2018 in the Chehalis River system is 495 fish; merely 35% of the goal. With these points in mind, and consistent with Fish and Wildlife Commission Policy on Grays Harbor Salmon Management (C-3621) which directs the Department of maintain fisheries impacts below 5%, staff sought to limit impacts on this stock for the 2019 fishery season from terminal fisheries (either directed and non-directed) to near zero.

As you mention in your e-mail, this closure is not unexpected given this year’s forecasted return but you disagree with the “lower than normal stream flows” as a justification for the emergency regulation closure dated July 2, 2019. Unfortunately, the “reason for action” in the Fishing Rule Change form dated July 2, 2019 inadvertently omitted language referencing the forecasted return of spring Chinook in 2019 combined with small population sizes typical of spring Chinook populations in the Chehalis. The forecasted return in relation to the spawner escapement goal is the primary justification for this closure. The environmental conditions referenced in the “reason for action” are accurate, however, this closure is a necessary conservation measure to protect spring Chinook.

Another point raised in your comments is that the closure is too expansive and indicated that implementation of alternative management strategies such as shifts in time, area, and gear may limit impacts to spring Chinook to acceptable levels. This argument is not without merit and was discussed as part of the Agency’s deliberation around how to best implement effective conservation measures for the Chehalis River spring Chinook stock in 2019. While indirect mortalities on spring Chinook resulting from the prosecution of gamefish fisheries is likely low, the Department does not have data that would indicate the impact would be zero. To the contrary, the available data on spring Chinook run timing in the Chehalis River watershed would indicate there is some probability of encountering spring Chinook during gamefish fisheries. Figure 1 (below) shows the average monthly Catch Record Card (CRC) harvest estimate of Chinook in the Chehalis River from 1986-2016. The CRC harvest estimate for the Chehalis River shows, when spring Chinook directed fisheries were open, 24 spring Chinook were harvested on average in July. Spring Chinook directed fisheries in July make up 13% of the total annual spring Chinook harvest when open. Figure 2 (below) shows the average weekly Chinook catch in Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) fisheries from 1996-2015. The QIN prosecutes sturgeon directed gillnet fisheries in the spring and summer; spring Chinook are encountered and harvested during these fisheries. These QIN fisheries occur in their usual and accustomed fishing areas, from the mouth of the Chehalis River (Hwy 101 Bridge in Aberdeen) to the confluence of the Wynoochee River.

From the graph you can see the average QIN harvest of spring Chinook for the years listed is 12 fish. Quite simply, these two data sources would suggest spring Chinook are present during the prosecution of gamefish fisheries and do have a probability of encounter. Specific quantitative data around that probability of encounter and any associated mortalities is unavailable. The Department considered all the data and factors above in relation to reaching a management objective of a near zero impact. Given the lack of specific information around the number of impacts likely to occur in gamefish fisheries, forecasted runsize, recent year abundance trends, and environmental conditions the Department decided upon a conservative approach and closed all fishing where the probability of a spring Chinook encounter was likely.

As mentioned above, the Agency had a management objective of near zero impact to Chehalis River spring Chinook for 2019. During the 2019 North of Falcon process, beginning with the public meeting held on February 26, 2019 at the Montesano City Hall, agency staff gave a presentation on performance of Grays Harbor’s fisheries for 2018 and forecasts for the 2019 salmon return. In that presentation on Grays Harbor fisheries, slide 12 (Figure 3 below) identified spring Chinook as a constraining stock for 2019. During the forecast meeting and other successive NOF meetings there was discussion that the directed spring Chinook fishery would need to be closed given the forecast in relation to the spawner escapement goal and the objective per Commission policy of having less than a 5% impact. During the month of May, agency representatives meet separately with representatives from QIN and the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (CTC) around the shared conservation concerns regarding spring Chinook in the Chehalis River Basin. These discussions resulted in the shared management objective between all the management entities of near zero impact to this stock in 2019. Both the QIN and CTC spring and summer fisheries that could have direct and non-direct impacts to spring Chinook have been closed with the exception of one adult spring Chinook harvested by CTC for ceremonial purposes. As described above, the action WDFW took around this shared management objective was to close all fishing where encounters of spring Chinook may occur until July 1, 2019. This was the first emergency regulation that was put in place on May 13, 2019. The co-managers (QIN and WDFW) had some follow-up discussion at the end of June over the conservation concern for spring Chinook. During that discussion, conversation centered on the lack of information to update spring Chinook runsize as well as worsening environmental conditions that would only exacerbate the conservation concern. This discussion, our associated data and the information described above was what led the Department to file the emergency regulation closing all fishing effective July 2, 2019.

It is of critical importance that the public be fully informed of the rules and regulations that the Department utilizes to reach conservation and management objectives associated with managing natural resources. It is also important that the rules and regulations that are adopted and translated into Washington Administrative Code (WAC) are easy to understand and are enforceable. The Department
encourages an open dialogue with the public to ensure that the WAC’s adopted meet the desired outcome in terms of the conservation and management objectives for those specific natural resources. The Department manages natural resources for the public benefit and it is vital that the public have a say in how they are managed in order to have trust and support in the Department’s actions. The Department recognizes that in order for the public to trust and support our actions those decisions must be made in a transparent manner. The Agency is always looking to improve on the transparency of our decision making processes as well as making fishers aware of emergency actions that have taken place.

As we look to strengthen our commitment to transparency and information sharing, your comments will be considered.























Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/23/19 10:10 AM

From Rob Allan email thread:

"If poor escapement can close a river down to all other species fishing, we are out of business."

No Sh!t Sherlock! This mirrors the 3 1/2 month closure of the Stillaguamish basin to all fishing. The Stilly has long been a popular summer fishery for summer run steelhead and sea run cutthroat trout. Fishing for Chinook has been prohibited for the last half century or longer. So we learned that the real reason for the sport fishing closure was because the Tribe objected to any and all sport fishing where even one Chinook might be inadvertently harmed, WDFW agreed to throw most of the sport fishing season under the bus, not to actually achieve increased conservation for Chinook, since salmon fishing is always prohibited, but because the treaty tribes control the Department's actions.

So a perfect conclusion is expressed in Rob's email, as the Departments jumps off the cliff of irrelevancy, it is rapidly approaching the day where it may as well turn off the lights and lock the doors to the anadromous fish section of the Fish Program. The upside is that the Department's budget crisis should be alleviated somewhat by going out of business.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/19 04:47 AM

For decades, WDFW tried to maximize "opportunity" by trying to craft regulations that avoided species in need of protection. Folks complained a lot about how "complex" the regs were and how thick the pamphlet was. Now, as Salmo suggests, close it for all fishing when anything needs protection.

I will add that we were often hit with the push by the Tribes that "If you fish, we fish". regardless of whether or not the fisheries targeted the same species/stocks. FABs were conducted over this.

Also, when I started out, I was under the impression that th State Agencies )WDF, WDG, CDFG, ADFG, etc.) were the experts of all things fish and fishing. If they did't know the answer, they studied it to find out. Spent a career learning THAT was a stupid idea.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/19 09:27 AM

C'man,

WDFW has high expertise in matters of fish biology and ecology. Problems seem to arise when technical line staff are promoted and move into management positions. I've thought for a long time that when they are sent to those management retreats, some potion is poured into the policy punch bowl, and when they return to their agencies they have lost their grounding in honesty and commitment to public service.

I think at the next Commission meeting I will ask the Commissioners to direct the Director to ban the use of the terms "transparent" and "transparency" in letters and emails from the agency to members of the constituent public until such time as they actually walk the talk. I'm finding it insulting, condescending, and patronizing to read that term in communications dishonestly informing me that they have adopted an action for fish conservation reasons, when in fact they adopted the action because one or more treaty tribes coerced them to.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/19 01:54 PM

Well, yeah. Survival, with promotion, requires compromise. But, look at the technical background of recent leadership such as Atkins and Warren. The staff with expertise and resource integrity were passed over/neutered.

Might add that in the late 80s early 90s the State embarked on the Career Executive program with the idea that executives were interchabgable. You didn't need technical skills from your agency but just how you manage people/carry out policy. Some current staffers have told me that agency now values "Emotional Maturity" above technical skills.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/19 10:06 PM


Carcassman and Salmo g.....you both add so much to this web site, years of working for the State gives you insight to many things the average person could only wish they had close that same knowledge.

Thank you...…..
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/19 09:10 AM

I'm hearing some complaining about the QIN netting schedule, late November and now into December...

Would sure like to be at the "season setting meeting"....

I posted the following on the "SCR" listing.....

I "heard" that the crab are being checked often for "soft shell". At this time there is not a QIN crab season taking place. I also heard that once the QIN starts their crab season.....its a 45 day period before the NT can start their season.

I also know that the in river "set and gill net season" is very liberal.....I did go to town, Aberdeen, and saw no gill net boats, only a few set nets. I've heard that many of the "long net fishermen", have hung their nets.....now choose to "do the crab fishery".

Nothing official about my post, just rumors and seeing whats going on in the river.

Chehalis River, where I fish, is about the same level as in September.....the river itself is so clear that I can count rocks on the bottom, in 5-6' of water.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/19 10:17 AM

Those aren't rocks they are fresh water clams mixed in among the round bale PVC wrap.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/19 07:05 AM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
I'm hearing some complaining about the QIN netting schedule, late November and now into December...

Would sure like to be at the "season setting meeting"....

I posted the following on the "SCR" listing.....

I "heard" that the crab are being checked often for "soft shell". At this time there is not a QIN crab season taking place. I also heard that once the QIN starts their crab season.....its a 45 day period before the NT can start their season.

I also know that the in river "set and gill net season" is very liberal.....I did go to town, Aberdeen, and saw no gill net boats, only a few set nets. I've heard that many of the "long net fishermen", have hung their nets.....now choose to "do the crab fishery".

Nothing official about my post, just rumors and seeing whats going on in the river.

Chehalis River, where I fish, is about the same level as in September.....the river itself is so clear that I can count rocks on the bottom, in 5-6' of water.


I imagine the drift netters quit because of the gin clear water. Fish get super spooky under these conditions and I imagine success goes way down when fish can see the gauntlet coming. Seems like the late crab soft shell issue is becoming common. The commercial starts have been late the last couple years in a row.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/19 07:29 AM

One of the things that makes management of any natural resource difficult is that the data is always in the past and management is always in the future. Like the stock ads "Past performance is no guarantee of future", so it is with fish.

For example, we figure out that the PDO has shifted after it occurs and then play catch-up. Catch-up is fun when the shift is from low to high productivity but sucks in the other direction.

That is why in-season management should be not only critical but the only way it is done. Seasons are conservatively set based on forecasts, or tradition, but not opened until data confirms. Soft-shell crab? The season opens when they are hard, per sampling, period. Like is done with razor clams. Salmon season? Conservative, very conservative, until the actual data says the fish are there in sufficient numbers.

Such a scheme will probably never be accepted because it does not allow sufficient certainty for business planning.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/19 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman


Such a scheme will probably never be accepted because it does not allow sufficient certainty for business planning.


I cannot think of another commodity that has so many components listed as "endangered" that is still managed as to produce the largest yield for private commercial profit, to the point of collapse.

If commercial harvesters were allowed to hunt endangered species on this scale, for personal profit, say, tigers, the world world be in an up roar.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/19 01:41 PM

But tigers are warm-blooded. ESA wasn't meant for slimy things. And, the world keeps killing lions and tigers and elephants and rhinos because greed is Job One. That and aphrodisiacs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/07/19 10:40 AM

With salmon fishing winding down many of us have wondered just how the runs performed, so I asked. Mikes reply is below but everyone should remember this is simply a snapshot of what staff sees at this point in time. It can and likely will change as all the data is collected when things are finalized. Hope this information helps everyone with questions. Oh a thanks to Mike and Kim for always being willing to share information, it is appreciated.


We are not close to knowing how the runs are going to end up. Looks like some of the index reaches have lot of Chinook, while others not as much. Preliminary spring Chinook escapement is around 1,100, so much better than last year and the forecast. I think the fall Chinook numbers are going to be close to the goal, but we are still doing surveys. Coho is a conundrum. The relationship between the Wynoochee trap counts and end of season spawning escapement is pretty good. I can model the end of the season escapement by comparing the counts to date and expand to end of season using normal timing, and apply to the model. As of this week that model produces an escapement of between 37,000 and 40,000 natural spawners. However, other indicators point to smaller returns, commercial catch for instance. As for chum, preliminary counts suggest that the goal will be achieved. Sorry I can’t give you actual numbers, we are still counting. When we get things closer to final, we’ll send you a message. Hope this helps. Have a good weekend.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/19 07:25 AM

Man, it's tough for salmon. Seems like every time we meet or exceed escapement goals, the ocean turns inhospitable (see the BLOB thread), resulting in poor marine survival to adulthood. Can't win for all the losing....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/19 09:12 AM


On the PM side about the preseason forecast, it was off. The key so far is that the run was under expectations but then the QIN & NT commercials harvest fell far short. Had the runs timing been normal ( rains moved the fish upstream early ) then commercial harvest would have blown escapement well to below what is required. If all remember the last time something like this happened the agency shut down the Rec inriver season. This year they navigated the issue differently and we seem to be coming out OK. Frankly from my point of view this years approach is the better of the two. Never been a fan of harvest wide open in marine, QIN & NT commercial, then things look off nail the inriver Rec for conservation. Just cannot buy that approach.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/19 06:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

On the PM side about the preseason forecast, it was off. The key so far is that the run was under expectations but then the QIN & NT commercials harvest fell far short. Had the runs timing been normal ( rains moved the fish upstream early ) then commercial harvest would have blown escapement well to below what is required. If all remember the last time something like this happened the agency shut down the Rec inriver season. This year they navigated the issue differently and we seem to be coming out OK. Frankly from my point of view this years approach is the better of the two. Never been a fan of harvest wide open in marine, QIN & NT commercial, then things look off nail the inriver Rec for conservation. Just cannot buy that approach.

As people who fish more in the actual salt rather then the river these days I will say that I totally agree. I would rather have a shorter and tighter limited season on the salt if projections are falling short rather then penalize river fishers later on in the season. Only fair and reasonable. Of course, some larger boat owners may disagree. Bob and Melanie
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/19 08:45 PM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

On the PM side about the preseason forecast, it was off. The key so far is that the run was under expectations but then the QIN & NT commercials harvest fell far short. Had the runs timing been normal ( rains moved the fish upstream early ) then commercial harvest would have blown escapement well to below what is required. If all remember the last time something like this happened the agency shut down the Rec inriver season. This year they navigated the issue differently and we seem to be coming out OK. Frankly from my point of view this years approach is the better of the two. Never been a fan of harvest wide open in marine, QIN & NT commercial, then things look off nail the inriver Rec for conservation. Just cannot buy that approach.

As people who fish more in the actual salt rather then the river these days I will say that I totally agree. I would rather have a shorter and tighter limited season on the salt if projections are falling short rather then penalize river fishers later on in the season. Only fair and reasonable. Of course, some larger boat owners may disagree. Bob and Melanie


Seems propping up whats left of any charter/sport ocean fishery along w/ any NT and tribal ocean commercial fishery is more important than anything else? When will the ocean/salt get a total shut down to find out what returns truly could occur in river? Just curious?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/19 06:54 AM

There are a couple of reasons why a wide-open oceanarium fishery (at least relative to real abundance and in-river fisheries is favored). Way back (pre Hoh v. Baldridge) the NI ocean fisheries consciously overharvested some weak stocks. The result was that inside fisheries (especially Tribes) were reduced/closed for conservation. While it did keep us close to escapement goals, certain Tribes were always on the short end of the allocation stick.

The decision, essentially, said that the Tribes can't be corked (trolled) out of their share. WDF said that "OK< we'll close the ocean and fish inside". Feds and Tribes said to fish anyway, just balance catches, and (essentially) **rew the escapement.

So, with the outside fisheries, the Tribes get a fixed schedule regardless of run size, to balance the catch. So, if we fish outside less then inside fisheries (if one actually wishes to balance catches) will need to be actively managed, catch counted, and so on with the real risk that Tribal fisheries would need to respond to weak returns in real time.

Autopilot, as shown by Asiana Air in San Francisco is just so much easier.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/19 07:41 AM

Originally Posted By: RUNnGUN
Originally Posted By: bobrr

As people who fish more in the actual salt rather then the river these days I will say that I totally agree. I would rather have a shorter and tighter limited season on the salt if projections are falling short rather then penalize river fishers later on in the season. Only fair and reasonable. Of course, some larger boat owners may disagree. Bob and Melanie


Originally Posted By: RUNnGuN
Seems propping up whats left of any charter/sport ocean fishery along w/ any NT and tribal ocean commercial fishery is more important than anything else? When will the ocean/salt get a total shut down to find out what returns truly could occur in river? Just curious?

[Quote=BobR]If ALL (Alaska, Canada, rest of U.S.) fishing was shut down for 4 years I would agree with this, since that would be fair and everyone (except the fish) would suffer to benefit the runs. Since this ain't going to happen any suggestion that ocean fishing be shut down while other fisheries are allowed would result in some really nasty in-fighting. If you really want to turn fishermen against each other this is certainly the ticket! Either we fish together or we all sit at the dock together! Civil war otherwise. Bob R
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/11/19 08:06 AM

Four years is nowhere near long enough. Wild escapements are in the 5-10% of "historic" and ecosystem needs. Recovery is a decades-long process that will require massive and permanent changes to the ways we interact with natural resources. If we want to have them.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/11/19 08:42 AM

I'm willing to bite the bullet for 10 years if everyone is on the same page. And I don't even know whether or not I'll be able to fish in 10 years! I'm an old man!
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/11/19 10:33 AM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
I'm willing to bite the bullet for 10 years if everyone is on the same page. And I don't even know whether or not I'll be able to fish in 10 years! I'm an old man!


It would take an international agreement. (think of everyone who takes these fish)

We (US) can't even get past speaking to one another if we're from different political parties. Imagine trying to craft an international and by-partisan agreement to shut down anything...

What will shut it down is when the stocks completely collapse...and we probably won't have to wait long for that to happen.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/11/19 10:50 AM

Yep, Bay wolf, rather soon, especially in the southern end of the range.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/11/19 10:51 AM

Have a quote shared from US/Canada Treaty meeting in the late 80s/early 90s.

Spoken by a representative from the Lower 48 "Can Alaska and the US agree on this?"
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/19 09:58 AM



As the year comes to an end I would like to wish all of the best for the holidays. While fish things are important to many of us in the end it is about our families and the future. So let us hope the coming new year is great for all.

Now to business. It has taken a bit to chase down information on just what is going on with the Wynoochee Mitigation. I will post up the documents mentioned after this post to help one attempt to get an understanding but to be honest it is complicated. So what we do know?

• Starting in 2016 Tacoma Power met with WDFW and the Quinault Nation. Tacoma and WDFW have met six times since November 2016. QIN attended the initial meeting, but has not participated in the meetings since. The quarterly committee meetings have been canceled when no progress has been made on the agreement since the last meeting. (letter attached)
• WDFW has prepared three separate proposals in 2018 to discuss with QIN to reach agreement on potential alternatives for the expenditure of the mitigation funds. The initial proposal was summarily rejected by QIN. The second proposal was modified by QIN in August of 2018. In September of 2018 WDFW resubmitted a modified third version of the proposal to QIN to address the revisions received from QIN in August of 2018.
• At this time WDFW has not provided to the public information on what the first two proposals were.
• On September 23, 2019 Tacoma Power notified FERC they had accepted the WDFW proposal. ( letter attached )
• In November 27, 2019 letter to FERC Tacoma Power expressed reservations about some portions of the WDFW proposal. I have since been told that these concerns are about the spending of mitigation funds for the Wynoochee Dam trap not the production of Coho and Steelhead proposed.
• On December 10, 2019 Regional Director responded to our concerns with the following. In early September 2019, WDFW and Quinault Nation staff developed a draft agreement to increase Coho and winter Steelhead hatchery releases in the Chehalis River basin using Wynoochee Mitigation Trust Funds. WDFW also held a public meeting on September 24th to discuss the plan with constituents. We received three letters following the public meeting. Two of these letters (both attached) are in support of the proposal and one, from you, offered several suggested alternatives. We have reviewed the suggested alternatives and, in consultation with the Co-managers, are requesting a review and approval of the plan (as proposed) from Tacoma Power and FERC. In addition, we are proposing to continue working toward a long term plan that would result in increased hatchery production capacity in the Wynoochee River. Our current capacity, as you point out, is limited at Lake Aberdeen. We have support from Representative Blake to work to explore and identify opportunities for capital improvements within the Wynoochee basin that would increase our production capacity. I know Representative Blake is busy but maybe there is an opportunity for a future meeting to discuss options as we move forward.

So where are we with the issue? WDFW appears to be determined to utilize Wynoochee Mitigation funds to subsidize Bingham Hatchery ( on the Satsop River) Coho production. Additionally documents readily available on FERC's website do not entirely support WDFW's staff version of how the proposal was developed. Then this, WDFW in the process previously outlined intentionally did not allow public participation or review of the proposal until it was finalized with Tacoma Power and the Quinault Nation. When the public meeting Larry Philips referenced took place in WDFW's mind it was a done deal. In other words it was simply another Dog & Pony show to allow them political cover claiming public involvement.

So where are we? Still trying to gather information, objecting to FERC about the process and proposal, objecting to Tacoma Power about this attempted end run on the Wynoochee Mitigation. As bad as this all sounds there is good news as FERC's website and staff has guided us to the information to begin us understand just what, when, and how WDFW proceeded to put the proposal together. This thing is not over yet.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/19 09:59 AM


September 23, 2019


Kelly Susewind Tyson Johnston
WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Quinault Indian Nation PO Box 43200 PO Box 189
Olympia, WA 98504-3200 Tahola, WA 98587



Subject: Wynoochee Dam Salmon and Steelhead Trust Fund - Draft Recommendation

Dear Sirs:

Thank you for working through the draft recommendations for the use of the Wynoochee Dam Salmon and Steelhead Trust fund with the co-managers in the Chehalis Basin.

The draft proposal shared with Tacoma Power (Tacoma) dated October 12, 2018 under cover letter signed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Quinault Indian Nation includes provisions for increased fish production in the basin and upgrades to existing fish facilities.

Tacoma agrees in concept with the proposal except for the provision that requires Tacoma to pay for trap upgrades. Tacoma believes the trust should fund the upgrades to the trap associated with the Wynoochee Hydroelectric Project (Project).

Tacoma operates the Project as a co-licensee with the City of Aberdeen who owns the Wynoochee Dam, constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 1972.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued the original Wynoochee Project license to the co-licensees on September 9, 1987. The Wynoochee License has specific fish mitigation requirements adopted from the provisions of the original Corps construction of the dam.

Per the Special Agreement on Mitigation Responsibilities between the Corps and the licensees dated February 18, 1994 (Special Agreement), the licensees are not required to enhance or make additions to existing fish facilities at the Project. FERC adopted the Special Agreement March 5, 1996 by the Order Amending License and Amending Charges.

As mitigation for impacts to anadromous fish, the Corps constructed a barrier dam and fish trap facilities on the Wynoochee River at river mile 49.6. In addition , as mitigation for the reservoir's inundation of former steelhead spawning habitat, the Corps provided
$696,000 to expand the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Aberdeen Hatchery in 1977.


Susewind and Johnston September 27, 2019
Page 2 of 2


To mitigate the dam's continuing impacts to anadromous fish, the Corps conducted studies under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for a fish restoration project at the Wynoochee Dam. To inform this process, the Corps established a Fish Restoration Technical Committee (Committee) made up of representatives from state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, Quinault Indian Nation, and the Confederate Chehalis Tribes.

As an outcome of this effort, Tacoma Power set aside in trust approximately $1.2 million which was originally intended for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a hatchery at the Wynoochee Dam. Due to permitting constraints by the US Forest Service, the hatchery was never constructed .

This trust is invested in securities permitted by the laws of the state of Washington, and are accruing interest. The trust is available to fund fish restoration activities recommended by the Committee. The current account balance is approximately $2.6 million.

Tacoma looks forward to committing the trust fund account to fish mitigation in the basin. We are willing to discuss this proposal further with the understanding that additional funding outside the trust will not be provided for the trap and haul operation.

If you have questions , please contact me at (253) 502-8196 or via email at KUnderwood@cityoftacoma .org.

Sincerely,
Keith Underwood
Natural Resources Manager


c: Erich Gaedeke, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Portland Office Tyler Jurasin, Quinault Indian Nation
Chris Mattson, Tacoma Power Travis Nelson, Tacoma Power
Larry Phillips, WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Ron Warren, WA Department of Fish and Wildiife
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/19 10:03 AM

November 27, 2019 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426

SUBJECT: Wynoochee River Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License (FERC) No. 6842, FERC License Article 419 (L)

Dear Ms. Bose:

This letter is a semi-annual report on the progress of the plan for the expenditure of the Wynoochee fisheries mitigation funds (funds) per Article 419, Paragraph L, of the FERC license for the Wynoochee River Project (Project).

Tacoma Power (Tacoma) initiated quarterly meetings with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) in November of 2016 to discuss fish management issues related to the Project with a goal of developing a plan for expending the funds.

Tacoma and WDFW have met eight times since November 2016 to develop a mitigation strategy. The QIN attended the initial meeting, but have not continued to attend the meetings since.

WDFW and QIN have met over the same period outside the quarterly meeting and have recently developed a proposal to expend the mitigation fund. The proposal is focused on fish production in a local hatchery through 2037 when the Project license expires.

Tacoma and WDFW have discussed the proposal and identified potential alternatives to formalize the funding proposal. However, the current proposal includes some actions that are not consistent with the Project license. Tacoma has responded to WDFW to clarify the Project license requirements. WDFW is coordinating with QIN to revise the proposal to align with the Project license requirements.

Once the revised proposal is returned to Tacoma, formal communication from Tacoma to FERC will occur to outline the plan to execute the mitigation-funding plan.



Kimberly Bose November 27, 2019
Page 2


Once the revised proposal is returned to Tacoma, formal communication from Tacoma to FERC will occur to outline the plan to execute the mitigation-funding plan.

If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (253) 502-8196, KUnderwood@cityoftacoma.org or Travis Nelson at (253) 502-8861, TNelson1@cityoftacoma.org.

Sincerely,

Keith Underwood
Natural Resources Manager

TN:mcp Wynoochee_Article_419L_2019

c: Cushman Fisheries Habitat Committee
Erich Gaedeke, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Portland Office Travis Nelson, Tacoma Power
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/19 10:18 AM

1. Does this mean that the agreement that WDFW and QIN came up with is different from the FERC License so they are asking for the License to be modified? I was under the obviously misguided understanding that the parties agreed to the original License when it was put in place.

2. Any mention of the alternative proposal from the Advocacy?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/19 10:33 AM


Well yes but FERC provided the original that basically says WDFW is responsible for the trap. No on Advocacy as that is my brother CM. Yes Larry Phillips said my teams alternate proposal was submitted but it is not showing on FERC's website. You simply go to FERC hit e library then docket search and use file number p-6842. Depending on your date selection a whole bunch of TP reports show but just look for 419 in the description.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/19 08:31 AM

Thank you for all your efforts and holiday well wishes..

Nothing is more frustrating than the fish decline I have lived.

Obviously bitching and yelling publicly at meetings and in the local papers doesn't work.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/21/19 01:18 PM

As posting up fishing updates usually has your fishing buddies saying bad things about your Mother we all kinda kept mum. Now the river is blown (big time) so I thought I would throw this into the 2019 mix. In the world of just plain odd the fish are at it again. About 5 days ago a substantial to just plain large movement of fish happened as the weather front began to move in. The fish caught by the few fishing were bright Coho with sea lice. At my house I had Sea Lions and Seals chasing fish up on the gravel bar. OK that was the easy part! Upstream the guys could see the back v's coming off the ripple, fish finders going nuts but then this. Large portion went right to calm water, know as the weeds, and continued on. Fish caught were right where they should be and Coho as stated before.

Now the fun part. The T day Nov Coho coming in late, could be. Massive movement of Late Coho, could be but there were way to many fish from my seat. Then this, the guys caught Coho in normal ways in normal spots so what were all those fish running slack weed water? Behavior says Chum but in late December on the Chehalis ? So what do you all think ?



Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/21/19 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
So what do you all think ?


THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!

Seriously...stop thinking and go catch fish! Lol!
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/21/19 03:50 PM

based on what I've seen through the weekend of Dec 7th this doesn't surprise me.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/20 10:13 AM

Well it is that time again and this is the Grays Harbor ( and Willapa ) forecast meeting. When I see the full meeting schedule I will post it up as the Adviser meeting schedule I do not have at the moment.


February 27
2020 Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Salmon Forecasts and Fishing Opportunities

6 to 8 p.m., Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano.
WDFW presents salmon abundance forecasts for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2020 are discussed.

March 24
Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion

6 to 8 p.m., Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano.
Public discussion for discussion of pre-season forecasts and possible salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor and its associated watersheds.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/20 10:35 AM

Can we get a count of dogs and ponies brought to the meeting. Is it an AKC-sponsored show (for the dogs). Or maybe a Field Trial certified show so we can see if those dogs can hunt.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/20 04:07 PM

Make sure they are labs that can swim in a lake.

Dam coming.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/20 12:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


Now the fun part. The T day Nov Coho coming in late, could be. Massive movement of Late Coho, could be but there were way to many fish from my seat. Then this, the guys caught Coho in normal ways in normal spots so what were all those fish running slack weed water? Behavior says Chum but in late December on the Chehalis ? So what do you all think ?



Well, as one of the few boats still fishing December 1 - until the BIG RAINS took us off the river.....we had fun!!!!

I killed only hatchery males....had all the eggs, I needed from earlier in the season.....neighbors thought I was the greatest guy, smoked fish, fresh salmon in December.....we did see the "close to the bank moving fish".....I swear they were Chum ....tried for a few days to use "wrapped" Mag lips.....tough to get to work in 2-3 foot of water. Best season I've had in many years.

Where I fish, in the old days, the fish staged in the area.....last 5-6 years, no staged fish, so no jump/rolling fish but if you were in the "right track" and had right stuff...you could get fish.

The fish "staged" up river, never went to that area BUT 100's of fishermen were there......

Thanks WDFW for NOT shutting Chehalis River & tribs. down.....the fish were late....mid Nov - until about December 19/20 but this year they came AND THE water was perfect....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/20 07:15 AM

Something sticks out in Drifter's post that we need to remember. A simple rule of any fishery is that what spawns is what isn't killed before spawning. They spawned because they didn't die.

Wonder why the hatchery runs of salmon seem to have lockjaw in rivers? When only 5-10 % of the adults make it to spawn, the ones that do didn't bite. They didn't arrive in the river and hold for a few weeks, they didn't advertise there presence, and so on.

If we only killed 5-10% of what comes back there are a lot of behaviors that would remain.

The hunters here know this intuitively. If the animal is not hunted hard they behave a whole lot different than ones that are hunted daily.

The fish change, because in ore to survive they have to.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/20 09:43 AM

Although its limited my fishing I have loved the high water.

Hopefully many fish got up the river above man to spawn!!!!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/20 12:21 PM

Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
Although its limited my fishing I have loved the high water.

Hopefully many fish got up the river above man to spawn!!!!


Yea, I'm not really sure "how accurate the spawning surveys will be this year". In Aberdeen the water color is "brown", means that dirt/mud probably covered many of the redds, probably washed out many because of high water flows?


Just checked my punch card....last recorded salmon was 12/18/2019...most people have moved on to fishing steelhead, that's not looking good....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/20 12:48 PM

Did you mis-record the date Drifter or is your fishing rig a DeLorean?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/20 01:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Did you mis-record the date Drifter or is your fishing rig a DeLorean?


Good one.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/20 01:45 PM

12/18/2020 hasn't happened yet...he sees into the future????
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/20 06:33 AM


Here is the NOF for Grays Harbor and Willapa and use the link to get to the complete schedule. The public preseason forecast meetings at Monte City Hall are locked in. The Willapa Adviser meetings are posted but not Grays Harbor .


Hi All,

It’s that time of the year to start talking about North of Falcon for 2020. To start the process off, we wanted to share the North of Falcon public meeting schedule . Our website has now been updated with those public meetings that have been scheduled at this point. There may be additional meetings added as we move through the process that have yet to be added. https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings



As for the schedule specific to Willapa Bay salmon fisheries discussions for 2020, here is a quick list of meetings.

February 27 – Joint Willapa / Grays Harbor Forecast Meeting Montesano City Hall 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.



March 12 – Willapa Bay NOF Public Meeting Raymond Elks Lodge 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.



March 26 – Willapa Bay NOF Advisory Meeting (not listed on the link above) Raymond Elks Lodge 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.



We will provide the remaining NOF schedule at the forecast meeting on Feb. 27 but the public portions of those additional meetings are listed in the link above. If you have any questions regarding the Willapa Bay schedule, please reply to this email or send an email to WillapaBay@dfw.wa.gov.



Thank you,

Barbara
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/20 10:09 AM

Lots of people couldn't get their pre programmed minds to look for fish outside of their regular comfort zones. I had a great late season with my last coho hooked the second weekend in Dec. Too many times I heard "they're not there, I've been fishing this spot for 50 years at this time of the year, and they're just not coming" but just smiled and nodded my head because they were there, just not THERE.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/20 11:25 AM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
Lots of people couldn't get their pre programmed minds to look for fish outside of their regular comfort zones. I had a great late season with my last coho hooked the second weekend in Dec. Too many times I heard "they're not there, I've been fishing this spot for 50 years at this time of the year, and they're just not coming" but just smiled and nodded my head because they were there, just not THERE.


I agree----well said!!!!

This year "the stars aligned for many sports fishermen". Early rain, no netting scheduled...fish moved up....then a period of no rain, dropping rivers, scheduled netting didn't do well as expected....my observation was tribal and nt effort pretty much quit. November and December, some rain but rivers dropped fast.....I can't remember where I could sit in 4-5' of water, look over the edge of the boat AND SEE THE RIVER BOTTOM, until around December 20.....strange year!!!!!

I've not fished steelhead, but do the "drive around lookie lou", some fish when when fishable but TOO MUCH RAIN is keeping rivers so high "even plunkers aren't fishing"...and its 1/2 way thru steelhead season, still the rains fall!!!!!!
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/20 12:26 PM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
Lots of people couldn't get their pre programmed minds to look for fish outside of their regular comfort zones. I had a great late season with my last coho hooked the second weekend in Dec. Too many times I heard "they're not there, I've been fishing this spot for 50 years at this time of the year, and they're just not coming" but just smiled and nodded my head because they were there, just not THERE.


Same here, crushed em all late season without a soul in sight.
And all I heard from others was there were no fish around. Lol.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/20 03:26 PM

DW fishes almost everyday he can and when you do that you get a real feel for the river. Several of us communicated back and forth through this year DW & I could get a fairly good view of things and that with some other comments prior is what happened. We all know when it rains early it really messes up the run timing. The new wrinkle for us was it rained early and then the river did not brown out in first part November. I had not seen that weather / river combination before and frankly it was about just figuring out what was what. The fish had a real pattern they followed with the tide and numbers. It came right down to timing on the tide and getting the different travel patterns in the river figured out.

There were days I would find them and 4 miles upstream they would shotgun right up past DW not a bite, then days vice a versa. It was a strange year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/20 01:13 PM

Meeting Date Location/Time
Here are the dates for NOF Grays Harbor. Already several have asked why only one Adviser meeting? No idea but I assume that is all the agency feels are necessary.

GH & WB Forecasting 2/27/2020 Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano - 6 pm to 8 pm



GH NOF Public Mtg. 3/24/2020 Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano - 6 pm to 8 pm



GH Advisory 4/2/2020 Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano - 6 pm to 8 pm
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/20 03:07 PM

Drifter said "I've not fished steelhead, but do the "drive around lookie lou", some fish when when fishable but TOO MUCH RAIN is keeping rivers so high "even plunkers aren't fishing"...and its 1/2 way thru steelhead season, still the rains fall!!!!!!

I'm getting a little concerned when things finally drop in, the hatchery runs will be about over and down streaming. I guess we can only hope the run was a little late. Sucks to catch beauties all spawned out unless some early wilds are around.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/20 08:59 PM

Thursday, February 6, 2020 the Agency staff will present the annual review of the Grays Harbor Policy to the Commission. Scroll down a bit to get past boilerplate policy verbiage to this years info in the summary.

Lots of info in the presentation on the 2019 run sizes and it appears we made escapement do to the fact that mother nature brought rain early. Had not that happened and commercial tribal & NT harvest was normal we would have failed to make escapement for all three species.



7. Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy – Briefing, Public Comment

Staff will provide the Commission an annual review briefing on Grays Harbor salmon management as stipulated within Policy C-3621, providing guidance for Grays Harbor salmon fisheries.



Summary:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/...g_printable.pdf

Presentation:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/...wdraft12820.pdf
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/20 12:29 PM


In another conversation I asked the question just who, where, and when is in charge or in simple term the chain of command. Kirt Hughes provided this breakout. I thought this might help folks to understand who, what, and where in the decision making process.

Starting at the top:

Larry Phillips as he indicates is the Region 6 Director and reports to Director Susewind

Ron Warren is now the Director of Fish Policy and also reports to Director Susewind

Kelly Cunningham is now the Fish Program Director (replacing Ron)

Craig Burley has replaced Cunningham as the FP Deputy Director

I have replaced Craig as the Fish Management Division Manager (responsibilities largely for management of Inland Fish, Marine Fish and Shellfish related activities)

Kyle Adicks is still the Intergovernmental Salmon Manager, reports to Kelly Cunningham and is responsible for salmon and steelhead fishery management and related co-management engagement at the statewide level.

My vacant position, the Statewide salmon and Steelhead fishery manager reports to Kyle. As the title suggests, Statewide Salmon and Steelhead, statewide management authority for these species and ensures consistent implementation of Fish and Wildlife Commission policies.

Chad Herring reports to that position and has responsibility for implementation of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay FWC policies.



Regional Fish Program Manager, James Losee, reports to Craig Burley, for all of region 6 has management responsibility for coastal shellfish, inland fish, salmon, and steelhead management as well as hatcheries. This includes the District and Area Biologists and Hatchery Operations Managers.

For the area from Queets River in the north to Grays Harbor the District Biologist is Mike Scharpf. He is the management biologist responsible for inland fish, salmon, and steelhead management.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/20 02:17 PM

Rivrguy -
Let's see if I have this right-

Step 1 -The input from the district biologist (the person closest to the resource in this communication chain) communicates to the regional biologist.

Step 2 -the regional biologist communicates with the fish program deputy director.

Step 3 - the FP deputy director communicates with the FP director.

Step 4- FP director communicates with the Director of Fish Policy

Step 5 Director of fish Policy communicates with the Director.

In addition it looks like that there is a potential for the several different other communication pathways depending on the issues. For example for a policy issue several additional steps might be required with communication to the position implementing local Polices communicating to the State wide policy position who in turn communicating with the intergovernmental salmon manager who re-inserts into communication chain at the FP director. In addition the regional manager may also be involved.

In other words there are at least 5 to 8 rungs in the communication ladder (or more if there are side loops in that ladder) between those with hands on resource information to the final decision maker. In short it looks like there are lots of opportunities for miss understandings with the implied management failures.

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/20 04:20 PM

What could possibly go wrong with a system like that?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/20 05:49 PM


Did not realize I missed the first part of the e mail from Larry Phillips which is below.


James Losee is the technical and policy lead for WDFW regarding all fish issues. He also supervises all R6 Fish Program staff with Chad being the exception. Chad is a direct report to Kirt Hughes and is responsible for Willapa and GH policy implementation. I am a direct report to Dir Susewind and represent him in the region. I also lead the Regional Management Team (RMT). This group consists of the four Regional Program Managers (Fish, Habitat, Wildlife and Enforcement) and other senior staff. This group is the decision making authority in the Region. I also represent Region 6 on the statewide Executive Management Team (EMT). This group includes 16 members including the Dir, Deputy Dir, Program Dir’s, Regional Dir’s, and other Dir’s Office staff.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/20 08:37 AM

I'm glad you posted that Rivrguy. I've been thinking how handy it would be to have an organization chart for WDFW. So many people I've known have retired, and so many of those I've met have promoted to new positions. It's become one of those situations where I can't recognize the players without a scorecard.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/20 11:05 AM


To All:

There should be a Organization Chart, posted on the WDFW Web Page, would probably be a full time job just to keep it "up to date".

A big concern to me, created new positions/new titles.....must be a "full time group" to come up with new title names.

A agency that says "WDFW is dedicated to transparency and sustainability" makes me wonder? I used to be able to move around and find what I wanted, now with the change....tough for me to find historical data.....change is not always good!!!!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/20 11:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
I'm glad you posted that Rivrguy. I've been thinking how handy it would be to have an organization chart for WDFW. So many people I've known have retired, and so many of those I've met have promoted to new positions. It's become one of those situations where I can't recognize the players without a scorecard.


An org chart would also provide a visual representation of how many layers of management exist near the top, which I gather from Rivrguy's post is too many. Multiple layers of bureaucracy only slow or otherwise hamper progress. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn there are a lot of people, some in important roles, that aren't getting information they need to do their jobs, simply because the communication layers are too numerous and disorganized.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/20 12:54 PM

I never got very high in the Food Chain but for the most productive parts of my career if I wanted to talk to the Director or the Head of Program I could. If I had a question or information that they needed to know/answer you just went and took care of it; not pass it through 25 sets of kidneys.
Posted by: The Moderator

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/20 01:00 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA

To All:

There should be a Organization Chart, posted on the WDFW Web Page, would probably be a full time job just to keep it "up to date".


You mean like this?

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/administration/leadership

and this....

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/members

Seems to cover senior staff leadership roles and the Commissioners at the WDFW. I've seen way worse administrative pages.....this one isn't all that bad.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/administration

Granted, this says nothing to the accuracy or relevancy of the information on the site.....
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/20 01:05 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA

To All:

There should be a Organization Chart, posted on the WDFW Web Page, would probably be a full time job just to keep it "up to date".

A big concern to me, created new positions/new titles.....must be a "full time group" to come up with new title names.

A agency that says "WDFW is dedicated to transparency and sustainability" makes me wonder? I used to be able to move around and find what I wanted, now with the change....tough for me to find historical data.....change is not always good!!!!


Want to find out what Staff has briefed to the Commission? Up until the new (and certainly not improved) web site one could work back through meeting records to mid-1995 - that included the actual presentation materials. Now those individual meeting records are available only back through 2017 - a loss of around 22 years of very pertinent information.

I keep hearing that "they" intend to bring those records into the new web site. Maybe good intentions but I have yet to see an actual timeline for that to occur. It is almost impossible to not be cynical....
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/20 02:32 PM

Meanwhile the doughnuts in the break-room disappear daily.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/20 03:59 PM

Originally Posted By: elparquito
Originally Posted By: DrifterWA

To All:

There should be a Organization Chart, posted on the WDFW Web Page, would probably be a full time job just to keep it "up to date".


You mean like this?

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/administration/leadership

and this....

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/members

Seems to cover senior staff leadership roles and the Commissioners at the WDFW. I've seen way worse administrative pages.....this one isn't all that bad.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/administration

Granted, this says nothing to the accuracy or relevancy of the information on the site.....


No, not like those. An org chart, like an inverted tree, illustrating the various administrative and staff positions and how they relate to one another.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/20 06:29 PM


Actually it resembles a process that leaves nobody accountable. A retired staffer once told me why they have committees / groups is so no single individual is accountable. It was an agency decision. Sound familiar ?
Posted by: geljockey

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/20 07:54 AM

Chad Herring no longer reports to Kirt Hughes. Kirt is the new Fish Management Division manager (replacing Craig Burley).
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/20 08:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Originally Posted By: elparquito
Originally Posted By: DrifterWA

To All:

There should be a Organization Chart, posted on the WDFW Web Page, would probably be a full time job just to keep it "up to date".


You mean like this?

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/administration/leadership

and this....

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/members

Seems to cover senior staff leadership roles and the Commissioners at the WDFW. I've seen way worse administrative pages.....this one isn't all that bad.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/administration

Granted, this says nothing to the accuracy or relevancy of the information on the site.....


No, not like those. An org chart, like an inverted tree, illustrating the various administrative and staff positions and how they relate to one another.


Unfortunately the lines don't just run up and down. There are functions/responsibilities that run laterally. Simply put, is a Regional Director making decisions on and responsible for everything in his/her region?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/20 08:16 AM

Where did Burley Go????
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/20 08:20 AM

Larry

The regional structure is a carry-over from Game. In that model, each Region was autonomous; the Regional Director ran the region.

I believe that the current model is that the programs all report directly too Olympia. The Regional Manager, in the case of R6 Mr. Phillips, coordinates the activities within the region but I don't think he has the power to simply over-rule a program's Olympia decision.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/20 08:39 AM

If someone's missing check the break room.
They are most likely there or out in the courtyard smoking.
Posted by: geljockey

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/20 02:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Where did Burley Go????
He took Kelly Cunningham's old position.

Kelly C. - Director Fish Program (formerly Ron Warren)
Craig B. - Deputy Director Fish Program (formerly Kelly C)
Kirt H. - Fish Management Division Manager (formerly Craig B)
Vacant - Steelhead and Salmon Manager (formerly Kirt H)
Posted by: stonefish

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/20 03:06 PM

Originally Posted By: geljockey
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Where did Burley Go????
He took Kelly Cunningham's old position.

Kelly C. - Director Fish Program (formerly Ron Warren)
Craig B. - Deputy Director Fish Program (formerly Kelly C)
Kirt H. - Fish Management Division Manager (formerly Craig B)
Vacant - Steelhead and Salmon Manager (formerly Kirt H)


Looks like WDFW has been playing musical chairs....
SF
Posted by: geljockey

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/20 05:54 PM

Originally Posted By: stonefish
Originally Posted By: geljockey
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Where did Burley Go????
He took Kelly Cunningham's old position.

Kelly C. - Director Fish Program (formerly Ron Warren)
Craig B. - Deputy Director Fish Program (formerly Kelly C)
Kirt H. - Fish Management Division Manager (formerly Craig B)
Vacant - Steelhead and Salmon Manager (formerly Kirt H)


Looks like WDFW has been playing musical chairs....
SF

And the music has not yet stopped.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/21/20 11:36 AM

Probably because they don't know where the stop button is.

Bunch of morons.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/20 11:13 AM

Lot of outrage over the Steelhead shut down and my phone has my ears are on fire. So this, yes the returns to Wynoochee trap and Lake Aberdeen are above average and the Skookumchuck is way above previous years. Now the but thing, if the QIN had continued fishing the numbers would have been much lower at the facilities. So numbers are way up to be sure but minus normal tribal harvest both QIN & Chehalis tribe which are charged to non treaty ( us ) not QIN.

Now that said looking to the 2016/ 2017 run reconstruction the ten year average Wild Steelhead is 94 mortalities due to C&R ( some years much more some years lower it is a average ) for the REC fisheries. Also on average the REC fisher harvest more Steelhead due to selective fishing ( more when you add in Summerrun ) but their impact on Wild is much lower.

So the question I got the most was more or less this, " If C&R purpose is to allow Rec fishers to minimize wild impacts all the time in both good years and bad why when you have a down year are we being penalized because both tribal fisheries are non selective as Gillnets cannot minimize Wild impacts but the Rec can." I honestly do not know but I do believe that the preseason forecast is a load of BS just as in the Springer forecast that came twice plus numbers forecast. I imagine this shutdown is like the Springer fiasco and it is Chad Herring up through the Harvest Policy line in Olympia that made the decision. Mr. Losee does not do harvest in GH & Willapa since they created Mr. Herrings position before he got the Regional Manager position.

This link is to the hatchery escapement reports and you can pull up
this and previous years to see for yourself.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/hatcheries/escapement
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/20 11:21 AM

I would add that the State and Tribes will do whatever they can to prevent an ESA listing in GH. If they keep beating down steelhead (wild) somebody might sue for listing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/20 01:05 PM


Again the Rec fishery has very limited impact. Year after year it is the tribal net harvest, both QIN & Chehalis tribe, that are major impact on wild escapement.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/20 01:45 PM

FYI, GH steelhead are part of the Southwest Washington DPS/ESU so Willapa tribs and low lower Col R tribs (approx Cathlamet downstream) would be part of the status evaluation for ESA listing.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/22/20 05:52 PM

The Nooch has more than enough hatchery fish for their egg take and it is only February. The Skookumchuck has their egg take also and have closed the trap so no more fish can enter the hatchery. No recycling because fishing is closed. With little impact by recs on wild fish and using selective gear rules to harvest excess hatchery fish. fishing could be open on these streams. it would also alleviate the problem of the possibility of hatchery fish breeding with wild fish which is why they put the mandatory killing of any hatchery fish caught on some of the rivers some years ago. But I suppose the tribe(s) would put the kibash to reopening the rivers back up for recs. BTW, I don't know the present count of fish at Bingham on the Satsop because on the WDFW website hatchery escapement list they haven't updated it since Jan. 30.
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/20 07:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Larry

The regional structure is a carry-over from Game. In that model, each Region was autonomous; the Regional Director ran the region.

I believe that the current model is that the programs all report directly too Olympia. The Regional Manager, in the case of R6 Mr. Phillips, coordinates the activities within the region but I don't think he has the power to simply over-rule a program's Olympia decision.


Thanks, the Dept. of Game genesis explains the Regional organizational chart.

So, do Regional Directors and Program Managers always play well together???
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/20 08:15 AM


Well the Regional Director position influence can vary is my experience. R-6 has had two that were very active and others you just did not see other than some public function. Mr Philips, the current regional Director, is one of the very active ones. Cause and effect on issues? I think you would have to ask the Director as that is who he reports to but it is a PR / facilitator position primarily.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/23/20 08:49 AM

Petition to change the website to: NOTfishingthechehalis.net
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/24/20 05:49 PM


The preseason forecast meeting for Grays Harbor and Willapa are close at hand for those that want to attend.


Listed below are meeting dates pertaining to Grays Harbor (GH):Meeting Date Location/Time

GH & WB Forecasting 2/27/2020 Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano - 6 pm to 8 pm

GH NOF Public Mtg. 3/24/2020 Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano - 6 pm to 8 pm

GH Advisory 4/2/2020 Montesano City Hall, 112 N. Main St., Montesano - 6 pm to 8 pm
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/20 08:30 AM

The preseason forecast meeting for Grays Harbor and Willapa is history and talk about two totally different outcomes. So here are the harvestable numbers but one must remember this, these numbers are prior to marine harvest so the actual fish available for harvest will be less than these numbers. How much? No idea but it makes a difference on seasons. Also the REC harvest GHMP guidelines are 73% freshwater & 27% bay fisheries and we share impacts with NT Commercial and Chehalis Tribal.

So Grays Harbor First.

Chehalis:
Spring Chinook: 1236 wild which is below escapement so zero opportunity.

Fall Chinook: Wild 11,144 Hatchery 2037 As wild adults are the limiter they are the number one watches and wild escapement goal is 9753.

Coho: Wild Coho 46,115 Hatchery 29,753 Again as wild adults are the limiter they are the number one watches and wild escapement goal is 28,506.

Chum: Wild Chum is 30,324 Hatchery is 2325 Unlike Coho and Chinook Chum are managed to the aggregate of both Chehalis and Humptulips. Rec impacts are almost entirely fresh water.

Now these are bulk numbers and harvest will include NT commercial and the REC portion is 73% fresh water & 27% bay.

Humptulips:
Chinook: Wild Chinook are 3,857 Hatchery is 6307 and wild escapement goal is 3573. GHMP rules have harvest impacts of 78% freshwater and 22% 2-2 which includes Area C.

Coho: Wild Coho are 3850 Hatchery is 12,573 and escapement goal 6894. The Humptulips wild Coho have not made escapement 3 out of 5 years which means the non treaty harvest impacts on wild Coho is 5% of the returning adults.

I will do the Willapa numbers a bit later but needless to say they do not resemble anything like GH.










Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/20 08:52 AM

Well that did not take long. The question as to seasons and actual numbers is difficult to say. The Coho numbers say a decent season similar to last year but bag limits a question. The Chinook numbers available are better than a lower ones but after you take QIN, NT commercial and REC together that does not leave many REC impacts available. It should allow for enough C&R Chinook mortalities so Chinook do not limit the Coho seasons bay or freshwater.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/20 09:52 AM

PFMC has just released the Preseason Report I for the upcoming Council meeting. Tables I-1, I-2 provide summaries of CA to WA Chinook and coho forecasts. I am pretty sure the coastal Chinook forecasts are in terms of terminal run size (ie after ocean fishing) and the coho forecasts are in terms of ocean abundance (before ocean fishing).
Unfortunately, GH Chinook has some holes in the numbers.




https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2020/02/2020-preseason-report-i.pdf/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/29/20 11:24 AM

Ok the preseason Willapa next but this one is rather complex as Willapa is on the aggregate. Keep in mind these are numbers before ocean harvest.

Chinook:
Escapenet Goal: W 4350 H 3525 Forecast: W 2914 H 28271

Coho:
Escapement Goal: W 13600 H 6100 Forecast: W 17850 H 51785

Chum:
Escapement Goal: 35400 Forecast: W 38845 H 959

In looking at the numbers it is best to break out Willapa into North & South ares. So North ( which is Willapa River / Forks Cr hatchery ) Chinook are W 1973 H 1845. In a nutshell the Tokeland based fisheries will be very limited.

Now the Southern end of the bay will have W 941 H 26426 and the wild escapement required is 2377. This means prior to harvest the run forecast 40% of needs. Not Good!

North looks poor but not superbad. Now down South Nemah is not a Coho player but Naselle is something different. Escapement Goal Naselle / Bear is W 1500 supporting H 42479 and that does not compute for harvest.


Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/29/20 05:26 PM


I actually posted this in the 2020 forecast thread....but it works here also


Bob R:

Poor Ron Warren, he didn't know whether to "xhit or go blind"....he was actual lost for words....he'd have been better to just stay in the back of the room, and just not say anything then to come up to the front of the group and "then not really say anything, and looked dumb doing that."

Monty meeting was well attended, 2 WDFW LE there, must have expected problems, guides showed up, lots of WDFW personnel.

Pretty much another in a long line of "dog and pony shows" relative to salmon. Might be some chinook up for harvest but with the amount of people that would decend on the Chehalis, impacts would be gone IN NO TIME. I'd rather have a long Coho season, and jacks, than worry about "WDFW, quick finger on closures, shut the whole Chehalis system early.

It was nice that WDFW allowed time "for steelhead talk"....normally at these meetings, if a person mentions steelhead, sturgeon, or other fish.....they are shut off...and in no uncertain terms told.."this is about salmon"..

No spring chinook, again.....I remember Ron Warren saying at a meeting, many years ago, there will NEVER be any hatchery raised spring chinook in the Chehalis system....so far that is true........grrrrrr
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/20 08:56 AM


I received an email from Mr. Losee regarding the GH & Willapa Preseason Forecast meeting in Montesano. At that meeting he allowed discussion on Steelhead issues in the Chehalis and Willapa. In the follow up email he provided the following input he had received prior to the meeting ( he identified mostly from guides ) so I thought I would post them up for folks to see.

Now before someone blows a gasket let me say this. I have no idea on why he could take such a proactive approach on Grays Harbor and walk out of the meeting knowing and not sharing that he was shutting down Steelhead fishing in the Willapa streams. I am clueless!

Idea: Leave the Chehalis open from Skookumchuck down to Galvin RD Bridge for the opportunity to catch Skookumchuck hatchery fish.

This proposal is to target late-timed, hatchery origin steelhead returning to Skookumchuck hatchery. However, impacts to wild steelhead will occur given that 33% of the total Chehalis wild escapement occurs upstream of this section. In addition, given the size of this section of river (~1.5 miles) crowding and higher than expected encounters are likely to occur. Additionally, counts of hatchery steelhead have declined during the past three weeks; from 363 hatchery steelhead on Feb. 5 to 76 hatchery steelhead on Feb. 19 consistent with previous years.



Idea: Open a portion of the Skookumchuck - from dam down a couple miles.

See response to previous question.



Idea: Open all or a portion of the Wynoochee (some say all of it, some say up to 7400 line, some say from the dam down).

This proposal is to target late-time, hatchery origin steelhead returning to Wynoochee River. However, impacts to wild steelhead will occur given that 17% of the total Chehalis natural escapement occurs in the Wynoochee River. Average catch record card harvest information from 2001 to 2017 in Wynoochee River shows a 66% drop in catch from February to March. The limited benefit of this proposal to encounter hatchery origin fish is outweighed by the high likelihood of high exploitation on natural origin fish.



Idea: Open a portion of the Satsop, restrict use of bait – open mainstem and section near the hatchery on the East fork. Keep middle and West fork closed.

The Satsop River represents important spawning habitat for wild steelhead representing greater than 25% of the spawning population in the Chehalis watershed.



Idea: Close Turnow Branch.

West fork closed Nov 30th annually.

Idea: Close Nawaukum.

West fork closed Nov 30th annually.

Idea: Close Wishkah

Closes last day of Feb annually.

Idea: Look at redd surveys to see where higher volume of spawners are, in order to assess high-risk areas

See Figures 1. Wild steelhead are distributed broadly throughout the basin with highest density spawning overlapping with areas of interest for anglers.



Idea: Look at regulations changes to lower exploitation rates (select gear, bait restrictions, single barbless hooks, one hatchery fish limit, mandatory retention, etc.)

Suggestions below represent viable options for rivers outside the Chehalis Basin considered for changes in 2020 to reduce exploitation associated with shift in effort from Chehalis. Within the Chehalis, opening rivers with changes to gear or harvest regulation will not result in meeting conservation objectives given high certainty of encounters with wild fish under all options described below. These options also require changes to modeling and assumptions to agreed- to pre-season plans and should be revisited prior to planning of seasons in the future. These assumptions include mortality rates associated with different gear types, encounter rates on hatchery vs. natural origin steelhead and behavior of anglers under variable regulations.



Idea: Open limited sections of rivers on limited days (i.e. Thursday, Friday and Saturdays only). If you do this make sure one of the days is a weekend day

This suggestion was considered given the ability to extend seasons and spread angler effort throughout the coast. WDFW also recognizes the benefit in limiting the disproportionate impact on the early end of the run by extending seasons throughout the run using daily closures. In contrast, modeled savings and associated effort shift from closed days to open days is extremely uncertain.



Idea: If these options can’t provide some level of opportunity within the Chehalis basin, consider closing other systems where increased pressure will result in us exceeding exploitation rates and not meeting escapement (i.e. the Humptulips and the Hoh). BUT, if considering closures to the Humptulips, Hoh or Clearwater due to increased pressure due to Chehalis closure – make sure there’s data on angler pressure to support it. Don’t rely on anecdotes but real numbers.

Options below were considered by estimating the associated savings (exploitation on wild steelhead) by reducing the length of seasons to coastal rivers (outside Chehalis) . For instance, a modeled closure of all Region 6 rivers on March 1 would lead to a reduction in pre-season modeled exploitation rate of 39 to 49% depending on river-specific schedules listed in pamphlet. Similarly, a March 15th closure is expected to result in a reduction in exploitation rate of 21 to 33% depending on the river. These results were based on known run-timing and exploitation rates throughout the season.



In addition, data on effort in 2020 following closure relative to recent years is limited however given the small margin or error between meeting pre-season plans and escapement goals vs. failing to meet goals (Figure 2), WDFW is comfortable with the assumption that some increased effort is likely to occur as a result of closures. This assumption is also supported through discussions with the public, theguide community and creel monitoring.



Other points/ questions on long-term management

The group would like to see tributary data. Figure 1, summary table available upon request.
The group would like to how we are considering changing our management approach in order to make sure moving forward we aren’t under escapement. This work has highlighted weaknesses in our current management approaches that should be discussed prior to 2021.
The group would like to know what the agency’s strategy is for improving our relationship with the co-managers so we have better in-season data. This year, weekly technical calls, exchanging data and discussing in-season tools with Quillayute and Hoh for in-season check-ins has been beneficial. This would be a strategy worth exploring for Chehalis and Quinault tribes. We welcome future discussion on this topic.
The group would like to see more funding to help with creel monitoring and spawner surveys in R6, especially focused on steelhead. While additional creel work would strengthen understanding of effort and encounter rates, it would likely not provide high resolution information on run-size to alter pre-season management approach in-season. This year on the Hoh River we are experimenting with using weekly redd counts to inform runsize predictions. However, the peak of steelhead spawning (when data is most informative) occurs after the majority of sport fisheries have already taken place. Alternatively, we could explore more conservative management plans pre-season to insure escapement goals are met or exceeded given forecast uncertainty.
The group would like to see us consider a different management approach than MSY so we have a stronger conservation buffer.
We currently do not manage for maximum sustainable yield (MSY) per se but rather try to maximize the number of adults (runsize) that return to fisheries through efforts to meet escapement goals. Unfortunately forecast accuracy, variable survival rates and variable bycatch while targeting hatchery origin fish has lead to poor performance in meeting escapement goal for Chehalis in recent years.

Additionally, an agreed upon conservation buffer for state and tribal fisheries is an option that may benefit steelhead and associated fisheries in long term.

In summary, we are supportive of a more conservative management approach given long term trends in runsize for majority of populations in Region 6 (Figure 3) combined with improved forecast methodologies.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/20 09:29 AM

Given that wild steelhead release has become the statewide normative regulation for quite a few years now, it's puzzling that steelhead seasons should need to be closed unless the pre-season abundance forecasts are far below desired spawning escapement goals. A minor fishing regulation change to Selective Rules of single barbless hook and artificial lures only limits harm to the fish encountered, and with the conservative incidental mortality rate of 10% that the state and federal fishery agencies use, it would take an incredibly high encounter rate to measurably reduce spawning escapements enough to affect subsequent adult steelhead population abundance.

The Skagit River is a well documented example where CNR fishing seasons have been practiced since 1981. Runsizes have been good, and there have been poor ones as well. And through it all, the recreational CNR seasons have had zero measurable effect on population abundance. That's about as good a testament to a successful management strategy as is possible.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/20 11:01 AM

Salmo, I offered the selective gear strategy a couple of weeks ago on the "Rumor' thread. Given the preseason forecast of a low run of wild steelhead in the Chehalis system, WDFW could have implemented selective gear rules at the start of the season. The impact on wild fish would have minimal like you said. I don't think many steelhead fishermen would have had a problem with a selective gear season. Many fishermen I know don't use bait anymore anyway.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/20 01:54 PM


Here is the link for GH & Willapa NOF presentations for those that did not make the meeting.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/20 03:12 PM

Heard next year they are looking at shutting down the basin on Jan 15th?????
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/20 12:12 PM

The way things are, they probably will shut it down from top to bottom of the 1st of February, the same day the tribe would stop netting the lower river. I would be shocked to see them close it as early as the 15th of December, as most of the hatchery fish would not be by the nets. Give the tribes to the 10th of February and and they will have had the opportunity to net probably 90% of the hatchery run, while the recs get a fair chance at about 50% or less. The 2016 catch records show this for return cards for the Skookumchuck.
Skookumchuck reported catch 2016
December --29 January -- 125, February ---- 383, March ---1,033
This means about 52% of the skookumchuck's fish are caught in March. It definitely would not be too late to open it up for top end.

For the entire system, about 61% of the reported winter fish were caught after February first, so a January 15th closure would probably knock it down to 30% or less of the normal catch, possibly more if rains don't bring in some early.

Those are just from the 2016 cards. I do not have time to look at a bunch of years, but it appears to be consistent to what I have seen over the years.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/20 05:36 PM

Again, anyone else want to call baloney.

"Idea: Leave the Chehalis open from Skookumchuck down to Galvin RD Bridge for the opportunity to catch Skookumchuck hatchery fish.

This proposal is to target late-timed, hatchery origin steelhead returning to Skookumchuck hatchery. However, impacts to wild steelhead will occur given that 33% of the total Chehalis wild escapement occurs upstream of this section. In addition, given the size of this section of river (~1.5 miles) crowding and higher than expected encounters are likely to occur. Additionally, counts of hatchery steelhead have declined during the past three weeks; from 363 hatchery steelhead on Feb. 5 to 76 hatchery steelhead on Feb. 19 consistent with previous years."

If I reading this correctly, he is stating that the number of returns are falling and most are through the system and this is part of the reason they are not opening up the fishery. I would guess the hatchery is not recycling fish, so how does he explain that 310 fish (about 27%) to the Skookumchuck Hatchery in the last week ( February 27th to March 5th).
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/20 06:16 PM


Quote:
I received an email from Mr. Losee regarding the GH & Willapa Preseason Forecast meeting in Montesano. At that meeting he allowed discussion on Steelhead issues in the Chehalis and Willapa. In the follow up email he provided the following input he had received prior to the meeting ( he identified mostly from guides ) so I thought I would post them up for folks to see.


Ah, the suggestions came from the public and Mr. Losee just shared them.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/20 07:22 PM

It would sound to me like he got the proposal to open the river and was providing a response. I suppose it could be that the department was asking for responses to a proposal. If that is the case, it still is not based on fact. If there was a proposal put forth, I most certainly did not see it.
Seems odd some one would put forth a proposal and then shoot it down, so if I am a bit confused as to where the idea and response are coming from. Do you have any more information?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/08/20 10:46 PM


None of the proposals were from the staff but public. I think the thing your hung on is simply them looking at pluses & minuses of the ideas folks put forth. Your reading way more into than one should. It is more like brainstorming notes.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/20 07:26 AM

Part of developing any regs is a back and forth review. Somebody (public, staff) says "why not...?" . Somebody reviews that and gives comment after which it can go back and forth until a workable solution comes out. If, in this case for example, you think WDFW is wrong and there are hatchery fish available (as the CRC's suggest) then contacting Mr. Losee with the data and working together might accomplish something. Yelling here generally doesn't change their minds.

It should be really easy to look at Skookumchuck monthly catch back into the dawn of hatchery production and before. It could be compared with plants two years before. An hour or two should be all it would take.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/20 08:26 AM


wdfw needs to change the way any input is taken from the public......Some of us(public), wanted to sit down with Region 6 staff to "talk" about problem on the Wynoochee River, not mitigation related. Emails went back and forth, bottom line, nothing got done.

There were people that had fish steelhead, winter and summer, for 50+ years. I've been told that "Olympia makes the decisions" on steelhead.

Quick example.....Plants of steelhead have not changed in many years.....grrrr to the new web site, plants on steelhead only show since 2016, but in general Wynoochee winter run plants have been around 170,000 and summer run around 60,000. Those were good numbers in the late 60's - 2001, but many of those years there was no QIN netting of steelhead AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPORTSMEN WAS NOT THAT MANY.

I've fish summer run since the late 70's, there would be weeks when I would see less than 5 people in a morning of fishing, from tide water to White Bridge. Winter steelheading has/is terrible.........to many people, to many boats, beating on a resouce that has not been increased by additional plants.

Parking areas have not changed since I've been here, 1968, the current parking is terrible. Black Creek is the worse but White Bridge could be increased in size....Cross over, not a WDFW site, just get worse.

Yea, I understand money, money, money but planning has not kept up with the general population growth......and in general it is almost in possible to "get a sit down meeting" to talk what the general public sees as problem areas for steelhead......... NOT SO FOR SALMON, LOTS OF MEETINGS AND INPUT ALLOWED...grrrrrrrr
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/20 10:41 AM

It is interesting that WDFW does not put more emphasis on steelhead. It is a very economically important fish. Guys put a lot of money into going steelheading. Gas,boats, engines, tackle, food, lodging etc.. I know guys that would rather catch one steelhead to ten salmon. BTW it is the state fish.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/20 11:26 AM

Salmon are all that matters too WDFW. Steelhead are a nuisance, as are steelheaders.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/20 05:51 PM

Too bad CM. I think WDFW is a big nuisance to steelheaders.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/20 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Salmon are all that matters too WDFW. Steelhead are a nuisance, as are steelheaders.



I agree.......Its tough in Region 6 to get a "sit down meeting on steelhead" or even to get emails answered.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/20 11:14 AM

At merger, WDW brought, I believe, 14 bios who were full-time dedicated steelhead/cutthroat bios. How many are there now?
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/20 11:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Salmon are all that matters too WDFW. Steelhead are a nuisance, as are steelheaders.


Why?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/20 01:06 PM


It is about history and the agencies culture. WDFW was and is all about commercial harvest. Old game had the sportsmans fish and had real ties to the fishers. So did and does WDF / WDFW but it was commercial almost exclusively until charter boats really took off. Inriver fisheries were not a anything. Times have changed but not the culture as it is simply who they are.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/20 01:16 PM

When I first got to WDF I had to lobby hard for a pink fishery in the Dungeness. Salmon were supposed to be caught in saltwater. Once they left the salt, they were "safe".
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/20 08:52 PM


There are times that I think agency staff are out to lunch. Sturgeon fishing has always been mostly a night thing in the Chehalis and abuse has not been an issue so screw folks over just to be like the rest of the state? Hell now I imagine there goal will be to wipe out salmon and steelhead to be like the rest of the state!


OLYMPIA – A number of rule changes affecting Washington sturgeon fisheries went into effect beginning Monday, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) announced.

The changes, approved by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission at its December meeting in Bellingham, are meant to clarify existing regulations and modify others to help meet conservation objectives, said Laura Heironimus, WDFW’s Columbia River smelt, sturgeon, and lamprey lead.

“Some of these changes are intended to specifically help conserve and improve sturgeon stocks, while others are meant to clarify regulations under WDFW’s efforts to simplify fishing regulations statewide,” Heironimus said.

Changes that went into effect Monday include:

Closing Columbia River sturgeon spawning sanctuaries upstream of Bonneville Dam to sturgeon fishing from May 1 to Aug. 31. Previously, some sanctuaries reopened on Aug 1; this change was requested to minimize handling stress on mature female sturgeon after spawning.
Expanding the area of sturgeon sanctuaries in John Day Reservoir (below McNary Dam) and in the Hanford Reach (below Priest Rapids Dam).
Shifting retention fisheries upstream of McNary Dam to catch-and-release only, as a precautionary conservation measure.
Closing night fishing for sturgeon on the Chehalis River, aligning it with other rules statewide. This was previously the only area open to night fishing for sturgeon in Washington.
Defining oversize sturgeon as a fish larger than 55 inches in fork length, which may not be removed in part or totally from the water unless otherwise allowed by emergency rule.
Clarification and simplification of other catch-and-release and statewide regulations.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/20 09:22 PM

One size fits all.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/20 10:00 AM


Chad Herring sent this out on NOF Grays Harbor and Willapa so I thought I would let folks know that did not receive it.


Good morning everyone,

As some of you may have heard, the Department has decided to have no in-person public meeting's for the remainder of the 2020 North of Falcon (NOF) process in an effort to slow the spread of the Coronavirus, COVID-19. You can use this link to read the official press release: https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/washington-depa...ic-meetings-due <https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/washington-depa...ic-meetings-due> . This includes all regional public and advisory group meetings. The Department is still working through all the details and more information will be forthcoming about our scheduled Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor NOF meetings. I will get that information out to folks as soon as I have it so stay tuned. The 2020 NOF process for the South Coast will be dynamic and I recognize there is uncertainty and concern about how the Agency will manage this process. I'm committed to communicate as often as possible about developments and actions the Department is considering as we move forward. Audio and materials for the meetings that have been held so far can be found by following this link: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings. We have also set up a couple of different ways for everyone to provide Agency staff with their fishery suggestions and comments. This link, https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-input, can be used to provide those fishery suggestions and comments and see all of the other comments that have been submitted. Also, forecast summaries and proposed seasons will be available at a future date as we move through the process. Fishery suggestions can also be provided through at WillapaBay@dfw.wa.gov <mailto:WillapaBay@dfw.wa.gov> and GraysHarbor@dfw.wa.gov <mailto:GraysHarbor@dfw.wa.gov> . Thank you everyone for your understanding and patience as we go through this difficult time.

Please stay safe and well.

Thanks,



Chad Herring
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/20/20 02:24 PM


NOF Grays Harbor update but no model. So I asked again about the model not being out.


Good afternoon everyone,

Just wanted to give everybody an update on next week’s 2020 NOF Grays Harbor public meeting. The meeting will be held online on the Zoom meeting platform on Tuesday, March 24th at 6pm as originally scheduled. There will also be a call-in option for folks not able participate online. Both the call-in and online will allow for attendees to communicate with staff during the meeting. I will send out the link and call-in number as soon as it becomes available as well as post it to the NOF meeting schedule webpage. Meeting materials will also be posted to this webpage under the March 24th Grays Harbor public meeting heading prior to the meeting. The link to that webpage is here: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings. This will be the first meeting held using the Zoom platform and we are excited to use this technology. Since, we will be having the first meeting conducted with this technology there could be some bumps and bruises along the way. I also want to remind folks about the our 2020 NOF webpage on the WDFW website, The webpage contains a lot of information relevant to this year’s NOF process. Such as meeting schedules and materials referenced above, forecast summaries, and a public input page. On the public input page you can submit your fishery comments/suggestions and see the input that has been received through the site. This is the best way to submit your input electronically to staff for consideration. You can follow this link to explore the webpage: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon. I thank you in advance for your patience and understanding as we work through this difficult and dynamic time in our history.

Stay safe and well,



Chad Herring
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/20 10:52 AM

I was asked if I had any more information on Tuesday's NOF Grays Harbor and the answer is no. As to just how this will work on the ZOOM thing, again I do not know. As soon as I get anything I will post it here and email it to try and get the information to all I can. That said unless staff is working through this weekend Monday sometime is the earliest I think we will see it.

Several folks have asked why I did not send out the harvest model so I could help them look at options. The Advisers were provided a 2020 Harvest model after it was requested but the QIN portion was locked. Without the being able to look at what the potential tribal harvest share dictates as to days & weeks it pretty much useless. I have objected and received a response that the matter is being looked into.



Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/20 06:19 PM

To All:

Rivrguy and I talk just about everyday........Tuesday night, starting at 6:00 p m, will be "an attempt" to do the NOF, in a "computerized, internet meeting". Time lines are short, heaven, help make sure there are no glitches in the system or doubled up time might have to be necessary.

I think its going to be "tough" to try and listen as you try and keyboard input/give a response............for those that took typing/keyboarding, in the old days....now would be nice to be able to type 100+ words per minute.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/20 07:51 PM

Have any 20 something come over and dictate to he or she.
Twice as fast, twice as accurate, and ten times more effective.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/20 03:18 PM

Here is the NOF Grays Harbor meeting announcement. You have to register so be sure to do so. After that I have not had time to check it out but you can participate by web or phone..


To all Interested Parties,

Materials for the Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion meeting on March 24, 2020 is available on-line, please see the following link: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings

Materials available to view include:

Meeting agenda

2020 Grays Harbor Model Summary

Meeting presentation

Join Zoom webinar

Please read the information pertaining to pre-registering for the webinar and testing your computer’s audio and video before the webinar. There is also an option to join the webinar by phone.

Thank you for your time.

Chad Herring

MORE INFORMATION:
6 to 8 p.m.
Public discussion of 2020 Grays Harbor salmon preseason forecasts, management objectives and possible salmon fisheries.
Meeting agenda
2020 Grays Harbor Model Summary
Meeting presentation
Join Zoom webinar
Join by phone: dial 312-626-6799 or toll-free at 888-788-0099 (Webinar ID: 191-902-613)

This meeting will be held using Zoom, an online web-conferencing tool that allows presenters to share presentations and video and allows the public to listen via computer or phone. If you are interested in joining this meeting please pre-register here. When you register you’ll also be asked if you wish to provide public comment. Pre-registering and noting that you anticipate providing public comment will help ensure public comment goes smoothly in this new digital setting. You can still join the webinar and provide comment during the meeting even if you don’t pre-register.

If you are new to Zoom and would like to test your computer’s audio and video ahead of time you can visit https://zoom.us/test and click "Join." If you are new to Zoom and would like to test your computer’s audio and video ahead of time you can visit https://zoom.us/test and click "Join." We also recommend joining the webinar 15 minutes before it starts. If you are having trouble connecting please send an email to twendel@rossstrategic.com with the subject line "North of Falcon Zoom Help."
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/20 03:57 PM


OK, what I have learned. You must sign in to ZOOM and that is pretty simple. The audio works and ZOOM will ask you to test the audio.

You can phone in and how you interact I have not got to yet. If your computer does not have a mic I assume you can phone in but not sure about that or exactly how you can type a question into staff on your computer. Oh you must download the ZOOM program
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/20 08:55 AM


Latest on how to participate in the NOF Grays Harbor tonight. Might take a bit of fumbling around to register and if you get it right you will get an auto confirmation.

Good morning everyone,

I sincerely hope that this email finds everyone safe and healthy, practicing social distancing at home. Just wanted to provide everyone with some information regarding our 2020 NOF Grays Harbor public meeting scheduled for tonight at 6pm. The meeting will be online using the Zoom platform and the Agency has consulted with Ross Strategic to help facilitate these online meetings. The link to join the meeting and all the meeting materials can be found here: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings. You don’t need to download Zoom or make an account in order to participate in tonight’s meeting. While there is an option to pre-register for tonight’s meeting, it is also not necessary to participate. Pre-registering will allow Ross Strategic to get an idea of how many people might attend the meeting and how many would like to provide public comment. There are two ways to join the meeting, online or call-in, both options will allow you to hear the staff presentation and provide comment. By following the link above you can also test your system to make sure the audio and video work ahead of time if you choose. Ross strategic is encouraging people to try an join the meeting 15 minutes early and have provided an email address on the page mentioned above if folks are having technical issues. Joining the meeting is relatively easy, simply click the “join webinar” link or dial the number listed and enter the webinar ID on the webpage mentioned above. For those joining online you will be asked to provide your name, people using the phone will be identified by the last four digits of your phone number you are calling from. Ross strategic will start the meeting with a short tutorial on how to use the tool for people online and for folks on the phone. Lastly, the Department is excited to use the Zoom platform and happy to have Ross Strategic to help facilitate these meetings but with anything new there may be a few bumps and bruises along the way. Thank you in advance for your patience and understanding as we work forward together through these dynamic and difficult circumstances.

Stay safe and well,

Chad Herring

South Coast Fishery Policy Lead

Montesano Regional Headquarters

48 Devonshire Rd

Montesano WA, 98563

Office#:(360)249-1299

Cell #:(360)470-3410
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/20 09:40 AM

I have done Zoom for some Board meetings of 10-15 people. They work pretty well; you can do it video or just voice. To work well there needs to somebody in control.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/25/20 11:52 AM


The meeting for NOF Grays Harbor on ZOOM went rather well as to the use of technology. Couple of bumps but mostly they were around signing in and communication but if you registered and signed in early not much to worry about as the moderator walked right through things. To be honest I was surprised and frankly it is a rather neat tool for staff to use.

After that the information presented was pretty much the same as the NOF GH public meeting in Montesano. Lacking a functioning model the commercials were left high and dry as were the RECS. So ZOOM is a good tool but this thing about the harvest model and QIN needs resolution.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/25/20 03:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
To work well there needs to somebody in control.


Funny how that applies to face-to-face warm body meetings as well
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/25/20 05:08 PM


Comment on Grays Harbor NOF 4/24/2020

1. !st time ever that the meeting was DONE 30 minutes early

2. 4 public members, on the sports side, talked/made comments

3. 2 NT netters, talked/made commentsCut

No model to work with that had the QIN proposal......grrrrrrr

What I don't know is how many others were listening in and just chose not to ask a question or make a proposal.....

August 1st - September 15, Cut in stone, at this time, jacks only South Elma Bridge to 101 Bridge in Aberdeen...No, no, no Adults
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/20 04:39 PM

Region 6 sent this out to folks. Now this is this years forecast after Ocean Option 2 harvest, so it could change. On the Chehalis do not count on the Commercial season identified as the harvestable wild Chinook number is only 696 for QIN ( NT everyone also ) If the QIN fished as last year in week 40 projected QIN harvest is 734 wild Chinook / week 41 956 wild Chinook but in week 42 477. They were off the water in the next to weeks and the NT commercial fished 4 days a week.

Simply put the QIN will need to alter their schedule to limit wild Chinook impact and the only place to go is the weeks the NT commercial fished last year. So the tribal and NT commercial part of this will definitely change as the modeled QIN harvest would be 2231 and way way into escapement and vastly greater than their share.

I could give you a better look but staff have refused to provide the model unlocked so any citizen could model potential seasons to present options. This particularly egregious for the NT commercials but also the REC. I have now objected twice to staff and the Director but have yet to receive a rational response other than they do not have QIN seasons. You do not need the QIN seasons from the QIN to put data into the model and get a feel where things shake for sharing % to create a NT proposal. The games being played are at an epic scale hiding behind the virus statewide shutdown that does not allow one to confront staff actions head on.

Again as an GH Adviser I have objected and I am waiting for a response.

FROM REGION-6

To Grays Harbor interested anglers:

Model A (the summary presented during Tuesday’s public meeting) was developed using 2019 recreational and non-treaty commercial seasons and the 2020 forecast numbers. A quick summary of those seasons:

Area                                      Dates                                                    Bag limit

North Bay                            Aug 1-Sept 15;                                   1 fish (release wild Chinook and coho)

East Bay                               Sept 16-Nov 30                                  2 fish (release all Chinook)

Humptulips River,            September                                         2 fish (release wild Chinook and coho)

Oct 1-Nov 30                                      1 fish (release wild Chinook and wild coho)

Dec                                                        1 fish (release all Chinook and wild coho)

Chehalis River                    Aug-Sept 15                                        Jacks only

                                                Sept 16-Dec 31                                  2 fish (release Chinook)

Chehalis tribs                     Oct 1-Dec 31                                       2 fish (release Chinook)

Newaukum/Skook           Oct 16-Dec 31                    2 fish (release Chinook)

 

Non-treaty commercial schedule:

2A/D                                      4 days Wk 43 (Oct 21-24)              Release wild Chinook

                                                4 days Wk 44 (Oct 27-31)              Release wild Chinook

2C                                           1 day Wk 42 (Oct 16)

                                                1 day Wk 44 (Oct 30)

 
Posted by: snit

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/20 08:36 PM

Sure smells "fishy"...how do these guys sleep at night!?!?! (probably on 800 thread count sheets from their secret admirers?)
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/27/20 04:15 PM

The message below came from Region 6 Bio Mike Scharpf and he found and error in the model. Evidently he made a mistake but caught it but it changes things a bit. So two things ouch and glad you caught it Mike ! If anyone wants the model information Mike is addressing PM and I will send.

Hello Advisors,

I want to let you know I found a user error in the base Grays Harbor planning model that affects Chehalis wild coho. This is my fault for not catching this before we presented the model and I apologize. The error was Satsop, Wishkah, Hoquiam, and Skookumchuck rivers were modeled as mark-selective (MSF) for coho (wild coho release). The model was supposed to represent last year’s season, which didn’t include MSF except on the Humptulips side. As you can guess, making these rivers wild coho harvest changes the total WDFW harvest enough to put last year’s season with this year’s forecast over the State-managed share, we are about 380 coho over that share. There was also an issue with opening the model outside the WDFW network that was affecting coho impacts in the model. I was able to track down that issue and correct it. Something about updating to Office 365 has caused some issues that have not been intuitive. With that said, an updated model with last year’s seasons and this year’s forecasts is attached. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thanks,

Mike
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/27/20 04:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
The message below came from Region 6 Bio Mike Scharpf and he found and error in the model. Evidently he made a mistake but caught it but it changes things a bit. So two things ouch and glad you caught it Mike ! If anyone wants the model information Mike is addressing PM and I will send.


Makes ya wonder where else in the models there could be errors that haven't been caught....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/20 01:41 AM

I am forwarding this E mail that sent to the WDFD Commission with a letter and Grays Harbor Harvest Model attached. To keep it simple I, as an Adviser, have lodged a complaint over the conduct of WDFW staff in the NOF Grays Harbor process. Staff intentionally disables the 2020 Harvest Model in the QIN tab ( page ) which effectively does not allow that Non Treaty Commercial season proposal to be developed by a citizen. As I told a Commercial fisher I have known for years, " We are all in the same boat but if you make it about who gets 100 fish then I am out of the boat and taking my life jacket and the oars with me. If it is about your rights as a citizen I will see this thing through." So it is game on so to speak.

 I just turned 72 the 29th and I am a bit of a book worm. I think maybe this quote from Teddy Roosevelt  captures how I view this issue.  “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. " Please read the letter folks.


March 28, 2020

WDFW Commissioners
WDFW Director Susewind

Commissioners,

I am writing to seek the assistance of the WDFW Commission to resolve an issue surrounding North of Falcon Grays Harbor (NOF GH) and the refusal of Region 6 staff to provide a working 2020 Harvest Model. To fully understand my request some history is required.

For nearly thirty years I was a volunteer in WDFW's ALEA & RFEG volunteer programs and refused to be involved with harvest related issues. When I ended my time as a volunteer I was asked to help with Grays Harbor harvest issues and I agreed to help. What I found was appalling. Region 6 staff denied the public access to GH Adviser meetings, minutes of GH Adviser meetings, any and all records, and the Harvest Model. To make a long story short in the end I filed a Public Records Request which was not complied with and was forced to utilize the courts which resulted in an out of court settlement with WDFW.

From that time forward the public has been allowed to observe GH Adviser meetings, a solid record of the meetings are available on WDFW's website, and a fully functioning GH Harvest model was provided to GH Advisers and the public to utilize for developing salmon seasons for Grays Harbor, until the past two years that I am aware of.

Commissioners a functioning model is not a small thing but rather of critical importance for any citizen prepare a meaningful proposal for a salmon season in Grays Harbor. The Grays Harbor Harvest model is an Excel spreadsheet with tabs (pages) containing all the information for any given year based upon the preseason forecast agreed to by the Quinault Nation (QIN) and WDFW.

For a citizen the Summary tab provides the ability to see if a proposal complies with the Commission's Grays Harbor Management Plan (GHMP) by turning the harvest number box green for compliance or red not being in compliance. This only works if one is able to manipulate the days fished in any week by the QIN or NT Commercial fishers. The New NT Schedule tab contains what is called a full Recreation Freshwater season at the top of the page. The NT Commercial is directly below it and any day fished in any week will show the projected harvest of any salmon species and the data shows in the Summary tab turning boxes green or red for compliance with the GHMP. The Treaty Schedule tab functions the same as the New NT Schedule tab when adding days to week of QIN fishers.

This is the problem. Region 6 staff have disabled the model by eliminating data and formulas for days or weeks the QIN did not fish in 2019 or any other year.. While this may sound trivial it is not as the run forecast can vary greatly year to year which is the case this year. Instead of harvestable Chinook in the thousands the QIN fishers and non treaty will only each have 696 wild Chinook impacts on the Chehalis River and even worse 142 wild Chinook impacts on the Humptulips. Commissioners this year's wild Chinook numbers clearly dictate that both the QIN and NT salmon seasons in the bay and both rivers will be vastly different than last years. By disabling the model in the Treaty Schedule tabs it removes the possibility of any citizen to put forth an option for the 2020 salmon seasons and in particular the NT Commercial fishers. If left enabled and functioning (as it is supposed to be) one can visualize different potential QIN options based upon available salmon to harvest and then develop potential NT Commercial and freshwater recreational season options.

I have requested an enabled fully functioning 2020 Harvest model in writing to Ron Warren and staff including Director Susewind with little success other than Grays Harbor Harvest Policy person Chad Herring responding via email with " The QIN harvest are inputs, that is to say you cannot input QIN days and estimate their harvest. " This is simply ridiculous! I or any citizen can by simply looking at available harvest shares develop scenarios of days of a calendar week that provide the ability to provide 2020 salmon harvest options. I have attached the latest 2020 Harvest Model to the email utilized to send this letter.

Commissioners I realize these are trying times and I would appreciate any help you could provide as the last 2020 GH Adviser meeting is April 2, 2020 and at this point both recreational and commercial fishers are being denied any meaningful participation in Grays Harbor NOF season setting. If you need any additional information feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Dave Hamilton
Posted by: Great Bender

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/20 04:08 PM

RG, I share your admiration for Teddy Roosevelt.

The Commissioners have been very reluctant as of late to respond to several inquiries put forth by the Washington Citizen Sportsmen, likely due to their indifference.

Your request deserves a proper response--and I'm eager to see if both the Director and Commissioners back up their commitment to, and responsibility for stakeholder input and oversight.

I'm tired of their repetitive mission statement "conclusion", and feel we all deserve what they falsely profess to to abide and adhere to.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/20 07:11 PM

I suspect that the task of responding to the letter has been handed to somebody like Warren. Then, tased up the food chain for signature. That's how it has always been.

An individual, on-on-one conversation might reveal more.
Posted by: Great Bender

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/20 08:19 PM

+1
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/20 08:51 AM

+2
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/20 09:19 AM

I assume this terminal fishery spreadsheet model works like nearly all others. The fishing season harvest rates get applied to the same terminal run size forecast. There is too much overlap in time and space for the model to act like gauntlet fisheries where fish caught early and down low are subtracted from the starting run size for estimating the number that can be subsequently caught later. A test of this in your spreadsheet is if the QIN harvest changes when you manipulate the NT fisheries. If the QIN harvest doesn't change then the spreadsheet model is set up the conventional way which is easier to work with.

I looked at the model summaries posted on WDFW website. They are laid out with run sizes, harvestable shares and estimate catches per fisheries. Assuming the spreadsheet model is conventional, if you simply shape the NT fisheries to produce the harvestable NT share you get an idea of the NT fishery options. Ignore the escapements, just work the NT fisheries to abide by the NT fishery rules in the GHMP and get it to yield the NT harvest share.

Yes, freeing up the QIN harvest piece would allow for getting all the numbers to be green. But messing with QIN fisheries by NT fishers would be objectionable to QIN, as it would if QIN shaped the NT fisheries. There's already too much of "we don't like what you are doing with your fisheries, you need to do this". Having a model that allows for both sides to manipulate the other just encourages this.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/20 09:27 AM

Darth, are you suggesting transparency isn't a good thing? Everyone informed about anadromous fish management in WA knows that telling a treaty tribe how to manage its fishing is asking to be told to pound sand.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/20 09:39 AM

With out getting into the weeds, your not messing with anything QIN. The data & information is fully functional in the NT side but disabled QIN. What this does is not to alter QIN anything but rather NOT Allow anyone to look at the harvestable fish and enter POTENTIAL QIN harvest by week to allow the NT side ( commercial particularly ) to develop multiple NT options around potential QIN seasons. The QIN in the end will present their desired season based upon what they view is appropriate. Using the model to look at potential QIN & NT seasons infringes on nobody's rights. It is a tool period.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/20 10:31 AM

If the model is set up properly it is very easy to calculate catch by area and subtract that catch from the run entering the next area. In the past, that model actually was set up so that the closure of the NI net fishery had no detectible impact on in-river fisheries. Things like that are why the model needs to be useable, changeable, and the process needs to be transparent.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/20 09:28 PM


Here is the direct link for the public to access ZOOM and the Grays Harbor Adviser meeting April 2nd.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ghsag#meeting-calendar

This is the email Chad Herring sent out for the meeting.

Wanted to let everyone know that the agenda and meeting materials for tomorrow nights’ GHSAG meeting have been posted to the GHSAG webpage. Here is the link: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ghsag. Also, remember to log into the Zoom meeting using your specific link that was sent by Dana Stefan from Ross Strategic on Monday. Please contact me if you failed to receive that email and I will get your link to you.

Thanks and stay safe and healthy,
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/20 10:13 AM


The Adviser via ZOOM came with only a couple of bumps. One NT Commercial could not access it for some reason despite help from the ZOOM staff. After that wide variety of ideas ranging from idealistic to ideas that shown a complete lack of understanding how seasons are set came from the Adviser discussions. This is not necessarily bad as this is how you learn how the process works or does not work depending on your view. For the Commercials it has finally become apparent that minus the QIN seasons it is impossible to create options, a fact they repeated several times.

On the Rec side our seasons with two fish limit meet the GH Management Policy objective but one Adviser advocated a one fish limit for conservation which the numbers do not mandate. I did recommend a one fish limit on the Wynoochee because in the Wynoochee Mitigation Region 6 will not mark the hatchery produced mitigation to help restore the Wynoochee Coho run. Bit of a contradiction to propose that then the harvest managers maintain a two fish bag limit.

There will be another Adviser meeting and as soon as I get the notification I will get the info out. This last meeting the information for the public did not become available until the night before.

So that's all I have for now.
Posted by: J. T. Piscator

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/20 10:54 AM

Thanks, Riverguy. I appreciate you keeping us advised. I attended the meeting thru Zoom last night and I thought you made some good points when the one Adviser wanted to suggest a one fish limit when all the boxes were green for two fish. Please keep up the good work!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/04/20 06:53 PM

Ok everybody, this is a heads up. The QIN presented their 2020 seasons based upon Grays Harbor aggregate. Chad called to make sure I knew and so I am getting the information out. To put it simply this is gonna be a bitch if you fish GH call in to participate. I have the model noway nohow can I get it up here.


Good afternoon advisors,

Hope this email finds you all safe and healthy. Also, would like to update everyone on developments on Grays Harbor salmon fishery preseason planning process. First, I have attached a version of the Grays Harbor planning model version “B” that includes a proposed schedule from QIN with their initial 2020 fisheries proposal. Secondly, I have scheduled a WebEx meeting for tomorrow Sunday, April 5th at 1pm for the advisory group to review and discuss these initial proposals and take further comment and fishery suggestions from the group. I apologize for the short notice but things move fast here during PFMC #2 week. I have inserted the link to join the meeting via your computer or via call-in below. See you tomorrow at 1.

Video: https://watech.webex.com/watech/j.php?MTID=mbbe840c8da68bf850368909043fa179d

Call-in number: +1-415-655-0001

Attendee code: 359 505 00



Stay safe and healthy,

Chad Herring

South Coast Fishery Policy Lead

Montesano Regional Headquarters

48 Devonshire Rd

Montesano WA, 98563

Office#:(360)249-1299

Cell #:(360)470-3410

Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/04/20 07:49 PM

Can anybody and everybody call in or webex in and attend? Does this allow for comment?

I noticed it was addressed to "advisors". Was Chad expecting you to publish this?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/04/20 08:42 PM

As I understand it the public can call in and ( I think / could be wrong ) be able to comment as if in a normal meeting. This is not ZOOM so I anticipate some bumps. Chad called me to make sure I got the email which came in at 4:30 PM and I asked to put it out for folks and he said hoped I would help spread the word as they were running out of time. It is my impression that it the getting the info from the QIN that had things running so late.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/05/20 11:06 AM

Thanks Rivrguy!
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/05/20 11:19 AM

Thank you!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 08:12 AM


The call in worked ..... got another NOF meeting done. Not all the "advisers" were happy. Its not my place to tell all the positions....I'll let Rivrguy do that.

Hope all are virus free....stay safe and stay home!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 09:05 AM

The Adviser meeting was a little difficult due to the fact staff had little time to work with the technology, getting everyone on computers or phones up to speed . In the end we got through it and it worked out.

So bottom line, a couple of options emerged from staff and Advisers but nothing set as WDFW and the QIN will meet again to finalize things. No NT Commercial on the Hump but a rather extensive QIN fishery and the Rec season in undecided territory.

The proposed NT commercial schedule has some conflicts with the QIN schedule and the GHMP guidelines but it will be around 7 days in the last of October & maybe first week of Nov. For the QIN they appear to be going hard to the aggregate of all Grays Harbor streams and really came down hard on Chinook. With C&R on the Hump the NT share was several hundred below QIN harvest but the aggregate Grays Harbor Chinook escapement came up short. With the proposed NT Rec & Commercial on the Chehalis our impacts are minimal so for Chinook it is all about the QIN seasons.

Now the aggregate for Coho came up short on escapement but that was all about the Hump Coho being 4k or so short and that is an issue that has been around for 25 years or so in my mind it does not rock the boat. While the proposed NT seasons did comply with the GHMP there is a problem, sharing. The QIN have a right to 50% of the harvestable Grays Harbor fish that enter Washington waters. So those Coho caught in the marine by charters / trollers count in our share are charged to the NT so the NT share was well ahead of what it needed to be. Staff prepared an option that had a 2 fish Coho bag until Nov 1 and then a 1 fish bag Nov & Dec. An Adviser urged a 1 fish for the full season for everyone.

This more or less a down and dirty look at things and I am sure more to come. From my personal perspective this. The concept of 2 fish bag then 1 fish bag Nov 1 on places the greatest sharing burden on the local inland communities. Normally it rains around the first week of Nov and the river browns out. That ends the tidal water / bay fisheries and most of the out of area tourist type fishers. So in Nov it is about locals and more true sportsman and in Dec mostly locals. Another way to look at it is the fisheries be it QIN or NT based in the Aberdeen / tidal areas ( QIN go to South Monte also ) will reap the greatest benefit and the inland communities shoulder the conservation burden. The 4 / 3 provision ( three days a week net free ) was supposed to address this issue and does but this season maneuver is a bit of smoke and mirrors to get around that be it and indirect route.

That's about all I have for now. Oh, one more thing. Just so all know I have an Aberdeen address and fish tidal water exclusively. I benefit from the staff proposal and that was my point the pain should be equal for all not dumped on the inland communities. A bit of a hot button issue for me.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 10:42 AM

Dave, for out education, why does the Chehalis tribal quota come out of the recreational fish? Or, did I hear that wrong.

Of course, we are not privy to the discussions between the QIN and WDFW, so we really don't know how much real "Equality " there really is in give and take. Sounds to me like it's mostly give for WDFW.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 10:55 AM

The Chehalis Tribe's share comes out of the "non-treaty" portion, since they are not a treaty tribe.

It's more correct to think of the two shares as "treaty" and "non-treaty", rather than 'tribal" and "non-tribal".

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 11:19 AM

For a lot of years the Chehalis Tribal catch was part of the GH tribal which was the QIN. If I recall correctly the QIN got that changed as the Chehalis Tribe is a non treaty tribe and QIN a treaty tribe. Courts dictated that the Chehalis Tribe is entitled to a percentage of fish passing through the reservation at Oakville and it is part of the non treaty ( state ) share.

As to sharing I think it was two years ago that the QIN insisted that they get the court mandated share which means NT Washington ocean harvest count against the state share. It gits all sorts of iffy after that as QIN do not accept the state C&R mortalities ( rightly so ) and non commercial call BS on gillnet drop out mortalities ( rightly so ) or in other words everybody lies which is so. On Chinook if I was tribal I would give the word militant a whole new meaning. In the 2020 model based on modified Ocean option 2 Alaska & BC will harvest 11,733 Grays Harbor Chinook before they enter Washington waters and the state fishers will get around 250 in marine areas off the coast. The state of Washington ( WDFW ) agreed to this harvest percentage in the recently signed Harvest Annex . To put it simply be it tribal or NT we have little to say with Chinook harvest. Terminal fishers all and the fish are screwed going out the door by AK & BC and the state of Washington agreed to this. So for Chinook I leave it up to the QIN nation to deal with it as we will never have harvestable Chinook of any real numbers. Fix habitat or increase hatchery production terminal and fish escapement will get few only AK & BC ( and maybe the Orcas will benefit )

Coho are a bit different with it be US fisheries being the big dog. Our total impacts modeled ( marine & fresh ) are around 17,000 and the tribal are are about 13,000 and that is the share issue. Again WDFW agreed to the marine harvest and in the end it falls on terminal fishers to balance the scales. I will point out the Region 6 staff have about zero input on the ocean seasons only the dirty bag we terminal fishers are left holding. Kinda the way it works.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 11:53 AM

I got a question immediately and it was " what was the harvestable available Chinook across the bar or after ocean harvest." The number for the Chehalis is 1391 wild and and 1611 hatchery ( the hatchery are the Satsop R broodstock not a true wild not a true hatchery / genetically the same and will spawn naturally ) for a total of 3002. Humptulips is 284 wild and 4314 hatchery for a total available for harvest of 4598. Keep in mind it matters zip as to hatchery available for harvest it is wild escapement that governs everything so that 284 wild number is a big deal.

Boiling it down AK & BC will take 8005 wild Grays Harbor Chinook and our terminal impact will be 3134 if fished as outlined prior with the vast majority of Chehalis fish being QIN harvest.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


Boiling it down AK & BC will take 8005 wild Grays Harbor Chinook and our terminal impact will be 3134 if fished as outlined prior with the vast majority of Chehalis fish being QIN harvest.


And this is AFTER negotiating the most recent annex of PST that's supposed to deliver "more" kings back to the PNW.

I guess "more" is a relative term.

The 2020 modeled AK/BC catches amounts to almost the entire Chehalis escapement.... and essentially TRIPLE the anticipated Hump escapement. GDITMMM!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 04:17 PM

You know Doc I feel bad for our basin, it just ain't right. Lord I do not know what to tell folks with ESA stocks, I mean what can you say? Land owners, tax payers, fishers, just everybody is paying such a huge price ( including the fish ) and the harvest managers for WA just mute themselves. Business as usual is the message. Damn I wish the tribes would pull together and sue.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 04:51 PM

" Damn I wish the tribes would pull together and sue."

Be careful what you wish for. A lawsuit could very well remove a lot if not all non-tribal fishing. After all, treaties are the law of the land, with equal power and authority as the constitution.

As sovereign nations. Tribes are not subject to state laws, and are federally guaranteed not only the right to fish, but the right to have unlimited protection from anything that might impact the reduction of the fish that they have the right too.

If the Feds get involved and start reducing fishing over ESA or anything else, the tribes will be the very last to have to reduce.

Also, with the current climate with our Governor, there is no doubt in my mind that any mandated reductions in fishing will go down just like this most recent closure:

First to go: Recreational fishing

Non-tribal commercial next, but with great hesitation since they perform an essential function in feeding thousands.

Last, and most probably never, Tribal commercial fishing.

And absolutely never: Any fishing labeled Tribal Cultural.

Thats just how it all looks to me...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 06:46 PM

Sooner or later a federal judge will drop the hammer on marine mixed stock fisheries with the words " you shall stop " It is not if but rather when. The Orca thing might be the perfect tool to accomplish that. There will always be the slightly dignified brawl between the NT and tribal fishers terminal and off the coast. It is not the tribes fault that NT side ( us ) are represented by ..............ah...........less than effective people. The problem exist in agreements that are multi state and international with BC within a federal framework. I seriously doubt that Governor Green Jeans would ever stand up to the feds and frankly our two senators likely only know a salmon from photos. As I see the problem it is the Orca lawsuit or the tribes that will break up the cabal that runs ocean harvest that is wiping out fish stocks. I am a pragmatist and put aside my own prejudices when I look for a solution to the problem.

Off the soapbox.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 07:55 PM

Let's say that WSC wins and the marine MS gets shut down. The US takes on Canada and gets the marine MS shut down. The only fisheries are terminal. By law and treaty, the Tribes share is 50%. The other half is NI. Now,how they structure that, if they get rid of the NI nets and shift some/most of that to the Tribes because the recs can't get there whole 50% that is possible. But the Tribes are not entitled to more than half unless WA rolls over.
Posted by: Great Bender

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/20 09:05 PM

Plain and simple...I like that!
Posted by: eddie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/20 02:21 PM

I agree with Rivrguy, mixed stock fisheries will eventually end, it is the only way to target harvest.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/20 06:01 AM

I agree mixed stock fishing in the ocean will end, but I'm pretty sure it will be because the fish are finally all gone. We'll find the zeal for orca recovery fades quickly when the real price tag gets revealed and it includes the very livelihood of commercial fishers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/20 12:26 PM


Now for something totally different. The Chehalis at Porter just went below historical low for this day of the year. The rest of the basin right there or just a few CFS off except the Skookumchuck which is up yet with the dam releases. NOAA's Northwest River Forecast Center has the vast majority of the states rain fed streams trending the same it appears. Being April and the groundwater already being depleting, and even if it rains it will do little to recharge the groundwater, get ready for a really low water summer.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/20 06:27 PM

Just out and that was totally wrong!!!!!!!!!!!! Got a call ( hey Dave wrong one ) and staff will be getting things out next week. Some odds and ends still being tied up with the Nation.

Posted by: geljockey

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/20 06:55 PM

I trust you meant 2020-21 sport fishing rules pamphlet wink
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/20 01:14 PM

Chad sent the final model out but until the Adviser ZOOM meeting Thursday the where / why is a little unknown, well sorta. The Nation went right to the GH Aggregate of all streams ( which is their right to do ) and appears to have maintained sharing demands. In other words the Nation is entitled to 50% after the fish enter WA ST waters which means NT charters, sport, and trollers count into our sharing terminal. Larger ocean catch the smaller NT terminal catch.

So it looks to be normal jack season 8/1 to 9/15 followed by a two week no fishing window 9/15 to 10/1. 10/1 through Nov 1 fish bag limit and release Chinook . After Nov 1 release Chum also. The bay fishery is 9/23 Nov 30 release Chinook.

Hump is 2c 8/1 to 9/15 hatchery only Chinook and Coho. The river is Sept. 1-Sept 30 2 Adult bag: release wild Chinook and wild Coho. Oct. 1-Oct 31 1 Adult bag: 1 may be Chinook, release wild Chinook and wild Coho, Nov release chum
Nov 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook, chum, and wild Coho

And before my ears get fried, no I do not know why the two week off the water window but that is what the Rec season modeled is. Yes it means the inriver Rec is off the river in two prime weeks followed by fishing behind the Nation fishers for the next three weeks as they fish 3 days a week. We will have to wait for staff to explain the rational.

The NT Commercials have one day week of 10/18 and three days week of 10/25. The Nation start fishing week of 10/4 and two days a week in weeks 10/11 & 10/18. Off the water for two weeks then back in the water in Nov with three days a week. Last week of Nov on it is five days a week.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/20 01:22 PM

This link had the following info.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/summaries#coastal

Grays Harbor Area
The 2020 recreational salmon fishing season in Grays Harbor (Marine Area 2-2) west of buoy 13 is concurrent with the ocean rules for salmon (Area 2 rules apply). 2020 recreational salmon fishing seasons in Grays Harbor east of buoy 13 are:

North Bay: from Aug. 1 – Sept. 15, anglers can keep one salmon, but must release wild Chinook and wild coho;
East Bay: from Sept. 23 – Nov. 30, anglers can keep one salmon, but must release all Chinook.
Humptulips River recreational salmon fishing season and adult limits for 2020 are as follows:

September: anglers can keep two salmon, and must release wild Chinook and wild coho.
October: anglers can keep one salmon, and must release wild Chinook and wild coho.
November and December: only one hatchery coho may be retained.
During 2020 recreational freshwater salmon seasons for the Chehalis watershed, south bay rivers, and the Hoquiam River, anglers will be able to retain one adult salmon but must release Chinook for the full season and chum during November and December.

Chehalis River from Hwy 101 Bridge to South Elma Bridge: from Aug. 1 – Sept. 15, anglers must release all adult salmon.
Johns, Elk, Hoquiam, Wishkah, Chehalis, Wynoochee, Satsop, and Black rivers will be open October through December, but anglers must release all Chinook in October, and all Chinook and chum in November and December.
The Skookumchuck and Newaukum rivers will open Oct. 16 – December, but anglers must release all Chinook in October and all Chinook and chum in November and December.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/20 01:42 PM

I saw some guys fishing the Chehalis 2 days ago.

Bet it was good.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/20 01:50 PM

Dave, do you know what the daily limits will be. One or two coho/day? Wild and hatchery like last year?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/20 02:16 PM

One fish day but release Chinook and Chum after Nov 1.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/20 07:21 PM

Thanks Dave. I take that to mean 1 wild or hatchery coho/day.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/20 08:08 PM

Rivrguy:

Thanks for the information on both the the Humptulips side and the Chehalis side...

Humptulips River. 9/1 - 9/30. Looks like 2 Chinook, can be kept...only place where 2 adult fish can be kept......I'm thinking BUSY PLACE

Thanks for the people that spend time at NOF meetings and this year, on line. The effort is what helps get the sport season we have.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/20 08:18 PM

Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
I saw some guys fishing the Chehalis 2 days ago.

Bet it was good.



Might have been, season is closed on Chehalis springers but that doesn't mean there are no fish in the river.

I can tell you that South Monty has a sea lion hanging around and there was a seal in the area of the pump houses.....there is a reason they are there !!!!!

Did you "call it in"??????
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/15/20 10:48 AM

Ya right.
I've tried in the past and it's a huge waste of time and energy.
Anymore I figure enforcement is a service I pay for every year.
Obviously not my problem WDFW fails at it and planting fish both.

I play by the rules but those that don't are on their own.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/20 03:24 PM


After the final NOF Grays Harbor I put in a formal objection to the Director and Commission. I am told the staff's position is being reconsidered.

April 19, 2020

Director Susewind,

I am writing as a Grays Harbor Adviser to formally object to a blatant violation of the Grays Harbor Management Policy (GHMP) for the 2020 Recreational seasons. I am objecting to the removal of Chum salmon from the Chehalis River freshwater bag limit which violates the GHMP. I request that your office review the information I am providing and reinstate Chum harvest for the full 2020 recreational season mandated by the GHMP. The two WDFW models I utilized are attached. I want to be clear my objections do not challenge Quinault Indian Nation's (the Nation) right to harvest or sharing between the Nation and WDFW (state) fisheries as that responsibility resides solely with WDFW staff dictated by numerous court decisions.

The GHMP is a conservation based management policy with clearly defined harvest sharing guidelines. Additionally a provision called 3/4 requiring three net free days a week to assure sharing for inland fishers, both Chehalis Tribe and recreational, and provides a safety net for the fish if the preseason forecast is wrong. The conservation objectives are reinforced by a conservation directive that if escapement is not met 3 out of 5 years on a salmon species state fishers are limited to a 5% impact of the run size of that salmon species; this is known as 3/5. With conservation built in Mr. Herrings action removing Chum from the freshwater bag limit is a totally irresponsible action and clear violation of the GHMP for the reasons I will outline.

Guidelines for state Chum salmon fisheries are:
Guiding Principles
7) In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, fishing opportunities will be fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of WDFW- managed fishers.
Chum Salmon
Subject to the adaptive management provisions of this policy, the Department will manage chum salmon fisheries consistent with the Guiding Principles and the following objectives:

1) Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving escapement goals for wild and hatchery chum salmon. In no case, shall WDFW-managed fisheries result in an impact of more than 5% of the return when the natural-origin adult return exceeds the spawner objective by less than 10%.

2) No fisheries directed at Chum salmon shall occur unless the adult Coho salmon return exceeds spawner objectives, or if Coho salmon impacts remain after Coho and Chinook salmon fisheries.

The 2020 aggregate preseason forecast for Chum agreed to by the Nation and state is 30324 natural and 2325 hatchery origin adults resulting in 5825 Chum available respectively for the Nation and State fisheries. The modeled 2020 harvest is 5076 for the Nation, 2564 for State commercial gillnets and 215 for fresh water recreational. The recreational harvest numbers reflect that as of Nov 1 Chum was removed from the recreational bag limit. The model also shows that if all fishers fished to the modeled harvest that 3025 Chum salmon remain not harvested in the states share and 749 in the Nation's share. When I objected to the recreational Nov. 1 closure in the Adviser ZOOM meeting Chad Herring responded that the suggested closure came from an Adviser and he personally had "concerns." Why an Adviser would advocate for violating the GHMP I have no idea but frankly Director Susewind that is an issue between yourself and the Adviser as you appoint all of us. Mr. Herring on the other hand is the Grays Harbor Harvest Policy person who reports to Mr. Warren, both are very familiar with the GHMP, and both clearly know Mr. Herring's actions violate the recreational sharing for harvest dictated by the GHMP.

To further clarify this issue as it relates conservation and harvest I would like to share the following data from the preseason forecast model which contains the history of Chum harvest and escapement. The five year recreational average 2014 / 2018 (2019 is not included as it is only an estimate in the model) recreational Chehalis River Chum harvest is 464. For the same years the Nations average catch was 8074 and state commercial 2824. The model also shows in 2014 and 2017 Grays Harbor failed to make Chum escapement and the recreational harvest was 491 and 523 for those years. The Nations harvest 10,266 and 5831 with State commercial harvest 2625 and 1979 for the same two years.

Simply put Director Susewind if Mr. Herring has "concerns" I assume those concerns revolve around escapement as no other issues were discussed. The harvest numbers clearly show that in Grays Harbor Chum harvest the recreational freshwater fisher has the least impacts and a full season bag limit including Chum would pose about zero chance of reducing the Chum returns below the required escapement goal. I request that WDFW reinstate Chum to the freshwater bag limit for the 2020 seasons and comply with the GHMP.

Sincerely,

Dave Hamilton

CC: WDFW Commission
GH Advisers
JT Austin Governor Inslee Senior Policy Advisor, Natural Resources & Environment
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/20 03:44 PM

Despite my irritation with the current state of affairs I do appreciate all you do.
Sincerely.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/20 06:04 PM

Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
Despite my irritation with the current state of affairs I do appreciate all you do.
Sincerely.


+1

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: eddie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/20 02:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Todd
Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
Despite my irritation with the current state of affairs I do appreciate all you do.
Sincerely.


+1

Fish on...

Todd

+2 Thanks!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/20 03:56 PM

I appreciate that guys and thank you. When I objected to how the NT commercials were wrongly treated some folks were really ticked off but it was the right thing to do. The GHMP is what we all must stick to like glue, no exceptions. The sharing guidelines and conservation requirements in the GHMP dictate what all non tribal fisheries are not what I or anyone else feel is a better idea.

I have been asked to put out what the Rec Chehalis season below South Elma Bridge should be if the GHMP was followed correctly and I normally shy away from doing that but since I opened this can of worms here we go.

Aug. 1-Sept. 15 Min. size 12". Daily limit 6. Release adults.

Oct. 1-Dec. 31 Min. size 12". Daily limit 6. Up to 2 adults may be retained. Only one Coho adult may be retained. Release Chinook.


This means 6 fish including Coho Jacks but only one Coho adult be it hatchery or wild and up to two Chum but only two adult total. Release all Chinook period. The numbers and GHMP directives say this was the season that should have been presented by WDFW staff. Oh rough math says that in the states non tribal share over 1500 Chum above escapement would have remained unharvested. Maybe few more maybe few less but in the ball park I think.
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/20 01:49 PM

This year the Grays Harbor fisheries plan resulted in the Chehalis river being limited to a one fish coho bag despite the non-tribal harvest being well under half the available fish and thousands of hatchery fish going unharvested. I tried to unravel how that happened and this is my opinion on why this occurred. First you must understand that there are about four sets of harvest rules. One set for the tribal fishers, a different set for the non-tribal fishers, another rule that says the Grays Harbor fish caught off shore in Washington waters are included, and a final rule that says the final harvest for each species must be shared 50/50. First an agreed to available harvest plan is generated, then each side tries to maximize their fishery within their rule set. Usually one species will reach the maximum limit and this will stop additional harvest of available other species. When the final plans are compared there is a requirement that each side has a 50/50 split for each species.

This year the QIN harvest plan fished right up to the maximum for chum which stopped them from additional fishing. As a result they caught only 47% of the available coho and 85% of the available Chinook (available under their rules). The non-tribal plan had not reached any limit but did harvest more coho than the QIN. This invoked the 50/50 harvest rule and limited the non-tribal coho harvest to be equal to the limited QIN harvest. That is the reason the bag limit on the Chehalis got cut to one fish with thousands of unharvested hatchery fish available. The 50/50 rule does not seem to apply in reverse as in the case of the non-tribal inability to harvest chum.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/20 02:58 PM

I think you captured it, kinda, as to Coho but the sharing impacts are what resulted in the one bag limit and 2 week shut down window. The Nation gets 50% of Grays Harbor Coho ( it is the aggregate of Chehalis and Hump ) and the Chehalis Tribe and ocean catch count into the states side. The two bag limit from Sept 16 to Dec 1 is regarded as a full Rec season bay or inriver. Species are removed from the bag limit by returns limiting a species availability, sharing, or GHMP on the states side. Chum after the modeled harvest had 3020 left in the states side. That means the two fish bag should have stayed with zero Chinook retention and only one Coho in the bag. After all that 3294 Natural Coho and 21814 hatchery adults left unharvested. The hatchery number means almost nothing as the fish are managed to the wild escapement.

The main words here are 50% entering WA ST waters and aggregate Hump / Chehalis. PFMC and the nation manage to the Grays Harbor aggregate. So when you do that the Grays Harbor natural Coho return is 34,146 and the escapement goal is 35,400. It is the Hump Coho that pull the total down as the natural will be 4549 under Grays Harbor aggregate escapement.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/20 04:18 PM

Hey guys thought I would let you all know that Gillie is off the ventilator and moved to rehab. For those who do not know Gillie is a guide from the East Grays Harbor area who got the virus. Scared the hell out of us as he was on the vent for a substantial amount of time but again he looks to have beat the thing. For us that know Gillie lets keep him in our thoughts until he is free of that damn bug!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/20 07:22 PM

Here is something interesting. In the state fish biz JT has been the mover and shaker seldom seen. So grain of salt here as nothing from the Guv yet that I know of.


Forwarded:

There's been a lot of speculation flying around this week about the role of J.T. Austin, Senior Policy Advisor, Natural Resources at this point in NOF season setting this year.  In the past, she has been very active and major player behind the scenes.  Word is that role is going to be passed forward or shared in some fashion with Jon Snyder.  Not certain what's going on for sure, but here's what I've learned about Mr. Snyder who until now I didn't know existed.

Mr. Snyder moved into the Gov office in 2016 as Sr. Policy Advisor, Outdoor Recreation & Economic Development.  Here's his education and career history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Snyder

Here's his list of issues in his current job title and position that he's held for 4 years in the Governor's Office.  At least he's familiar with the term "Recreational".





JON SNYDER – SR. POLICY ADVISOR, OUTDOOR RECREATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 360.902.0488 JON.SNYDER@GOV.WA.GOV

AGENCIES Commerce, Department of (Recreation) Columbia River Gorge Commission Fish and Wildlife, Department of (Recreation, Fishing & Hunting ) Natural Resources, Department of (Recreation) Recreation and Conservation Office (Recreation) State Parks and Recreation Commission Transportation, Department of (Bike, Ped) Traffic Safety Commission (Bike, Ped) ISSUES Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Boating Discover Pass No Child Left Inside grants Outdoor Environmental Education Public Land and Conservation Land Access Recreation Benefits Recreation Economy Recreation and Recreation Planning Recreation Workforce Planning Sports and Athletics Sustainable Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-related Recreation and Commercial Experiences Outdoor Tourism Veteran’s Conservation Corp Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program Grants Watchable Wildlife

Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/23/20 10:21 PM

Interesting? Was unable to find any details on their backgrounds/influences etc. Anybody know more about these people that advise the Gov. on outdoor recreational issues?
Posted by: blackmouth

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/24/20 02:20 PM

The tribes.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/24/20 02:44 PM

Seriously. How come there is so little public information available on J.T. Austin? Being a "Senior Policy Advisor", you would think a whole profile would exist for the public to view? Who is she and where did she come from? Other than having a law degree it's difficult to find out much. How do you get to be a Gov. policy advisor anyway?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/24/20 03:01 PM


JT is simply a member of the Governor's staff. Any Governor hires staff to track and advise on issues and most staffers are seldom seen. As to qualifications, that is for the Governor to speak to as staff position requirements are whatever the Governor decides they are.
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/24/20 03:58 PM

JT Austin? Here's what Susewind says about her and her influence and meddling in the Fisheries! From his sworn deposition!

A= Susewind's answers to the attorney.

·6· ·Q· Okay.· Does she provide any input?
·7· ·A· She's the Governor's Office.· Of course she does. (*O'l Susewind got the message loud and clear)
·8· ·Q· I'm trying to get to what it is that she provides input on.
·9· ·A· It's relationships, understanding tribal -- she's his
10· · · expert at tribal culture, tribal relationships.· I believe
11· · · we got a number of staff that are as well, but it's always
12· · · good to have an extra set of eyes there.
13· ·Q· Um-hmm.
14· ·A· Also the tribes put a lot of faith in her, and if she and I
15· · · say the same thing, they're going to believe her before
16· · · they believe me.


Pretty evident from this and other first hand information that the Governor uses JT Austin to TELL WDFW how to manage the fisheries
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/25/20 08:49 PM

Is she a tribal member somewhere? Or has relatives or family members that are tribal? Seems like a huge conflict of interest, if so needs to be publicized for public scrutiny.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/20 06:53 AM

R&G yours, mine, or any other citizen's ethnicity mean zero when in the workplace. To even insinuate if a person has tribal heritage they are unfit to work for the governor is so damn far past offensive that it is hard to fathom!
Posted by: blackmouth

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/20 02:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
R&G yours, mine, or any other citizen's ethnicity mean zero when in the workplace. To even insinuate if a person has tribal heritage they are unfit to work for the governor is so damn far past offensive that it is hard to fathom!
Rivrguy, I respect you, your opinions and your efforts. I also have respect and even admiration for you and numerous other posters on this site.That being said I do not necessarily agree with all of your and their opinions.

Now the the first part of your post that is highlighted in Yellow I disagree with. Imagine how some people might react if a white person was appointed by the Governor to oversee a black cultural heritage program. Dare I say it would not be enthusiastically accepted. But in reality it's not really a matter of ethnicity at all it is a matter of affiliations and how wealth is shared and perceptions of that.

As for the part in blue I do not totally disagree with (even though you did go over the top a bit), however R&G did no such thing he only questioned in what position a person with tribal associations it would be advisable for them to serve. I highly doubt that any tribal member or affiliate regardless of their ethnicity would want me advising the Governor on Tribal relations and it would not be because of my ethnicity it would be because they would fear that I, a person with differant affiliations and views might cause a shift in power, and they would be right as I would surely try to do so.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/20 02:48 PM

I'm not insinuating that she or anybody else is unfit to advise the Gov. I am simply trying to find out the background of this advisor? Bay wolf has shed some light to what seems to be going on. If you haven't noticed the rec. fishermen have been getting the shaft under this administration. Everyone has agenda's, open and hidden. Power brings out the worst of them. Agenda's are formulated from relationships, education, ethnicities, religion, upbringing, etc. If I was tribal and had the Gov. ear I surely would be pushing the agenda favoring tribal. If I had the Gov. ear I would be pushing rec. fishing. If you disagree, oh well, it's reality.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/20 02:59 PM

From 3rd party:
JT Austin

Experienced Senior Policy Advisor with a demonstrated history of working in the public policy industry. Skilled in Natural Resources Policy and Management; Conflict Transformation and Facilitation; Tribal Law, Policy and Relationships; Nonprofit Organizations; Policy Analysis; Politics; Legislative Process; Government; and Strategic Planning. Strong community and collaborative professional graduated from University of Washington and University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

From Governor's website: https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Policy_staff_portfolios_1-17-20_FINAL.pdf

JT AUSTIN – SR. POLICY ADVISOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
360.902.0638 JT.AUSTIN@GOV.WA.GOV
AGENCIES
Agriculture, Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of (Salmon)
Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office
Natural Resources, Board of
Puget Sound Partnership
Recreation and Conservation Funding Office (Salmon)
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
Washington State Conservation Commission
ISSUES
Aquatic Invasive Species
Columbia River BiOp
Columbia River Treaty Coordination
Co-management of Fisheries
Commodity Commissions
Conservation Districts
Culverts Case
Dams (Salmon)
Endangered Species
Fisheries Management
Forest Management & Forest Practices
Genetically Modified Organisms
Habitat Work Schedule
Irrigation
Natural Heritage Program
Natural Resource Management
North of Falcon
Orca Recovery
Puget Sound Recovery
Salmon Recovery and Protection
Treaty Rights at Risk
Tribal Hunting
Tribal Water Rights
Voluntary Stewardship Program
Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife/Wolf Management
Working Natural Lands
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/20 06:31 PM

What I have not seen is evidence of an education in resource management of any sort. I guess she must rely upon the Commission and their public meetings. She does attend those, right??? (don't miss the sarcasm)
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/20 07:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
From 3rd party:
JT Austin

Experienced Senior Policy Advisor with a demonstrated history of working in the public policy industry. Skilled in Natural Resources Policy and Management; Conflict Transformation and Facilitation; Tribal Law, Policy and Relationships; Nonprofit Organizations; Policy Analysis; Politics; Legislative Process; Government; and Strategic Planning. Strong community and collaborative professional graduated from University of Washington and University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

From Governor's website: https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Policy_staff_portfolios_1-17-20_FINAL.pdf

JT AUSTIN – SR. POLICY ADVISOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
360.902.0638 JT.AUSTIN@GOV.WA.GOV
AGENCIES
Agriculture, Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of (Salmon)
Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office
Natural Resources, Board of
Puget Sound Partnership
Recreation and Conservation Funding Office (Salmon)
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
Washington State Conservation Commission
ISSUES
Aquatic Invasive Species
Columbia River BiOp
Columbia River Treaty Coordination
Co-management of Fisheries
Commodity Commissions
Conservation Districts
Culverts Case
Dams (Salmon)
Endangered Species
Fisheries Management
Forest Management & Forest Practices
Genetically Modified Organisms
Habitat Work Schedule
Irrigation
Natural Heritage Program
Natural Resource Management
North of Falcon
Orca Recovery
Puget Sound Recovery
Salmon Recovery and Protection
Treaty Rights at Risk
Tribal Hunting
Tribal Water Rights
Voluntary Stewardship Program
Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife/Wolf Management
Working Natural Lands


I read all that. That tells me little other than a great resume was written. I have one of those. I'm looking for a little more private information, which I should be entitled to as a registered voter, and her being a public servant. Like where she grew up? Did she grow up in Washington State or DC? Has she ever recreated in WA? Does her experience come from studies or reality? I know the difference. Has she ever sportsfished? That kind of info is important on where her agenda lies and advice to the Gov. comes from. At least we know a little about Jon Snyder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Snyder , which was provided by Bay wolf. Like everyone, I am just looking for a little more information that could shed some light on what could be for recreational anglers, really important future political information.
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/20 09:07 PM

From her LinkedIn page


Education

University of Washington
Bachelor's degree Anthropology
1990 – 1993

University of Pittsburgh
Doctor of Law - JD
1995 – 1998
Posted by: Bay wolf

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/20 11:18 PM

If you want to know a little more about how far JT Austin's reach is in our fisheries, let's look at our last WDFW Commissioner appointments.


James (Jim) Anderson
(At-large position, Pierce County)
Occupation: Retired Administrator
Current Term: 07/24/2019 - 12/31/2024

James "Jim" R. Anderson was appointed to the Commission in July of 2019...He was the Executive Director of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission from 1985 to 2005, before retiring in 2010...He is well connected to tribal communities and values the work they do and the roles they have played in our state. (WDFW Commisssion Member Web Site..click here)

Now, let's look at an email that JT Austin sent to Keith Swenson. Keith Swenson is the Director of Boards and Commissions. He is the one who is supposed to "select" applicants for the Governor to appoint to OUR WDFW Commission:

From: "Austin, JT (GOV)" Austin, Jennifer (GOV)93b>
Subject: F & W Commission Jim Anderson resume
Date: June 28, 2019 at 7:09:26 AM PDT
To: "Swenson, Keith (GOV)" Swenson, Keith (GOV)7d4>

Jim and I had a long talk yesterday. He would like to be considered for the F&W commission. He’s very committed to conservation, is an avid and lifetime hunter and fisher. He has two infractions, one in 2006 a boat where someone was over the limit on shrimp and one fail to record in 2007.

We talked about leadership, role modeling good behavior and professionalism, collaboration, treaty rights (entire professional career), passion about conservation, hunting and fishing, undergrad and grad degrees in environmental science, having practiced conservation and planning. We also talked about Curt Smitch, Tim and Norm - he said they’d had a falling out on mass marking but that was years ago and he’d survived norm and Tim’s “spittle.” He is highly regarded by Bob Turner, former regional manager for NOAA, Phil Anderson, Lorraine Loomis, and all of the 20 NW Indian Fisheries Commission tribes, and was close friends with Billy Frank, Jr.

I’m pretty impressed with his working knowledge of the various landscapes- fisheries management, legislative (state and fed), tribes, hunting stakeholders, ranchers, E Wa issues including water rights, impacts of population growth and climate change.

I think we would be proud of the appointment.

Let me know what you think and timeline. Also, please send me a phone number for Molly Linville when you get a chance.

Thanks and happy Friday.
JT

Now consider this. Andersen wasn't even a candidate. JT brought him to Keith Swenson's attention, LONG AFTER the announcement date had CLOSED! And LONG AFTER the Governor was, by policy supposed to appoint a replacement! And bypassed all the other highly qualified applicants that DID FOLLOW THE RULES!

Can you see that Anderson was "recruited"? Can you see he's there to insure the Governor's tribal agenda is pushed?

Jim Andersons resume was emailed to JT 26 minutes and 13 seconds before JT sent her email giving Swenson the "ol eye wink", that Anderson was the guy?
Posted by: Great Bender

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/20 05:02 AM

This is, beyond any shadow of doubt, irrefutable evidence and the "smoking gun" of an illegal and unethical violation of State law....along with the stakeholder's trust.

Those candidates who followed the formal procedure to apply for this vacancy on the WDFW Commission were sh!t canned in favor of an obviously political appointment--one who amounts to little more than an after thought, and hand-picked agent to swing the balance on the board of Commissioners.

No imagination is needed to conclude this act was corrupt and grossly inappropriate.

Larry Carpenter, as the current Chair of the Commission, the yoke falls on you to take formal exception to this injustice, and demand an inquiry and investigation as to what has taken place. The integrity and good standing of the Commission as a whole hangs in the balance.

My letter to Carpenter will be on its way later today, and the message will be as stated above. Read the Wolf's latest post, get a grasp of what has taken place, and please follow suit on your part.

The straw that broke the camel's back? Possible, and maybe even likely. But only if WE ALL come together with the same defiance that this WDFW incompetence and corruption and has gone far enough. Let Carpenter know your feelings...his e-mail can be easily referenced @ the WDFW website.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/20 08:04 AM

Some questions on Grays Harbor bag limits. The two fish bag limit is the traditional normal bag limit. Now the timing of the season can move around dependant on the harvestable numbers. Some years if we fish full bag early on the takes out the Nov & Dec fisheries. In general it has been accepted that time on the water is more important than a larger bag limit. So a Oct. 15 to Dec 31 one bag trumps Oct. 15 to Nov 15 two bag limit. You can even have a reduced bag on a particular stream if the returns cannot support a full bag. This can get a bit testy though as an example bay / tidal harvest is OK on these fish but then comes conservation on the inland fisheries. Thus far I think R-6 have navigated this OK but it will come around again as individual stream escapements are always an issue.

The bag limit can be greater if the numbers and GHMP sharing guidelines permit. Say Coho is way up, Chinook down, Chum normal. That would get you 3 fish bag of which only can be one Chum and release Chinook. So let us do Coho are above average, Chum way up, Chinook average. That gets you 3 bag limit of only two can be Coho release Chinook.

Then you look to the GHMP for such things as the 3/5 clause that limits harvest impacts to 5% of any salmon species that fails to make escapement. ( Humptulips natural Coho and Chehalis Chinook have been perennial restrictors ) Then you have the fact that WDFW manages the Hump and Chehalis separately but PFMC and the Nation manage to the aggregate of all Grays Harbor streams, which messes with the numbers. Now add to the mix the sharing with the Nation required by the courts. The Nation is entitled to 50% of the harvest of fish that enter Wash St waters. So the ocean catch by NT charters, Rec, trollers counts in the Non Treaty ( NT ) Grays Harbor sharing. Tribal ocean fisheries count against the Nations share. That is how you get the proposed two week shut down for inriver Rec and reduced bay fisheries. The aggregate Grays Harbor Coho escapement was not a issue only sharing with the Nation and as always Hump Coho.

As complex and confusing this all sounds it really is not. It is more like checking boxes which steer you to the next question. You could take 10 different sets of numbers for each species, work your way through the GHMP guidelines, tribal requirements, and end up with different Rec bag limits. Starting point for Rec fishers is 2 bag limit and then you add or subtract fish / species driven by the above mentioned requirements.






Posted by: snit

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/20 08:08 AM

Follow the money...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 07:21 AM


Below is the WDFW response to my objections for the 2020 Fall Salmon season bag limits. The bag limit issue ( removing Chum ) has been resolved. Notice the two fish bag reduction is driven by Coho sharing with the Nation not escapement. I am not sure that I accept that 2 Chum in the bag would drastically increase the natural Coho mortality. Then again it is about aggregate vs Chehalis / Hump split and total number harvested which includes the ocean. ( W+H ) So in the Grays Harbor the Nation has a 3123 lead in Natural Coho but when W & H are combined the NT side is 1502 up. Then add that Chum impacts mostly occur on two streams Wynoochee and Satsop I can see why staff have that view. So there you are.


April 24, 2020

Via Email

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

Thank you for your comments during the April 16th meeting of the Grays Harbor Salmon Advisory Group and your follow-up emails from April 19th and April 22nd expressing your concerns regarding chum non-retention and increased bag limit for freshwater recreational fishers proposed for 2020 Grays Harbor salmon fisheries. After reviewing the model inputs, historical catch record card data, 2020 terminal runsize, and management objectives for chum salmon in the Grays Harbor watershed, Agency staff determined that there is sufficient harvestable fish available to not require the release of chum salmon in freshwater recreational fisheries during the months of November and December. This change will be reflected in the upcoming filing of the proposed 2020 Grays Harbor salmon fishery season.

As your letter states the forecasted terminal runsize of chum for Grays Harbor is 32,649 fish but it is important to note that the forecast for natural coho is 47,108 fish. As was discussed during public and advisory group meetings during the 2020 North of Falcon (NOF), the harvest of natural origin coho was constraining with regard to sharing between treaty and non-treaty fishers in order to comply with federal court orders. Given the forecasted abundance of natural origin coho in comparison to chum salmon, your proposal to increase the bag limit of chum would lead to additional encounters of natural origin coho. Cuts to season length or closure of tributary level systems within Grays Harbor would have to be made in order to make your proposal impact neutral to natural origin coho.

This is a good example of the advisory group process functioning in the manner that was envisioned during its creation. The North of Falcon process is fast paced and chaotic and it is very valuable to the Agency to have additional “sets of eyes” on the fishery models and proposals to help inform staff of issues that might have “fallen thru the cracks”. Thank you for your input and continued dedication to the resource and angling public.

Sincerely,


Ron Warren
Fish Policy Director

cc: Fish and Wildlife Commission
Kelly Susewind
Kelly Cunningham
Chad Herring
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 07:33 AM

I don't have the numbers, as I wasn't regularly in rec planning, but what is important is the actual catch per angler. At least in the 80s, the actual catch per angler on any given day, across the fleet, was fairly low. Raising the limit only marginally increased actual dead fish in the boat as few anglers caught additional fish.

In my own experience, I know that if I wanted to retain chum, the limit mattered as there were lots that I could land. But my experience with riverine coho and chinook are that if I got one, it was a good day.

Maybe now there are fewer total anglers but those out there are better so that changing bag limits does significantly alter harvest.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 07:40 AM

Dave, if I am not mistaken, the bag limit will be 1 adult salmon (coho or chum)/day from Oct. 1-Dec 31 on the Satsop and Wynooche.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 08:34 AM

99 your correct. The shutdown window is Aug 15 to Oct. 1. Without getting into the weeds trying walk things out 2 Chum would come down mostly on the Nooch and Satsop. Those additional impacts on natural Coho would get us to close to escapement on natural Coho then transfer into the big picture on the basin. Kinda like a cascade effect.

All should keep in mind that PFMC and the Nation utilize Grays Harbor aggregate. The state breaks out not just Hump & Chehalis but by tributary leaving the inriver fisher most impacted by conservation and sharing standards.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 10:19 AM

Thanks Dave. I would guess that a lot of guys will favor one coho over one chum. Better eating quality for one thing. Most guys will wade through the chum to get a coho.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 10:48 AM

99 for the purpose of thinking through things lets try a Q&I. If you have 2 fish bag of which only one can be Coho, how many would fish on after getting a Coho? How many would turn loose a Coho to get 2 Chum? Looking to CM's post, what would the Coho encounter rate on natural Coho increase with 2 fish bag with Chum? How is this different than C&R on Chinook, bay and inriver? I could go on but I think the point is made. Within the numbers game in the model are assumptions built in on historical facts and staff perceptions. That WDFW uses more than one standard is true. Ocean, bay, and inriver mortalities are viewed differently as it just depends on who, where, and which staffer addresses the issue. We all have our views based on our experiences but in modeling assumptions perception has a tendency to be reguarded as reality.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 12:16 PM

Good post Dave. I think the answer to some of your questions is it would depend on the fisherman. Some guys prefer chum and some prefer coho. Personally, I am not that fond of chum. They are real fighters but I would rather keep one coho over two chum but that is just me. I wouldn't have a problem catching one coho and going home and not fishing on. But again that is just me.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 12:44 PM

That's where season setting gets so complex. When you can have a variety of species, which do you keep regardless of the paper limit. In my case, when waterfowl hunting I stop at one or two geese and maybe a duck or two. Don't need more. My salmon fishing is primarily C&R, so it really doesn't matter what the limit is. It would probably be very helpful if WDFW did a few years of intensive creel census on rivers, looking at what was kept, what was released, and what was targeted.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 01:50 PM

CM, good point. I remember a few years ago I fished the Satsop quite regularly and was checked quite a few times by a fish checker. Since then, I haven't seen one. It seemed to be only for one year that they did it.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 07:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
Good post Dave. I think the answer to some of your questions is it would depend on the fisherman. Some guys prefer chum and some prefer coho. Personally, I am not that fond of chum. They are real fighters but I would rather keep one coho over two chum but that is just me. I wouldn't have a problem catching one coho and going home and not fishing on. But again that is just me.



I guess my question would be why would anyone choose a chum (Dog) over a chrome Coho or Chinook as part of any limit, unless that's all your allowed to keep? When I fished the Satsop, and that's been a long time, we used to find holes where they were not to avoid them. Great fight but not the best table fare. Some say they smoke great, but nothing compared to Coho or Chinook. Was always best to the have 1st push of fish on the Satsop be Kings and Coho and be done with the take before the Chum showed up. And then wait until they were gone for the "B" run.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 07:51 PM

The only chum I thought were really good were the Nisqually chum, being such a late run (Dec., Jan) poss. made them a firmer fish. Learned to smoke fish using that run of chum, but always kept the firmest for baking. Now that run is shot.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/20 09:13 PM

Right on bob. Those were the best chum around and their flesh had a redder color. Now the run is terrible. I agree with RnG. In the Chehalis system I always try to get as many coho as I can before and after the height of the chum run. Much better table fare. I have eaten high seas bright chum in Alaska and they were somewhat better. I was on board a ship up there one time and the cook was a Portuguese fellow. We caught some chum and he baked one in some kind of Portuguese sauce and it was pretty good. I never got the recipe.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/01/20 07:47 AM


When I was stationed in Korea, 1959-60, went to the fish market in Inchon, the sea food that was being sold would make many puke.

Depends how hungry you are, Chum would look good compared to buckets of suckers, squaw fish from both the Wynoochee and the Chehalis, that I've watch being caught.

Years ago, I did the smoke chum bit....not my "cup of tea", so most chum are released by me.....unless I'm short of eggs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/06/20 06:01 PM


GH folks, Gillie is home after being on the ventilator and in rehab. Word I got was it is slow going and the better news is he is still going!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/08/20 05:09 PM

This just came out from WDFW and this area is in Rochester area ( sorta ) and I thought some of you folks might find it interesting. Some of you anyway.


WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia, WA 98501
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

May 8, 2020
Contact: Darric Lowery, Scatter Creek Wildlife Area Manager, 360-701-5145

WDFW seeks public input on management plan for Scatter Creek Wildlife Area

OLYMPIA &#150; The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) wants to hear from the community on a draft management plan for the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area located in Thurston and Grays Harbor counties. Public input is welcome through June 8. 

"We greatly appreciate and value input from neighbors, partners, and visitors," said Darric Lowery, wildlife area manager for WDFW. "Your feedback helps us craft a more relevant and attainable plan so we can make WDFW-managed lands better for both wildlife, and the community."

Consisting of six separate units, the wildlife area covers about 3,601 acres and is popular for hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, horseback riding, and hunting dog training.

The wildlife area encompasses portions of unique South Puget Sound prairies and oak woodlands, as well as aquatic, forest, and wetland habitats that support a variety of wildlife species, including the federally endangered Taylor's checkerspot butterfly and the threatened Mazama pocket gopher.

A local citizen advisory group helped develop the draft management plan, which will guide how the department makes operations and budgeting decisions on the wildlife area for the next 10 years.

The draft management plan is undergoing a 30-day State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) public comment period and is available on WDFW's website under "Management Planning" at https://wdfw.wa.gov/places-to-go/wildlife-areas/scatter-creek-wildlife-area.

WDFW staff had to cancel plans for a public meeting due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but incorporated some community input into the draft plan from a public meeting held in March 2019.

People can provide feedback on the draft plan on WDFW's website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/licenses/environmental/sepa/open-comments or by mail to Lisa Wood, SEPA/NEPA Coordinator, WDFW Habitat Program, Protection Division, P.O. Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504.

WDFW is the primary state agency tasked with preserving, protecting, and perpetuating fish, wildlife, and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing and hunting opportunities.

 

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/26/20 10:11 AM

Some have had concerns that the two pole endorsement was being eliminated for the Chehalis. It is not and the dates you can use two rods is August 1 through Dec 31. This link is to the document that kinda started the dust up and https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/wsr_20-10-115_0.pdf at pages OTS-2239.2 look for Chehalis #18.

I contacted Mike and he got right back with the following. Hope this calms things down.

Thanks for the phone conversation this morning. Glad we were able to figure out the two pole issue was a house cleaning issue and that two poles can still be used in the lower Chehalis. Two pole language was removed from WAC 220-312-020 because it is in the two pole endorsement WAC 220-220-160. Thanks also for sharing the information with those that are concerned.

Mike.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/29/20 06:46 AM

Couple of folks asked if I knew how Gill was doing with his virus battle. Best I know is he is still recovering and as person said
Quote:
one tough SOB
so hopefully he will be back fishing soon.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/20 07:00 PM

Well it is starting and it will be interesting to see play out. I am sure of one thing, the primary target for cuts will not be the concrete palace in Olympia.


WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia, WA 98501
https://wdfw.wa.gov

July 28, 2020

Contact: Commission office, 360-902-2267, commission@dfw.wa.gov
Commission to consider budget cuts, legislative priorities, and Columbia River Salmon Policy during July 31 meeting
OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will provide direction on $31 million in proposed Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) budget cuts and agency legislative requests for the 2021 state legislative session during its July 30 to Aug. 1 on-line meeting.

The Commission will begin with wildlife and fish committee meetings at 10:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Thursday, July 30, to discuss target shooting rules and CARES Act fisheries assistance, as well as hatchery policy language, non-native gamefish and fisheries policy, and an update on the Willapa Bay comprehensive review.

During the regular meeting starting at 8:30 a.m. on July 31, the Commission will consider an array of $30.8 million in budget cuts proposed for the 2021-23 biennium as the department submit reduction ideas to the Governor’s Office to prepare for an anticipated $9 billion shortfall in state revenue. In addition to the proposed budget reductions, the Commission will also discuss legislative priorities and new budget proposals as the department prepares for the 2021 Legislative Session. The Commission is planning to make final decisions regarding the budget reductions at their Aug. 21 commission meeting.

The Commission will also hear public comment on proposed amendments to the Washington Administrative Code pertaining to firearms and target practicing and the status of Mazama Pocket Gopher recovery. The Commission will also hear an update on public comments and schedule final action on the Columbia River Basin Salmon Management Policy C-3620.

On Saturday, Aug. 1, the Commission will be briefed on proposed hunting contest rule changes and the current scope and timeline to address cougar safety issues. Staff will also brief commissioners on proposed draft policy language revisions for Hatchery Policy C-3619.
The Commission will take open public comment Friday starting at 9 a.m. and Saturday at 8 a.m. To support COVID-19 social distancing guidelines, the meeting will be available to the public through webinar or conference call. For more information and to view an agenda, call 360-902-2267 or visit wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings. The meeting will be recorded and posted online.

The Commission is a citizen panel appointed by the governor that sets policy for the WDFW. WDFW is the primary state agency tasked with preserving, protecting, and perpetuating fish and wildlife and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing and hunting opportunities.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see https://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/requests-accommodation.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/20 10:17 AM

Since the single largest budget line item is salmon hatcheries, maybe I'll make my pitch again that the Department conduct a hatchery by hatchery audit that compares each hatchery's cost relative to its contribution to catches by WA recreational salmon anglers. Most of the $87 million or so spent on hatcheries each budget cycle raises hatchery salmon to be caught in BC, AK, and WA commercial and treaty fisheries. Seems like a budget crisis would be a good time to choose to spend money on the hatcheries that return the biggest bang for buck to the constituents who pay the taxes and buy the licenses that keep the doors open and the lights on in the concrete palace known as the NRB.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/20 10:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Since the single largest budget line item is salmon hatcheries, maybe I'll make my pitch again that the Department conduct a hatchery by hatchery audit that compares each hatchery's cost relative to its contribution to catches by WA recreational salmon anglers. Most of the $87 million or so spent on hatcheries each budget cycle raises hatchery salmon to be caught in BC, AK, and WA commercial and treaty fisheries. Seems like a budget crisis would be a good time to choose to spend money on the hatcheries that return the biggest bang for buck to the constituents who pay the taxes and buy the licenses that keep the doors open and the lights on in the concrete palace known as the NRB.


+ berzillions.

Cut every program that mostly feeds someone outside of the State, maybe that will bring Alaska to the table. Or not. Either way, we'll save money and not really lose any fish.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. They'll keep sending salmon to Alaska and cut steelhead hatchery funding.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/29/20 11:23 AM


I found the proposals and started a budget thread with a link to the proposal presentation. Should have done that first but had not found the document until a bit ago.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/17/20 01:56 PM

The Willapa Policy review still drags on and a virtual meeting is the 18th. This is the link to the Willapa Policy presentation for the public virtual meeting the 18th.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/wbpolicyreviewpresentation08182020.pdf

willapa-bay-policy-review is a link so you can participate_

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/willapa-bay-policy-review


This link is to the staff DRAFT: Comprehensive Evaluation of the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy C-3622, 2015-2018 such as it is.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02157

Simply put the draft review is a lot of things including smoke and mirrors. To be blunt WDFW has made such a mess out of things that I doubt anyone could sort it out.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/17/20 03:13 PM

Maybe asymptomatic Covid has significant effects on some human systems, like brains.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/17/20 06:34 PM


This is a response to the press release that a Willapa Adviser sent to other Advisers and staff. Frankly folks I think comments to staff are a waste of your time and a better use of your time would be to direct your comments directly to the Commission.

From a Willapa Adviser:
After due consideration, I will not be participating in the virtual public meeting tomorrow night. I have decided my time would be better spent monitoring a batch of beef jerky in my smoker and considering the contents of the comments that I intend to provide in short order directly to the members of the Commission.

I do raise a point of contention with the press release language shown below. Ron Warren is quoted saying this policy review draft was "Developed with guidance from our Willapa Bay Salmon Advisory Group". As an Advisor who attended every meeting held, I don't remember the staff lead ever asking for or receiving guidance from the Advisors or other members of the public. To the contrary, when one Advisor sought to provide comments on the now infamous "white" paper that staff had released unforseen by the Advisors, he was publicly chastised and told his lack of education disqualified him from providing comments. It is important to note that this Advisor graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy with a degree in oceanography and when combined with his career in the nuclear industry creates a resume that I believe would top any of the WDFW staff present. At that point the process ended and all activity went on behind closed doors and if any "guidance" was provided by Advisors the public was not aware such had occurred. The draft report recently released is simply an "in-house work product" that is the sole responsibility of WDFW.

I raise this point, not to create conflict, but rather to insure that no one reading the press release would envision that I approved of the review process utilized by the Department and more importantly, that I had participated in the drafting of this review document in any fashion. I therefore ask that this communication be placed into the record of these proceedings.

On a side bar, the draft created is 229 pages. By comparison, the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President Kennedy was 366 pages. Besides length, the other similarity between these two documents is the controversy that will surely follow.

Respectfully,
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/18/20 11:11 AM

Nice to see someone shed actual light on the process.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/19/20 08:39 PM

Well said by the Willapa Advisor quoted above. Sad, but well said.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/19/20 08:55 PM


I was told the virtual thing had three gillnetters and a couple of others. Best go right at the Commission as you can communicate with a stump with greater clarity than staff. That is a sad statement as I have been around the agency in one manner or another for 40 years.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/20/20 07:26 AM

They growing better stumps now???
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/20/20 06:42 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH


QIN does NOT acknowledge/accept that GH chinook stocks should be segregated as separate Hump stock and Chehalis stock.... simply that they are an aggregate GH chinook stock. Nor do they acknowledge/accept that weak stocks with no harvestable surplus should be managed with a 10% impact cap. These are the most basic conservation-minded principles built into the GH Advisory's vision of a responsibly-managed salmon fishery in Gray Harbor.

[/b][/i]


Not to get in a pissing match with my favorite Eye Doctor and fishing friend BUT IT WAS WDFW, Tim Flint, that changed the way, from Aggregate to the current Chehalis/Humptulips segregated method of "dividing up the Grays Harbor Chinook and Coho".......Chum are still figured in the Aggregate by both WDFW and the QIN.

WDFW just "made the change" without telling the QIN, IMO this has caused hard feeling for about 20 years........

I suggest that NOF go back to the days of Aggregate handling of not just Chum but also Chinook and Coho.

The tribes are now the "big boys in the State", WDFW abused their authority and now we are left without ability for meetings to be open to the public and two different plans for how to divide the available fish in Grays Harbor.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/20/20 09:07 PM

If you want conservation, and maximum production from wild stocks, you manage each stock separately. Otherwise, aggregate and fish away.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/21/20 06:36 AM

This is the thing that is unusual. The QIN, Feds ( NOAA / PFMC all ) manage Grays Harbor to the aggregate. Only WDFW splits off the Hump and the separation was not for conservation but rather to enable a Rec bay fishery that was supposed to only pick what is left of the states share after other traditional fisheries. Didn't work out that way over the years.

DW let us not forget good old Tony in the mix as he was right there with ole Timmy!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/21/20 07:38 AM

Just because QIN and the Feds gp down a trail doesn't mean it's the right one. And, even if WDFW's reason for doing separation was not conservation that managing stocks separately is better than in aggregate. But, hell, what do I know.

Climate Change and all the stuff happening with the food supply in the ocean will solve the problem soon enough.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/21/20 08:16 AM


NOF, WDFW and QIN, need to be working with the same data. I am not a member of WDFW Grays Harbor task force which has set meetings to work on fisheries, both sport and NT commercial BUT I do go to most meetings and have for about 12 years. I have attended and given my 3' presentations to the Commission, mostly on the Wynoochee Mitigation monies getting spent.....finally there might be something done.....only took about 26 years to get this done.

Grays Harbor Management Plan is one of the best plans modeled to set Salmon seasons on the Chehalis and Humptulips in Washington State below is the web address:


https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/policies/grays-harbor-basin-salmon-management
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/21/20 08:55 AM

The thing is that the separation was about harvest to be sure and the future of rec opportunity. As this unfolded in the 90's it was contentious with many groups within the Chehalis Basin but it was one particular exchange that I remember best. A gentlemen from Centralia was particularly adamant that this would result in the total loss of inland rec harvest. The then deputy director was totally exasperated and fired right back with this, " we are going to loose Puget Sound rec opportunity and we need someplace for those people to go" All these years later one thing stands out, everybody ended up being right. I do not think anyone involved believed WDFW could screw it up to the degree they have.

DW's comment is correct as the GH policy has worked far better than expected and the QIN have stayed mostly to the conservative side with harvest. Compared with Willapa where WDFW managed to devastate both rec & commercial fisheries I would say despite its short comings the GHMP works or the Chehalis Basin would resemble the shambles we see in Willapa.

Little edit: Loose rec fisheries in PS was in the context of fisheries that existed in the late 80's into the early 90's.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/21/20 10:40 AM

Well, now the recs can go to AK and BC, or Montana and Wyoming, as the opportunity in more than PS is gone.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/20 02:20 PM

Last I checked, the same leadership structure that manages WB also does for GH? Based on the WB experience, the only hope is that somebody can stop WDFW from working its angling opportunity elimination superpower. Its amazing to me that WDFW has not functionally eliminated the GH fishery already. The QIN must be a moderating influence on them.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/20 04:43 PM

The very big difference is that in WB the Agency answers to no "outside" folks. No ESA, no Tribes. WB is how WDFW believes anadromous fish stocks should be managed, how rec and commercial should be balanced, how hatcheries should be operated, and so on. GH has QIN. Guess the question to ask is whether you believe (from your perspective) which bay is better managed for your interests. If it happens to be GH, thank the QINs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/20 04:56 PM

Hell CM it was TP for TU that went to QIN who forced WDFW to fully open the Chehalis for Rec fishers. Speaking of no other entity, the Nation has been a real asset in Grays Harbor or god knows what we would have left. They ain't perfect to be sure ( sturgeon comes to mind ) but compared to WDFW they are angels.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/20 05:55 PM

Well, yeah. WB is the best they can do? Wonder what would happen if some recs, say GH, went to QIN before NOF and worked with them instead of WDFW. Why not go to the boss, anyway?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/20 07:26 PM


If you recall years back at Bristol several groups said just that, the sucking sound damn near created a vacuum in that room!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/20 10:10 AM

Time to actually do it. They are kinda useless.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/20 01:08 PM

Working with some Tribes, especially terminal fishing tribes, could create an interesting NOF. Kind of a three-cornered negotiation. The State and their stakeholders who want everything in the Ocean/Straits, the extreme terminal Tribes and freshwater recs who want river fisheries, and the rest. From a conservation perspective of fishing on known stocks (not mixed), a re-organizing of the negotiation "teams" could get interesting.

I don't know how the Tribes would react if, within their ranks, the mixed stock and terminal tribes were (publicly) at odds. But, with the need to leave more fish out there for whales, the need to get more fish to the rivers, it might be a way out of the morass.
Posted by: Geoduck

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/20 03:42 PM

Clearly GH is the better managed system, not that it is a ringing endorsement of managment.

I guess the difference is the QIN involvement in GH and the fact that GH has actual chinook habitat in the basin.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/20 07:06 PM

I thought I would share this with folks frankly because while this is about the Columbia it is also about the disregard of Commission decisions by staff. For the purpose transparency Tim is my brother and helped me with salmon restoration in the Satsop for years and eventually became a Willapa Adviser and advocate for natural salmon populations.

Formatting is bit off guys but it was a PDF C&P which is a bit of a bitch to post up.



Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855
thfwa.org

August 25, 2020 via: email in PDF format
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98504

Re: Columbia River Basin Salmon Management Policy

Dear Commissioners:

The Advocacy believes it appropriate to look back in time to determine what happened to the fish in the Columbia when considering the best path forward. On Dec. 9, 1908 President Teddy
Roosevelt delivered his annual address to Congress and advocated removing the management of the Columbia back to the federal level. He explained his rationale with the following:

The salmon fisheries of the Columbia River are now but a fraction of what they were twenty-five years ago, and what they would be now if the United States Government had taken complete charge of them by intervening between Oregon and Washington. During these twenty-five years the fishermen of each State have naturally tried to take all they could get, and the two legislatures have never been able to agree on joint action of any kind adequate in degree for the protection of the fisheries. At the moment the fishing on the Oregon side is practically closed, while there is no limit on the Washington side of any kind, and no one can tell what the courts will decide as to the very statutes under which this action and non-action result. Meanwhile very few salmon reach the spawning grounds, and probably four years hence the fisheries will amount to nothing; and this comes from a struggle between the associated, or gill-net, fishermen on the one hand, and the owners of the fishing wheels up the river.

At the time he spoke, no dams existed in the Columbia Basin. Aberdeen was the largest city in the state with a population around 40,000. Large portions of the state contained vast old growth
forests. Recreational fishing was nearly non-existant and the excessive harvest came exclusively from a commercial industry revolving around canneries that could ship the harvest out of the
region via newly completed rail roads. Since the fishers supplying the canneries reimbursed the public nearly zero for the fish they landed, canned springer Chinook was selling in New York as a “poor man’s protein” at half the price of canned chicken. To keep this price advantage, the commercial fishers turned to the state to produce fish out of hatcheries as a means to continue the public subsidy (free fish) the industry was reliant upon.

Fast forward. The general public poured hundreds of millions of dollars into hatchery production. WDFW encourage recreational fishing as a means to increase funding for the Department.
At the same time, those citizens who lived up stream watched as the flow of fish arriving inland declined year after year. Recreational license holders who fished locally found themselves relying upon traveling down to the lower stretches to catch salmon. Those who didn’t fish and received their value from experiencing the salmon spawning near their home witnessed stream after stream go barren.
Then we enter the time period after the passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Natural spawning salmon and steelhead were granted ESA protection that required the rebuilding of the natural spawners. Hundreds of millions in tax dollars were brought to bear. Citizens living upstream were additionally severely impacted financially by the loss of timber harvest, irrigation capacity, subdivision opportunities, high cost sewage treatment improvements, etc. The result is those living upstream were being required to pay billions out of their pockets and businesses to supposedly restore the salmon. WDFW focused its attention on protected fishing opportunities on the open ocean to just inside the bars as little if any recovery occurred. To our knowledge, every stock that went on the ESA endangered species list remained on the list.

The Chinook River Basin Salmon Management Plan was passed in 2013 after an intense and controversial public debate over salmon management in the Columbia. At that time, many thought a means forward to recovery with fairness to all would be the outcome. Instead, turnover of members of the Commission stopped implementation and today the Policy is once again fueling public controversy over yet another proposal to increase commercial gillnet opportunities in the lower Columbia.

One of the key components of the Policy was a “buy back” provision wherein public funds would be used to purchase Columbia/Willapa and Columbia/Grays Harbor Commercial Gillnet licenses. The Department delayed development of a program for years. When Commissioner(s) finally grew impatient, the Department was directed to deliver a draft program during the next meeting of the Commission.

Advocacy President Tim Hamilton had researched previous buy back programs that followed the Boldt decision. He offered to share with the Department his research and knowledge of small business principals attained during his 35 year long career as the Executive Director of a statewide trade association of small business interests (motor fuel marketers). The Department accepted and he met in Olympia with management. It was clear to the Advocacy that after all these years the Department had not invested any significant effort into producing a plan for consideration by the Commission. Surprised by this, Mr. Hamilton mentioned the language in the Policy on a buy back provision and requests for production during the last
Commission meeting as the reason for his offer. WDFW Region 5 head Ron Roller responded with “Those gillnets aren’t going anywhere”. Hamilton responded with “But the Policy says.....”. He came back again with “Those gillnets aren’t going anywhere.”

The Advocacy came away from the meeting convinced the Department management had not in the past, and would unlikely in the future feel duty bound to honor a Policy passed by the Commission in concert with the public. Same goes for a request for work product from a Commisioner - Page 2, Columbia River Policy Page 3, Columbia River Policy unless the request provides an opportunity for the Department to promote an action item it
desires without disclosing it’s role to the public. As President Roosevelt stated, “ ..... the two legislatures have never been able to agree on joint action of any kind adequate in degree for the protection of the fisheries.” Recognizing the political polarization that was adversely effecting the resources, the citizens of Washington likewise decided intervention was required. In 1994, legislative management was replaced by a nine member Fish & Wildlife Commission. Salaries were set at a minuscule level to insure applicants were motivated by a desire to serve the people rather than an opportunity to receive personal remuneration. While all nine were expected to serve the interests of all the citizens, the state
was divided regionally to insure regional fairness.

The recent actions to modify the Policy by increasing commercial harvest is telling when considering whether the formation of a Commission actually rose to expectations of the supporters of the ballot measure. While one can accept certain members of the Commission may be sympathetic to the gillnet license holders, the Commission formation was designed to insure fairness for all the citizens not just the few who have political support. Since over 90% of the state’s citizens do not fish with either a net or a pole, which of you today will stand up for their rights? Are the people who reside in the Columbia Basin not entitled to see recovery and witness spawning salmon in their local streams? Is it fair to those who recreationally fish that they be required to drive to the coast? Is it fair to ask the taxpayers to continue to provide millions in subsidies that deliveries the equivalent of a typical monthly truck payment to the 100 or so to holder’s of a commercial gillnet license? Is it appropriate that these license holders pay less for the fish they catch than the public spends to have images of salmon spray painted on storm water drain lids?
Is it not understandable why so many who have dealt with the Department over the years believe WDFW is a walking talking poster child for the political slogan “Drain the swamp?”

The unfair treatment of the citizens living upstream is not isolated to just the Columbia Basin. The Chehalis River is the second largest stream in the state and once again, the harvest is set for the benefit of commercial interests on the ocean and lower stretches of the river. Just like in the Columbia, many of those residing upstream feel they are being treated like share-croppers rather than stakeholders.
One example of the Department’s attitude toward those who live upstream came across in a phone call over a decade ago between former WDFW Director Phil Anderson and later to become Advocacy Member Ron Schweitzer. A long time recreational fisher who dedicated a significant effort to help locals improve and restore fish runs in the Chehalis Basin, Ron called Anderson to explain he was on the water today and could not find any salmon in the river. Anderson’s response was telling. He advised Ron that if he wanted to catch a salmon he needed to go out on a charter boat out of Westport. Ron responded by reminding Mr. Anderson of his historical financial interests in charter boats and the call abruptly ended.

Returning back to the Columbia, retirees of WDFW shared a similar experience when they expressed a concern that an action proposed by the Department could adversely effect trout fishing Page 4, Columbia River Policy in streams that was important culturally and economically to those who live in the Basin. They state the response from upper management that locals who wanted to fish could drive down and fish for salmon at Buoy 10 in the mouth of the Columbia.
The members of the Advocacy request each member of the Commission to ask themselves who would benefit if the latest effort to increase commercial harvest in the lower Columbia is successful?
How much could each gillnet license holder expect to receive in the pocket book? Is a vote in favor of the proposal in the best interest of the taxpayers across the state? Is passage an action that a reasonable person could view as respectful to those who reside in the Columbia Basin? How would such a move improve the chances of restoring salmon runs and getting Columbia stocks off the ESA list?

In the commentary prior to the vote, we hope each Commissioner will share his/her on these with the public. You might also take the opportunity to answer the question we get asked all time.
“Does the Commissioners work for the Director of WDFW or does the Director work for the Commission?”

Recognizing the responsibilities of the Commission is especially crucial at this point. The Advocacy fully understands the large and complex task facing members of the Commission. We recognize
that the statue creating the Commission provided the ability to delegate powers down to the Director. However, the statute does not relieve the Commission from its responsibilities upon delegation and further more, the Department would simply ignore it anyway. Whether we like it or not, “The buck stops” on each of your’s desk and the Commission is responsible for oversight of the Department and its staff.

In closing, the three of us live in Grays Harbor. If the Advocacy members were to take a position in favor of such a measure in the Chehalis River, we would expect our neighbors and friends that found out about it would demand to see “For Sale Signs in our front yards.” Our only way out would be if they didn’t know what had been done to them or couldn’t figure out who did it to them. Course, that protection would dissipate every morning when we looked into the mirror to brush our teeth as we would know it even if the public didn’t.

For whatever it’s worth.

Tim Hamilton President
Art Holman Vice-President
Ron Schweitzer Secretary/Treasurer
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/20 11:38 AM


This is a heads up for those of you that run the tidal water stretch below South Monte. Mid channel at the North end of Sand island we have a really ugly dead head. It only shows about half way on the outgoing to low tide and it does not show above half tide to high tide. Nice little jewel that is barely visible much of the time so be aware and track wide to the bank away from the island.

It must be solid as I watched a boat hit it that was bounced up and about two feet sideways. Nobody was hurt but that boat has got to have one he-- of a dent in it. Saving grace was they were not going that fast out for a ride and everybody was seated.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/20 01:14 PM

I have been told that Bob Lake has passed. For those who did not know Bob he was a Grays Harbor and Willapa gillnetter to the core. Having been on the opposing side of issues from Bob many times I can say with certainty that his passion for fish issues was undeniable. He believed in his positions and was an tenacious advocate for causes he believed in. In the world we live in today that is something that is often lacking in many on all sides of fishing issues but not Bob. So god speed Bob, I think you did right by your beliefs and those you had the honor to represent.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/20 01:28 PM

Thanks for the news. I first met and worked with Bob when we did one of the very first carcass distribution projects in the state.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/20 07:52 AM

I copied this from my post on the Satsop River.....affects the Chehalis from Satsop to Montesano boat launch...

9/10/2020

Thought I'd give a short report on the Chehalis below the Satsop. Many know I like to fish Coho jacks, have done so in the Chehalis River for a looooong time.

This year, because of low water conditions, I've been running up-river from the Montesano boat launch. There is a major river change about 1/4 mile up river from the launch, right across from the mill, he main river has cut though, when you get pass the "cut" stay to your right.

Not a lot of change up to the pump houses, just a few trees hung up in the river. If you are running "low water", then conditions change...gravel bars have gotten larger .

Major change is in a area called Tidwells, down river from the Satsop, I've fished this area for 40+ years.....lots of "stuff" got pushed down from the Satsop last winter.....logs where there were no logs and the gravel bar build up "on the North side of the river is major.

I've not been from Fuller Bridge down to Tidwells, so I can't speak to that area but it would be a challenge going down the "skinny water", below Tidwells, at this time....in a jet boat.

Be safe both on the water and personal life.....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/20 02:24 PM


Well this is interesting! Put the gillnetters in U and blew the model apart!

Morning Willapa Bay Advisors,
Just wanted to give everyone a quick update on commercial fisheries in Willapa Bay. Regional staff are currently working on this week’s fishery update and hope to have that out to everyone later today. Commercial fisheries began in the bay on Tuesday in commercial catch area 2U. Effort was consistent with what we have historically seen in tangle net fisheries in recent years. Both Chinook and coho encounters were higher than predicted preseason. Yesterday, commercial catch area 2N was open utilizing tangle net gear. As mentioned above, staff are still working through the data but what we do know as of this morning is that effort was low, and catch was also low. So, what does this mean and where do we stand.

After the two combined days of commercial fishing the estimate of natural origin Chinook impacts stands at 100 fish. This would represent a 400% increase relative to the weekly preseason prediction of 25 fish and is 69% of the total allowable impacts (144 fish) for the season in order to achieve the 14% impact rate cap on natural origin Willapa River and Naselle River Chinook management objective. The estimated catch of natural origin coho was 180 fish. This is 158% of the preseason prediction for the week of 114 natural origin coho harvested.

Based on preseason predictions and uncertainty around runsize updates in-season, a modification of the commercial fishery is necessary to help ensure that conservation objectives for Chinook and coho are met. Commercial fisheries planned for Friday in commercial catch area 2T and the opener on Monday the 14th in commercial catch area 2T, 2U, 2N, and 2M will also be closed. The next scheduled commercial fishery is scheduled for Thursday, September 17. This fishery was planned preseason to utilize small mesh gill net but will be modified to a tangle net fishery. As mentioned above the weekly fishery update will include more detailed information relative to fisheries performance and will be sent out later today.
Thanks,

Chad Herring
Anadromous Resource Policy Analyst
Montesano Regional Headquarters
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/20 06:53 PM


Following up with this from Barbara. To boil this down to bare bones. The run is twice or three times forecast, the run is early not by calendar but by % arriving by week ( doubt the first second is likely ) or Chad could not manage a to make it to the toilet without a map that glows in the dark. Frankly I am running with the last one.


Hi Everyone,
This email is to provide you a weekly in-season update on the Willapa Bay marine area 2.1 recreational fishery from August 31 – September 6, 2020 (management week 36) as well as other fishery related information currently happening in Willapa Bay.

Recreational Marine Fishery
Since our last update, we had a good week of fishing in Willapa Bay but slightly down from the previous week in terms of effort. Considering last week included the Labor Day holiday, the level of effort was expected. The best day of fishing was Saturday, September 5, for both effort and catch. Overall, hatchery Chinook catch declined by 59% compared to the previous week but coho catch increased over 200% from the previous week. The number of unmarked Chinook released also declined for the week. The tides were not the best during this management week as there was only one high tide and it was in the afternoon with warm weather. It was also a larger tidal exchange than what is preferred for fishing in Willapa Bay. Effort is likely to decline even more this week and through the weekend.
(See attachment; 2020 WB Marine Area Recreational Data & Catch Estimate Summary Draft week 36 09.10.2020.pdf).

The boat survey work we have been conducting since August 1 is still showing 96.3% of the boats fishing this year in the Willapa Bay marine area 2.1 are exiting the fishery either in Tokeland or South Bend. There is no change in this rate compared to last week. These are the locations where we have staff dockside monitoring four days a week.

Hatchery Chinook Rack Returns
Naselle Hatchery:
We had an influx of Chinook into the attraction channel over the last few days. To-date, there are a total of 604 hatchery Chinook (576 adults and 28 jacks) that have volunteered into the attraction channel and recruited into the hatchery. Of those, 32 were natural Chinook fish. All natural fish were passed upstream above the weir. We have had 41 hatchery Chinook die since recruiting into the hatchery. None of the mortalities were natural Chinook. We will begin Chinook spawning at the hatcheries probably after next week. (See attachment; Naselle Hatchery Adult CHK Summary 09.10.2020.pdf).

Nemah Hatchery:
To-date, no Chinook have recruited into the hatchery.

Spawning Ground Surveys
We have been conducting weekly index surveys in the Nemah and Naselle rivers since the beginning of August. We have several hundred Chinook staging in the Naselle River below the weir but to-date have not found any redds. We have found our first Chinook redd of the season in the Nemah River this week. Lower South Fork Willapa River has Chinook in the river but at this point they are just staging in deep pools.

Commercial Fishery
The commercial fishery started fishing this week. There was one day scheduled Tuesday, Sept. 8 in area 2U and one day scheduled yesterday, Sept. 9 in area 2N. Both days of fishing required the use of tangle net gear. Effort for the first day in 2U was consistent with what we have historically seen in tangle net fisheries in recent years. However, the effort in the 2N fishery was below expectations. Chinook and coho encounters were much higher than predicted preseason. After two days of fishing, the estimate of natural origin Chinook impacts is 100 fish. The total allowable natural origin Chinook impacts for the season is 144 fish. The estimated catch of natural origin coho was 180 fish . This is 158% of the 114 natural origin coho predicted for the week. (See attachment: 2020 WB impacts by area total catch summary Draft week 37 09.10.2020(2).pdf)

Based on the preseason predictions and uncertainty around runsize updates in-season, a modification of the commercial fishery is necessary to help ensure that conservation objectives for Chinook and coho are met. The commercial fishery planned for tomorrow in area 2T and the opener scheduled Monday, Sept 14, in commercial catch areas 2N, 2M, 2U, and 2T will be closed via emergency regulation. The next scheduled fishing day is Thursday, Sept 17 and this fishery was planned preseason to utilize small mesh gillnet gear. However, a change will be made via emergency regulation for this opener modifying the small mesh gear to a tangle net fishery instead. We will evaluate all of the data after next Thursday to determine where we stand and will continue to monitor the fishery each day it is open.

As always, in-season data is preliminary and subject to change. This email and any attachments will be posted to our website using the link provided below for the Willapa Bay Marine Area 2.1 Recreational Creel Monitoring.

If you have any comments or questions regarding any of the information provided in these emails, please submit your comments to WillapaBay@dfw.wa.gov.

Additionally, if you know of anyone who might be interested in receiving these weekly in-season updates or any other information we may send out regarding Willapa Bay fisheries, please forward this email and have them reply stating they would like to be added to our email distribution list.

Thank you and Happy Fishing!
Barbara McClellan
Willapa Bay Fisheries Management
WDFW Region 6 Montesano
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/20 02:19 PM

Well folks I thought I would share something with you all. Chehalis Jack fishing early on was OK to good and not many adults. Then this somewhere around the 9th or 10th I encountered substantial numbers of adults moving through tidewater, mostly Coho and a lot of jacks. So being the fishing wizard I am ( not ) I just pulled up stakes and headed back upstream and plowed right into this. From Preachers to somewhere near Friends Landing the river was fish everywhere, jumping. From the 10th to today the river has been a zoo with fish packed into the river. Meanwhile Jack fishing in the skinny water above South Monte went off the charts but still not many adults.

The first couple of days it was mostly Coho ( with just a huge number of jacks ) then the mix added Chinook. The last two days it seems like more Chinook piled in as I simply had encounters go off the map. Today I am around the house and fewer fish jumping but a bunch of Chinook in numbers I have not seen for a bit. I was simply fishing off the dock and hooked several and strangest of all would have two’s three’s and one time four follow my spinner to the dock. I have seen this in Coho but never in Chinook and especially cast after cast.

So my guess as to what is going on, no idea. It appears that the early September adults stayed in the bay until moving up and parking. Coho adults ranged from scales not set and lice to silver and pink bellies right out of the bay! The Coho Jacks are awesome! I mean average 16 to 18 inches with football bellies and damn near obese! The Chinook are in great shape and right down to fat ranging from bronzed and slimed up ( coming out of the bay ? ) These are some healthy fish folks and mean. They are also very early for this number to show. It appears the fish stayed put in the bay for early September and fish normally moving upstream in late September and early October decided to move in mass early but only into tide water below South Monte.

So after the next two weeks East County guys should have one bunch of fish as I have to believe this mob is going to move up.

Little edit: I wrote this mid morning. As the day wore the jumping decreased to say mid October level. Did they move? No idea have to wait for another update.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/20 07:59 PM


and they are out of the lower tidal water. Somewhere upstream one god awful bunch of fish arrived. Hopefully they do not go into reaches that cannot be fished.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/20 09:31 AM

Well guys it is about to get a whole lot stranger on he river. After this bit of rain we will have a break, then it it will get wet. Starting next Wednesday over five days the Hump is forecast for 4.1 inches with a couple of days over 1 inch. At Doty it 2.8 inches for the same period but the two peak days are about 3/4 inches. The river at Porter is forecast at about 1670 CFS and the Satsop is forecast 650 CFS which is about a 300% jump in flows. NOAA is showing a flat line on the Satsop from this rain so I think the gauge is on the fritz again. This is for the next ten days so I guess we will all watch to see what happens as the long range forecast are all over the place.

East county folks your favorite weather pattern is here if the rains stop and the fish do not stampede upstream. Now if your a Lewis county person your dreams are about to come true for a early run of fish I do believe.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/20 10:37 AM

God wants those fish on the gravel. Drought, then flood. Often have seen coho holding, for as long as two months, for conditions to improve.

Probably the best one, though, concerns a run of chum in HC. The escapement is estimated based on live counts done weekly. One dry year, the live counts were all zero. But, one week, between counts, there was a rainstorm/freshet. The fish came in, all spawned, and all died. Forgot to ask how they estimated the escapement for that creek that year. Probably the one day dead count.

When I was working a trap we had summer chum. Had one female come into the trap in the afternoon and I passed up up. Next morning, on the spawner survey, I found her dead. Checked, and she was 100% spawned out. Must have been a wild night.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/20 11:09 AM

Several folks have e mailed and asked if this is a trend or a Chehalis thing. Not counting the Columbia it appears to be a coast thing. Willapa NT's went way past expectations on Chinook and Coho, I am told QIN on 2c ( Hump / bay ) did the same and then the bit on the Chehalis. So the fish showed on time ( by week ) but low in numbers. Then came in way over the proportional numbers that one would encounter. When one says a run is early it does not mean by calendar week but rather the percentage of the entire run that would normally be present. So unless the runs so far are 300% to 400% above forecast ( which is doubtful ) we have the late September and part of the October fish already upstream. So the Coho and Chinook are early and I am seeing fish showing at the house this morning so they are still moving.

Great for inland fisheries but sucks for bay and tide water folks. Like the saying goes, mother nature she ain't no lady!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/20 11:15 AM


No fishing above 101 Bridge, in Aberdeen, until 10/01/2020

Could be a year like 2018, fish all jetted by the local areas, and parked above Fuller Bridge.....turned into a zoo, guides, private fishermen.

Big change this year...... 1 adult Coho or Chum, NO CHINOOK!!!!

Remember, when you get your adult limit, legally you are done for the day. You can't continue to fish for jacks. Now what I'll do is try for jacks, stop before the legal limit of 6, then fish for an adult Coho. That's what I'll do BUT then I can fish every day the river is in shape.

Don't know how the guides boat handle that.....I'd not be happy if say a person made 1 cast, twitching or spinner.....caught a chrome 15# Coho and had to decide to release the fish to keep fishing or legally kill the fish and be done for the day. I'd also not be happy if the person who caught the fish was allowed to continue to fish until the boat was limited out...... I wanta catch my own fish!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/19/20 09:36 AM


Ah yeah going to get weird out on the river. NOAA has updated the forecast and the rain coming our way is turning into a much larger thing. Starting the 23rd the Hump hatchery is forecast for 6.59 inches over five days with close to 2 inches a day for the 24th & 25th. Up higher elevation 7 inches and West Satsop 6 inches or so same time period.

Farther South the upper Chehalis totals decrease by day but are substantial with Doty 4.84 and most of the upper watershed about the same. The flows at Porter are projected to peak at 1800 CFS ten days out which is give or take a bit a 600% increase over the present flows. Average flows for this period at Porter are somewhere around 700 CFS and record is around 2000 CFS.

As to fishing starting Oct. 1st one can only guess. With the huge movement we have had so far then the this rain the fish will move up someplace. NOAA's ten day forecast shows the rivers dropping on day ten and it would be helpful if that happened. Just have to wait and see.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/20 09:38 AM

I expect that the bulk of the hatchery Coho run will jet through the lower Satsop so we (me included) won't get much of a shot at them - but hope I'm wrong. Year after year I hear about in-season adjustments, but that is aimed at closures, generally. An early emergency opening would be a good thing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/20 10:19 AM

I don't think your wrong on the jet through on the Satsop as recs only fish about 5% of the Satsop Basin river miles all in the lower reaches. Upper Chehalis will benefit the early arrival though. The QIN have had a no in season adjustment clause in the season agreement in the past but I am not sure about the present and it took PRR to get the information in the past. Other than the movement I and others have documented I am not sure how you could quantify a number / species or expanded runsize to do a redo on the preseason forecast. While the modeled 2020 seasons left Coho available on the Chehalis we were short on the aggregate of all Grays Harbor which the tribe and Feds use unlike WDFW which splits the Hump from the Chehalis for overall management.

The first real indication on numbers we will have will be the QIN harvest which starts around 10/4 and then reporting being what it is the numbers in the following week. ( hopefully ) A number of folks have often wondered why WDFD doesn't utilize a sonar counter as they do in AK in places to get a real count. I guess it would help but our runs have significant species overlap which would make it difficult to sort out I am told.

So we wait to the 1st to see what happens. One thing is NOAA has added a inch to the 10 day river forecast starting today with the 23rd and 24th being the heaviest rain. The Satsop is projected to jump to 1600 CFS which is a 800% increase in flows over 10 days but not records for those days in time. The Chehalis at Porter is projected to crest at around 3200 CFS the 28th which will be a new record for day in time and then drop. It takes two days for the Porter water to make Aberdeen so we will open Oct 1 on the peak of the rise.

The bay below the bridge opens the 23rd as the rains start then will simply depend on how much color the water gets. I think we will get color fast out of the Wishkah as the headwaters are projected at 2 1/2 & 1 1/2 inches the 24th & 25th.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/20 04:14 PM

Couple folks asked how do I get the river information? For a daily forecast I use https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi which is a color chart by rainfall on locations

For the rivers I use https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ and just put your cursor on the dot and the graph will show location / flows / by day. On the right side of your screen you will see forecast precipitation and click on it then chick 240 hours. You will need to expand your screen to clear the clutter but then just put your cursor on a number / location and where and how much rain by day will show.

Day 3, which is the 24th it is going be ugly in the Olympics with over 3 inches across to the Wynoochee and Satsop head waters. Upper Chehalis is around 2 the 24th. Bottom line is 6 inches or more in 5 days Olympics and Upper Chehalis similar with 4 1/2 inches spread out more over the 5 days. ( not as much on day one ) At Porter the river will crest at about 3800 CFS on the 28th and drop fast. Satsop similar but is forecast to drop below average flows the 28th. Remember it takes 2 days for the Porter crest to make Aberdeen and should be clear or getting clear the 1st.

Now the bay ............... it has got to get some mud out of this but lets hope it clears. Bottom line, big ass storm coming and water should be clear by Oct 1 with tribs dropping..

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/20 03:38 PM

For those of you watching this early rain unfold use the links I provided. This morning's update has the Wynoochee Dam getting 4.5 inches and Satsop headwaters getting nearly as much on day 2 of the 10 day forecast. Elevation is everything and the rain drops off the following days but some places still get as high as two inches the second day of the storm.

What I find fascinating is hit the River Hydrology link I provided, now look how fast and how low the flows get from the 29th to the 3rd. All the way back down to about average with the Satsop going to average. This is just plain strange !
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/20 06:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
For those of you watching this early rain unfold use the links I provided. This morning's update has the Wynoochee Dam getting 4.5 inches and Satsop headwaters getting nearly as much on day 2 of the 10 day forecast. Elevation is everything and the rain drops off the following days but some places still get as high as two inches the second day of the storm.

What I find fascinating is hit the River Hydrology link I provided, now look how fast and how low the flows get from the 29th to the 3rd. All the way back down to about average with the Satsop going to average. This is just plain strange !

So. Did anyone go out in the harbor in that shi*storm yesterday? Looks like it may clear a little on the weekend, will there be fish or have they all just shot upriver?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/20 06:52 AM


I did not fish !!!!!!

Some people, with larger boats, did launch at 28th Street and others were fishing down river from the 101 Bridge. I DO NOT KNOW IF ANY FISH WERE CAUGHT !!!!!!

I'd bet that the Satsop and area above Fuller Bridge got fish......
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/24/20 08:26 AM

Well day one of the storm came up short on the forecasted rain except for Haywire Ridge. So lets see what day two does but the river flows are not going be as substantial as forecast which should be helpful for the river fishers as we go toward Oct. 1st. The upper Chehalis is somewhat close on the projected flows but the Olympic side not so much. Watching the radar it appears the storm tracked further North than NOAA anticipated.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/20 08:23 AM

Back side of the storm was about what was forecast and basin streams went straight up on the graphs to record flows for date in time and now are falling just as fast. NOAA's sites a not working this morning but it takes two days for the Porter crest to reach Aberdeen. So in tidewater this morning we have mud big time and all tribs are falling but no idea on the bay conditions. Porter will be at average flows by the Oct 1st and Satsop Sept 29th. At this time by the opening inriver Oct 1st you all will be looking at the entire basin almost average flows still dropping.

With the movement posted up earlier we also had a massive surge the three days before the storm. So upstream someplace there are a lot of fish but how far up did they move? No idea but they are 4 to 6 weeks from spawning so time is not pushing them yet so they should stop someplace with falling flows.

Also this, WDFW is busy updating Willapa forecast and this was from Chad Herring: As has been discussed with the group before, the Department does not currently have the ability to update Chinook runsize in-season but does have a tool to evaluate the runsize of coho in-season. This in-season update model (ISU) has been employed in previous years and is based on catch per unit effort in commercial fisheries. The ISU begins to become statistically significant in statistical week 38 (Sept 13 – 19) and that significance improves as more data points are added through time. We are currently in stat week 39 (Sept 20 – 26). Utilizing the data collected to date the ISU model predicts a natural origin Coho runsize between 69,656 fish to 35,788 fish. This prediction is much higher than the preseason forecasted runsize of 16,074 natural origin Coho. Ah yeah WDFW they do love nets they do but indications are coast wide that the Coho runs are over performing when compared with the preseason forecast.

So in the bay & tidewater your going to be fishing on what is swimming by that day as it is doubtful any staging is going to happen in the lower reaches. Up river the fish gotta stop someplace and that is the challenge but with this much water they have to be way upstream, how far is the question.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/20 10:00 AM


So the final outcome from the storm. Mud is nearly gone, rivers are headed to below average flows and fish are still moving in areas open below the 101 bridge. Oct 1 looks good and it will take some time for all the fish inland stage up and stop being willing biters. Remember these fish do not spawn until November. The Nation nets starting the 4th for 3 days and before I am asked NO I do not know if the Nation and WDFW will try to do what WDFW is doing in Willapa.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/29/20 07:21 PM

Melanie and I went out the last two days out in the harbor, limited out both days, had to release a few kings but they were survivors. One broke a leader slamming into out boat after 10 or 15 minutes of intense tug of war. fish was in the mid to high 20's, big kipe. Jumped clean out of the water 10 ft. out, Felt like I was using ultra-lite gear. I was glad to not have to deal with unhooking that pissed off fish. Prob. could have landed him if he was legal but tried to horse him at the end to save us both a struggle. Fish kept ranged from 4 to 10 lbs. Water was sporty today, yesterday was small boat weather, lots of effort, we saw some success on other boats. We'll try again on Thursday when the whole gang shows up.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/20 02:04 PM

Some folks were wondering when the QIN numbers would be posted. I do not know but I e-mailed Mike the question so more when he gets back.

With the huge early movements of Coho in Sept then the rains just how far upstream are they moving and how fast? I am told bright fish well above Oakville so they are moving right up the river and no hanging out. ( staging ) Tide water fishing stinks when fishable. You got to love 20 to 30 mph winds with colored water. Normally some Coho came along with the Chum so hopefully they will all show soon.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/20 06:01 PM

Mike got back and his response is below.

" When we receive those numbers, we will post them. We had a routine meeting with QIN Tuesday, but don’t know if catch was shared at that meeting. I was not in attendance, was on assignment in eastern Wash this last week. I’ll check Monday to see if those catch numbers are available."

As for a further update an old timer I know from Oakville read the post an gave me a jingle. Last three weeks ( when river is fishable ) nearly half of the fish he and his grandson have caught are Coho scales not set. The other half most just bright with a sprinkling of red and pink sided mixed in. To get that far up the river scales not set means the fish are jetting.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/20 07:25 PM

I have a question for the folks in the Chehalis Basin regarding closures. In recent years we have had three years of partial closures due to uncertainty of the run size or preseason forecast being small in numbers of adults. Steve shut things down few years back after net season failure but then the fish showed but we were toast by then. Some restrictions other years and this year two weeks in Sept., which if you fish tide water are your best weeks. Add to it damn near the entire Sept. and early Oct run came in way early this year.

The question is not that in lean years restraint in harvest is required but how you do it to reduce impacts and maintain a quality fishery? Some of us have talking about this and frankly I think a better solution exist. Using this year which we lost 14 days in Sept. prime time what is wrong with loosing two days a week? In other words say for simplicity the rec season is closed on Monday / Tuesday for the six weeks ( Sept 15 through Oct. 31 ) and fish Wednesday through Sunday. Might need to do some in November also so you get the number reduction required.

This strikes me as a reasonable alternative and fair to both inland and tidewater fishers. It also allows for WDFW and the QIN getting things wrong, which happens, without totally screwing over folks be it unintentional.

Your thoughts?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/20 01:16 PM

Isn't the one-fish limit enough of a limitation on our impact? If we have reached a point where we have no choice but to give up time on the water (when did that become a reality?), I suppose I like your line of thinking (longer season with some days closed). Of course, it only takes 2 days for a weather system to move huge components of the run upstream, so there's always the chance the two days we're closed in a given week are the days the fish move.

I'd personally rather we didn't have to pick a poison and we could just be honest about where the impacts of a day of fishing are most significant and limit those fisheries instead. I like fishing in the ocean, too, but all things considered (mixed stocks, poor incidental encounter survival, etc.), a day of sport fishing in the ocean definitely has more overall impact than any day of in-river fishing. You get a LOT more bang for your conservation buck by limiting ocean fisheries instead. Just sayin'....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/20 03:31 PM


Using this year as an example only, no the one fish limit does not get the reduction in harvest required thus we had the two week shut down. In normal years the Sept 15 to Oct. 1 shut down window affects the fisheries from tide water down and upstream and tribs not so much. Choose the last two weeks of Oct. and the tribs and inland fisheries take the biggest hit.

In the Chehalis Basin fish movement is not a right up the river thing but rather fish entering the system from Sept on and gradually working their way upstream until Nov. spawning time. In a normal year the inland fisheries see little opportunity until after Oct. 15. Tide water is the opposite as mid to late Oct. & Nov. rains pretty much end quality fishing.

My thoughts are simple, any harvest restrictions should be shared by fishers from the lower reaches to the upper reaches. Using the Sept. window in most years penalizes the lower reach fishers as would a later window penalize the trib and up river fishers. We need a better way to do things and that is why a conversation on this subject is helpful.

As to the ocean fisheries WDFW has always prioritized marine over terminal fisheries and the Coho taken in WA waters by non treaty fishers count against our half in terminal fisheries. It is a hit but not totally unreasonable, now Chinook that is another thing all together. AK & BC were modeled to take 13,646 Grays Harbor Chinook ( H & W combined ) with a few hundred taken in WA marine fisheries. This left a terminal run size of 13,333. That is why we will never have a keep Chinook fishery in Grays Harbor.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/20 04:11 PM


Update time and the QIN harvest numbers are up on WDFW's website. So it looks like the huge movements of fish early had an effect. QIN Coho harvest is down, Chinook picked up WK 42 to put them up on Chinook and Chum are a no show so far.

2020 QIN Actual:
WK 41 Oct. 4 Chinook 774 Chum 97 Coho 2340
WK 42 Oct. 11 Chinook 694 Chum 18 Coho 1060

2020 Qin modeled at:
WK 41 Oct. 4 Chinook 1054 Chum 394 Coho 3220
WK 42 Oct. 11 Chinook 375 Chum 1079 Coho 1817

Hard to say what the Coho numbers will end up being but it should be above forecast. Chinook also above forecast in fact % wise I think Chinook will out perform Coho. Interesting how Coho and Chinook were way early and Chum seem to be late. Go figure.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/20 12:18 PM

C.f.
Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

Using this year as an example only, no the one fish limit does not get the reduction in harvest required thus we had the two week shut down. In normal years the Sept 15 to Oct. 1 shut down window affects the fisheries from tide water down and upstream and tribs not so much. Choose the last two weeks of Oct. and the tribs and inland fisheries take the biggest hit.

In the Chehalis Basin fish movement is not a right up the river thing but rather fish entering the system from Sept on and gradually working their way upstream until Nov. spawning time. In a normal year the inland fisheries see little opportunity until after Oct. 15. Tide water is the opposite as mid to late Oct. & Nov. rains pretty much end quality fishing.

My thoughts are simple, any harvest restrictions should be shared by fishers from the lower reaches to the upper reaches. Using the Sept. window in most years penalizes the lower reach fishers as would a later window penalize the trib and up river fishers. We need a better way to do things and that is why a conversation on this subject is helpful.

As to the ocean fisheries WDFW has always prioritized marine over terminal fisheries and the Coho taken in WA waters by non treaty fishers count against our half in terminal fisheries. It is a hit but not totally unreasonable, now Chinook that is another thing all together. AK & BC were modeled to take 13,646 Grays Harbor Chinook ( H & W combined ) with a few hundred taken in WA marine fisheries. This left a terminal run size of 13,333. That is why we will never have a keep Chinook fishery in Grays Harbor.


Hard to disagree with much of that. Thanks.

I should clarify that I favor reducing the impacts of northern intercept fisheries over reductions in local ocean opportunity. If a majority of WA fish must be caught in the ocean, let's catch more of them locally. If our WA commercial fishers didn't fish off Alaska, there would be a lot more (and bigger) fish for them to catch off WA, too.

At the end of the day, I get that the reality is that inland sport fishing sits lowest on the totem pole. Heck, we're even lower down the list of priorities than conservation, and that's damn near the bottom.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/20 07:14 AM

Update time for NT commercial landing and the last week of the treaty fishery are not up yet.

Oct 21 NT Commercial
Modeled Harvest Chinook 22 Coho 451 Chum 815

Actual Harvest Chinook 1 Coho 220 Chum 978

The effects of the early returns of Chinook and Coho are still present and the Chum have showed. Be interesting to see what the tribal fisheries show.

Since the massive movement of Coho and Chinook in Sept some of us have more or less been playing a guessing game as to just how large was this movement? In the Chehalis we have two Coho timings. Sept / Oct Coho that come in and stage up and the Nov Coho which only come when the river completely blows out. So the early portion of the run my bet ended up that about 75% of the Sept & Oct Coho came in in that huge movement in mid Sept. Slim pickens for Coho in tidewater until the river blows.

Chinook numbers appear to be above what what was forecast. The encounters in Sept and first week of Oct were way past what I am used to seeing with the run forecast we have for Chinook.

So guys inland early run timing a blessing sucks down low in the lower reaches. I think in the end both Coho and Chinook numbers will exceed preseason forecast but we will have to wait for the final redd counts to know for sure.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/20 09:10 AM

A friend of mine called and asked how did I ( and others ) know we had such substantial movement of Coho and Chinook in Sept. Well it goes like this, DW and others fish jacks and they were having a field day on some of the best jack fishing in years. So we text back and forth on what we are seeing and great for jacks few adults. By the way the jacks were down right fat!

Then out of nowhere something happened that I had never seen before. From just below Preachers to about three miles upstream the entire bloody river was full of fish. Not just a few but I could stand in my dining room on the phone and count off as high as 20 fish jumping in a minute. It was surreal and to make it even stranger guys upstream were limiting on jacks but few adults hooked. This went on for five or six days but to be honest I think I missed the start of the build up. Why did the fish stop where they did, no idea. In all my years of working with fish and fishing in the Chehalis I have never seen the number of fish that built up. Then they were gone just like that!

We had a second movement with the rain during the two week shutdown and it was also large but not fishing your left with just observation but it was way more than a few. The Chinook, just way more hooked than normal. In fact after the first movement of Coho when we got to start fishing Oct. first there were more Chinook than Coho somedays.

I am reminded of Harry's rule number one " the fish will screw you " and they certainly did that down low this year. Our loss was inlands dream come true as that fishing was as good as down low was bad. To get scales not set Coho above Oakville in mid Oct. is way past strange but strange describes this year.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/20 08:30 AM



Well here is another observation ..... NO guides were working the Chehalis pump house area. The "fish" have not been staging in the area I choose to fish. Not many spinner or twitching fishermen in this same area and its been that way for the past 6-7 years.

The staging area has changed, why is anyone's guess.....I can go though a whole tide and not see a fish roll but still catch moving fish.

Been retired since 1997, widower since 2011 so I fish LOTS !!!!!!! For many years my fishing was spinners and plugs around "wood". Twitching, once I got started, was deadly because the fish were staging, Chehalis and lower Satsop was a "twitching paradise" and still VERY effective, just not where I fish.

Oh, if you like to fish Chum.....there are moving.....NOW!!!!!!!
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/20 03:27 PM

A whole butt load of chum went through the lower Chehalis yesterday..
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/20 04:25 PM


Update on the tribal and NT fisheries. The numbers show that the QIN fishers did not do as expected. Then timing is everything and the NT's did about as expected on Coho, Chinook at 7 was over twice forecast and they blew the doors off with Chum. The links to look at thing is below if anyone wants to take a look. I think Kim got the numbers up and that was really fast.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/landings#chehalis
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/gillnet#grays-harbor
QIN
WK 43 Actual Chinook 190 Chum 1309 Coho 709
Modeled Chinook 310 Chum 2711 Coho 1796

NT Commercial
WK 44 Actual Chinook 3 Chum 6092 Coho 794
Modeled Chinook 7 Chum 1750 Coho 536
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/20 02:51 PM

These are the final QIN numbers for the fall fisheries. Several of us always try to guess the run performance through the season so here is my shot at it. We had the largest movement of Coho and Chinook in mid September I have ever seen in the Chehalis. The effect carried through the seasons and yet the tribal numbers for Coho and Chinook came in close to modeled. Chum were a no show for QIN fishers as they showed a little late but the NT nets massively over performed in harvest with 6092 which is a increase of 348% of modeled harvest.

So my guess is Chinook and Coho will outperform the preseason forecast due to so many fish going up early and the Chinook increase percentage of the run over the preseason forecast will be greater than Coho percentage the run increase. Chum will be over forecast but the combined commercial of QIN & NT was modeled at 7881 and ended up 7676 is close to what was modeled. With the several large movements of Chum we have seen my thoughts are the NT nets came in at the front of the Chum run and harvest was up but the run was not near peak so there were a lot of Chum moving. In fact I think the Chum may outperform percentage above forecast than Coho or Chinook. Use the links in my previous post to take a peek yourself.

That's all folks.


Wk 43 ( Oct. 18 / 24 ) Actual Chinook 51 Coho 709 Chum 1309
Modeled Chinook 31 Coho 1796 Chum 2711

Total Season Actual Chinook 1658 Coho 4109 Chum 1588
Modeled Chinook 1793 Coho 4184 Chum 7444
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/20 05:12 PM

Not refuting the massive front-end movement of coho in mid-Sept... BUT... there's no signs of steam on the back side. My take on the coho run? Early and small (below forecast)... a fish manager's worst nightmare.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/20 05:38 PM

Well the Chehalis has a dirty little secret, we make escapement on the November portion of the run that does not show until the river blows big time. I have seen the early part of the run hang up in a dry year until the 3rd week of November when it finally rained and then everybody came at once. You could be right to be sure, I could be wrong also but we will se soon enough.

I think the thing is living on the river I can cheat! I see what is going on and that build up around the Sept 12th through the 20th was huge and nobody fished other than jacks. Coupled with the continued early rain Coho adults went way up river. We really have two Coho runs, Sept & Oct portion that stage up to wait to spawn and the Nov portion that moves right into the spawning grounds. If the back end is not there your right. If the backend is there then I will be right.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/20 08:02 AM

Wow the thread has passed four million hits! When Doc started this thread seven years ago the issues that drove the conversation were all over the place but since then the Grays Harbor Management Policy has ended much of that discord. This thread has evolved to a place for fishers to get information on the Chehalis Basin and Grays Harbor fisheries.

From my spot in the bleachers I continued to be impressed by range of views and knowledge of folks posting. No name calling or truckloads of BS just well thought out responses and opinions. That does not happen all that often in the world we live in today!

So good job folks! Heartfelt thanks to Bob for making PP the forum for all of us to look to for discussions of a wide range of thought on issues that surround our fisheries resource in Grays Harbor.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/20 10:41 AM

you do a good job keeping use up to date on what's going on with all the happenings on the Chehalis .. and for what you do I Thank you...
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/20 11:21 AM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Not refuting the massive front-end movement of coho in mid-Sept... BUT... there's no signs of steam on the back side. My take on the coho run? Early and small (below forecast)... a fish manager's worst nightmare.


The late return of chum gives me hope that the B-run coho are late as well.

The recent uptick near Morrison Park makes me optimistic.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/20 01:28 PM

there isn't much going on at Morrison park ,,, theres only been one or two fishing there for the last week or so,,
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/20 01:56 PM

No idea on movement at the moment but the Nov part of the run is pure rain driven. That said starting the 11th a four day total of 4 1/2 inches on the Olympic side for tribs is forecast with the upper Chehalis about and inch less. Must admit that the NOAA river forecast projections are not matching weather site yet. Once the river blows we will know.

Being a old guy we used to target in on what was known as the T day fish. In todays terms that is the old native run timing as the early part of the run time was greatly expanded by smolt and fry plants from Bingham hatchery stock. After it was built eggtakes were on the front of the run ( known as run compression ) to try to create hatchery production for commercials with somewhat of a separate run timing.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/20 08:46 AM

River update....the Chehalis is mud! The first link below will get you the NOAA River Forecast page to take a peek. So the Olympic side tribs are dropping and will clear fast for a few days of fishable water. Chehalis is still going up and I imagine so is the mud and upper water takes four days to reach tide water. The next event will hit the upper Chehalis far more than the lower tribs and you see the effect on the River Forecast and the weather on the second NOAA link for the 10 forecast. Bottom line is the clear water will be moving around the basin as the rivers go up and down, I think timing will be everything.

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/20 10:34 AM


To finish off the update the Coho returns as of Nov 5 to Bingham and the Springs.

The combined numbers for Coho ( W & H ) for the same week in 2019 was 5261 adults and 746 jacks. 2020 is 6770 adults and 2760 for jacks. These are week in year numbers not the final numbers. That is one huge jack number!!!

Chinook broodstocking numbers are down some but the early rains make it a real bear to get at those guys when the fish are in motor mode!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/20 04:21 PM


Couple of folks asked if the numbers indicate an larger than forecast run, not necessarily. Keep in mind QIN and NT Commercial Coho harvest numbers were below modeled numbers due to the early movement in September. Had the two commercial seasons performed as expected or exceeded expectations then the answer would be yes. That did not happen so one could put forth that the run was short, larger, or as forecasted. Then the next part of the guessing game escapement and is the run is short, larger, or as forecasted? Once the redd counts are done we will know but that is a bit down the road.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/20 10:18 AM

Water is about get ugly fast! https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

It looks like it will continue for six days or so and then drop. Nasty weather moving through to be sure! https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/20 12:20 PM

Something to keep in mind about "the numbers". Numbers used in management are what can be collected. Catch, escapement. Lie on catch.....As to escapement, you do spawner surveys to count and estimate the escapement. Freshets can blow carcasses out, maybe hide redds, maybe the fish didn't spawn in the index areas.

One pink year I remember asking the filed bio up in Skagit if the run was what I updated. He laughed. He said that, yes, the fish were there. But, that freshet blew the carcasses into the Straits and the number we would end up with would be much smaller.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/20 03:42 PM

And it is update time for the Satsop Hatcheries as they are a good reference for the Chehalis Basin.

2020 Coho adults 8868 Jacks 3966 ( 1000 Wild Adult Coho )

2019 Coho adults 6928 Jacks 944 ( 1533 Wild Adult Coho )

So compared to 2019 Wild Coho seem down but hatchery returns are up from 2019. Did a quick look at 2018 and the Wild returns for 2020 show downside also but hatchery returns above previous years. Bingham has a good Wild count as they have to pass fish upstream unless they open the ladder and I do not know if they did that. Also it does not mean we did or did not make escapement as this is simply a snap shot in time.

Now that Jack number, DW has been chirping away all fall on the massive numbers of Jacks both Wild & Hatchery and he had it right. This years returns are about 420% increase compared to 2019 and 2018 also. That is a huge Jack total for Coho at those two facilities.

The high survival for the hatchery Coho and not so good for Wild would point to the fresh water rearing time be the limiter not the ocean. or....or....




Posted by: wsu

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/20 04:54 PM

How reliable are jack numbers as a predictor for next year's return?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/20 05:30 PM


They are just a piece of the puzzle. Simply says fresh water to first part of salt they did well.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/20 09:58 AM

Thought I would add this bit. Hatcheries bypass the natural order by spawning and rearing to smolt so hatchery Jack totals can be up but not so the natural production. The natural production is subjected to all things natural that can reduce the numbers of naturally produced smolt. Simply put the hatchery production can show a banner year with Jacks but the natural production not so much if things went bad in spawning, over wintering, over summering and other things. So all the hatchery Jack totals say is out migration and first months in the salt Coho did well.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/20 01:06 PM

Jack who?
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/20 03:53 PM

I would think that run timing and size could effect how hard the commercial guys effect the run. A good example of how convoluted numbers can be, the Skok appears to have been hit hard by the commercials. The number of adults fell almost 8,000 compared to last year and over 30,000 from 2017. The end result was more returning jacks to the hatchery than Adults.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/20 04:56 PM

Any numbers on how many of those jacks had "extra" fins? I'm wondering if maybe more of the "wild" adult, male coho of years past came back back as jacks....
Posted by: teamster

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/20 06:10 PM

Who?
Jack Off (he's one of the Meoff brothers).
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/20 06:17 PM


201 W Jacks at Bingham https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/weekly_escapement_11-12-2020_0.pdf
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/20 02:33 PM



Hmmm... Looks like the wild run flat out underperformed. Dang...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/20 05:37 PM


You gotta love data points. Same time 2019 Bingham had 35 wild Jacks and 2020 201 wild Jacks. You can pull up the escapement reports by year with the link provided. I have a friend who will take a years report and go back by brood years to try and get a feel for performance. I have done that but would rather have a root canal done! He says we make escapement this year but will not guess much more as his verdict is " one strange ass year. "
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/20 10:24 AM

For those that are interested.

WDFW seeks feedback for the 2021 coastal steelhead season

Date
Nov 12, 2020
Contact
James Losee, 360-249-1201

Public Affairs Contact: Eryn Couch, 360-890-6604
Public invited to Nov. 24 virtual town hall to discuss steelhead forecasts, declining populations

OLYMPIA – Fishery managers with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) invite recreational anglers, conservation groups, and other interested members of the public to a virtual town hall, 5 to 7 p.m., Tuesday, Nov. 24, to learn more about low coastal Washington steelhead trends and share feedback on plans for the 2021 fishing season.

“State and tribal fisheries managers are projecting another year of low steelhead returns along much of the Washington Coast” said James Losee, regional program manager for the Coast and Puget Sound region. “We want to make sure we’re hearing from local anglers and steelhead enthusiasts as we begin to consider options for protecting this iconic state fish while balancing recreational angling opportunities.”

To join the 5 to 7 p.m. Nov. 24 virtual town hall, please register at us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_iHswvFn2QweX9kxAfEwqpw. The event will be recorded and posted to the department’s website afterward for those unable to attend.

Fishery managers will consider this feedback in preparation of their work with tribal co-managers to plan future fishing opportunities.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is the state agency tasked with preserving, protecting, and perpetuating fish, wildlife, and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing, hunting, and other recreation opportunities.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (Title6@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see https://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/requests-accommodation.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/20 10:40 AM

first off my ? is if the jacks are actually wild what are they doing going into a hatchery and not up into the streams they were born?? so i'm taking it that they were just unclipped smolt ??


second ... the wdfw meeting on steelhead is a bogus thing at best..
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/20 11:32 AM

At Bingham all fish going up the East Fork Satsop are stopped by a weir go into the holding ponds and the wild are passed upstream by way of a pipe from the pond into the river. I cannot say unclipped because Bingham CWT's a certain number of smolt that are not clipped to utilize as a cross check on data accuracy of returning adults. All the fish are checked with a metal detector wand similar to those used at concerts to sort out fish with CWT implants in the fish. Bingham Creek also has a weir that requires putting fish up manually that is operated by the Science Division. A quick look at the math says they pass the wild jacks as well as the adults upstream.

As to the virtual meeting, I tend to agree with you. Not because I doubt the Director's sincerity but rather history says staff will do what they deem appropriate regardless of what the public input is. End result is more or less a PR thing which is unfortunate.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/20 12:46 PM


The QIN harvest numbers for the weeks of Nov 8 and Nov 15 are posted on the WDFW website. https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/landings#chehalis They are not very good especially Chum but keep in mind the NT nets got well over the modeled harvest. The Nov Rec Coho fishing has been OK mostly but spotty also as the conditions have all over the place. So like Coho and Chinook the Chum came in early and in good numbers. NT nets benefitted but QIN took a hit, luck of the scheduling I guess.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/20 04:59 PM


Well I thought that Coho number was a bit strange so I e mailed the question to Mike and Kim and yup bit of a math mix up and it will get fixed. Mikes e mail is below and by the way mistakes are made always but the key is what you do with them. This was handled properly from my seat.

Good catch, was in the field today and hadn’t a chance to look at the numbers. Wk 46 they caught 270 and 26 in Wk 47. We’ll get that updated on the web site tomorrow.

Looking like the escapement is going to be a bit above the forecast for coho. We’ll be counting them for another month or two.

Enjoy your afternoon.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/20 10:14 AM

If we end up above forecast based on that big wad that went up on the front end I guess that works on paper but I don't believe it is indicative of a healthy overall run this year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/20 11:10 AM

Correct! The commercial harvest looks to be under expectations as was Rec bay and tidal. Inland did much better as one would expect with the overall movement of the fish and all the early rain. One can put forth that while making escapement the Coho run was smaller than the preseason forecast. So if one plays devil's advocate and put forth that had the Nation and NT Commercial performed as modeled Coho and maybe Chinook would fail to make escapement your probably on solid ground as to Coho. Not so sure about Chinook and Chum and I asked about Chinook redd counts but didn't get a response but I will ask again for you all.

Forecast Commercial Take All: Coho 9287 Chinook 1789 Chum 8302

Actual Commercial Take All: Coho 5433 Chinook 1666 Chum 8957
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/20 01:47 PM

As a past manager I would be reasonably happy with the Chinook and chum catches as they really aren't far off. Coho is.

Back in the late 80s we had some interesting days on the Fraser. The ISU suggested that we had about 750K Adams/Lower Shushwap available for harvest by Canada. Their internal allocation system (they did not learn from the US on allocation idiocy as they went to the hundredth of a percent) gave the fish to the seiners. But, they had to fish Area 29, which is the lower Fraser where they had never fished. Went in and in 4 hours took the 750K. A big OOPS was avoided because DFO was watching/listening and shut it down.

Turns out the 750K was not there; fish were going up and downstream across the echo sounder and being counted multiple times. So, in actuality, there was no surplus.

The policy folks, especially the US ones who had never managed a fish in their life, went bonkers. How could such an error be made? The managers? S**t, it was less than 10% of the run. Our ISU was pretty good.

The upside is that the harvest centered on a couple of abundant components of the escapement and missed less abundant ones which the Panel (staff) were trying to increase to get better spawner distribution which would increase future production.

Upshot is that there are a lot of factors that go into understanding just how successful management efforts were in a given year. Helps, though, if the escapement goals are higher than Noah was allowed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/25/20 08:25 AM


Merry Christmas all and hopefully 2021 will be a great year. ( 2020 certainly stunk up the place )

With the 2020 salmon season done I asked Mike & Kim how the numbers looked but as staff are still compiling data nothing in terms of numbers are available. In general terms though for the Chehalis it looks like this. Chinook numbers were above expectations, Coho and Chum close to forecast. The early normal timed Coho push was just that, they came in early and it was not a banner year. Late Coho seem to be underperforming but it is a bit early to say that with certainty. Unlike Coho and Chinook Chum are a aggregate of Chehalis and Hump so it is a bit more complicated to get a true feel for it other than the Chehalis side did as expected.

So it appears the model performed well enough but as always the devils in the details. QIN Chum harvest numbers way down but the NT Commercials way up so it came out close to expectations. QIN Chinook harvest down but the fish simply got upstream ahead of their season. Coho the same for everyone, except inland fishers, so bay / tidal waters fisheries really suffered. Which always begs the question, if the fish came in as usual and everyone's harvest was as modeled would we have made escapement? Clueless here and that is something that staff will have to let us know once they have all the numbers finalized.

So good bye and good riddance 2020 and hello 2021. Everyone take care and have a great holiday season.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/25/20 09:44 AM



Merry Christmas to all.....

Just so everyone knows, I'd be spoon fishing for hatchery Coho, this morning, if the "NO FISHING FROM A BOAT" was not in the 12/14/2020 rule change.

Last part on November and until 12/14, I had the ability to selectively "take hatchery males from the Chehalis system", released all wild salmon and hatchery females.

2021----Sure hope the "no fishing from boat" doesn't extend to salmon fishing or this old man will be done fishing.......grrrrrrr
Posted by: Direct-Drive

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/25/20 10:30 AM

Yep, Merry Christmas to all !

DrifterWA, hope you can find some productive spots where you can safely beach the boat and step out.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/11/21 08:57 AM

Couple of folks who know I live on the river asked how the river has been to be on this year. Actually not bad as Dec. & Jan go. The tides and Olympic / Upper Chehalis have not matched up to cause real mayhem. Lot of debris coming down but most of the boats I have seen go by are being careful as far as I can tell. Did see about half a tackle box of floats and plugs float by so somebody had a not my finest moment moment.

I am seeing more boats than normal for this time of year which is a bit puzzling considering the water has not cleared up but for a day or so in a month. That dance Satsop clears upper water arrives then Chehalis almost clears and then another storm arrives has been the general rule.

So yes the Chehalis is runnable but just got to be careful especially if foggy, which has not happened much this year so far. The large trees have mostly been bushy Alders or Cottonwood but the other junk that is just chunks now that crap has been rather prevalent. So be careful if out and about with careful being the key word. The tides are moving water upstream on the incoming which bunches up trash but after this storm flows are to go below average according to NOAA. Just put your cursor on the dot and info is displayed.
https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/21 05:00 PM

Afternoon all. Below is the 2021 schedule for NOF Grays Harbor and Willapa. Notice the lack of Adviser meetings and the gest of it from Mr. Warrens comments ( I am told ) at the Commission meeting was the agency does not find the Adviser process to be productive, to confrontational. They want to use public input instead which in practice the Agency utilizes to provide a dog and pony show format. You would think that Mr. Warren would have learned by now that staff hiding in the office is not the best way gain support for Agency actions. Then again one would have to assume they give a tinkers damn what citizens think.

Little edit: In GH both Kim And Mike have always tried to keep folks informed but it is at the senior level in Region 6 and Olympia that things fall apart. Mr. Herring is a different issue all around and he is supposedly reassigned to another function which is helpful.


Hello Everyone,

Welcome to the 2021 North of Falcon (NOF) planning process. The WDFW website has been updated with the public meeting schedules (see link at https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings). You will notice the 2021 NOF webpage is designed in a timeline format, a bit different from previous years. On the webpage, please note the March and April Grays Harbor meetings are located under the “South Coast proposals”, just click on the date to see meeting details. Listed below are some of the pertinent meetings:

Grays Harbor 2021 NOF meeting dates; all meeting are expected to be conducted virtually via Zoom:
Date Time Meeting
Feb. 25 6 to 8 pm Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Forecast Meeting
Mar. 24 6 to 8 pm Grays Harbor Fisheries
Apr. 6 6 to 8 pm Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion

NOF and Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) 2021 meeting dates all meeting are expected to be conducted virtually:
Date Time Meeting
Feb. 26 9 am to 3 pm 2021 Forecasts (Puget Sound, coastal Washington and Columbia River), Zoom meeting
Mar. 2-5 & 8-11 To be announced PFMC Live Webinar (https://www.pcouncil.org/council_meeting/march-3-10-2020-council-meeting/)
Mar. 16 9 am to 3 pm First North of Falcon Meeting, Zoom meeting
Mar. 31 9 am to 3 pm Second North of Falcon Meeting, Zoom meeting
Apr. 6-9 & 12-15 To be announced PFMC Live Webinar (https://www.pcouncil.org/council_meeting/april-6-13-2021-council-meeting/)
[/b][b][i][/i]
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/21 07:11 PM


Couple of PM comments:

First
You have once again hit the nail on the head about a major weakness in the WDFW staff.


Second
The reason is quite simple. During the no fishing from a boat zoom session, they refused to use any of my questions or comments. I was one of the first to ask a question and when the question still wasn't posed at the two hour point I was told they were out of time. Censorship is a wonderful thing when you are bobbing and weaving during the rope a dope. David, I know you are old enough to remember this. Even after my continued complaints after the meeting, they refused to give me an answer or include my comments in the record. By saying the advisors are not relevant, they are saying that we wish to not recognize their great questions. Silence is golden and we want your silence. Gotta love the America of today.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/21 09:49 PM


Third comment:
They are just trying to abandon all effort at public input and just tell the stakeholders to **ck off? This is gonna be a bad year as there won't be any pinks to support license sales and everything else is in the porcelain buddha.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/06/21 11:19 AM


For some who have been around the process for years we have a tendency to identify that time with staff in certain positions. For myself the one that stands out is Mr. Anderson as Director and the templet for the agencies processes implemented during his time as Director ( which I find appalling ) are still in play. In this gentlemen's view it is more recent but the person that has been the agency traffic cop on issues on the coast is Mr. Warren.

and Four:
Everybody knows what to expect from failure Ron warren!! Nothing has changed except he was promoted.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/06/21 01:39 PM

For those with long, and as yet functional, memories in the movie "MASH" Hotlips and Hawkeye were discussing Frank's surgical abilities. "Not only is he an excellent surgeon, he is an excellent ARMY surgeon". WDFW is hiring and promoting excellent WDFW staffers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/21 05:13 PM


I thought I would post the press release for everyone. I can remember when this kick off meeting was standing room only but then folks figured out it mattered little what folks thought and now staff outnumber citizens. That said if you have never attended this thing you might find it interesting.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Feb. 11, 2021
Contact: Kyle Adicks, 360-902-2664
Public Affairs Contact: Eryn Couch, 360-890-6604
WDFW invites public participation in salmon season setting process
Annual North of Falcon process kicks off with Feb. 26 statewide forecast virtual meeting
OLYMPIA – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) fishery managers have scheduled a variety of opportunities for the public to participate in setting state-managed salmon fishing seasons for 2021, beginning with an annual salmon forecast meeting on Feb. 26.

That meeting is just one of a dozen scheduled virtually as part of each year's salmon season discussions. State fishery managers will consider input from anglers, commercial fishers and others interested in salmon as they work with tribal co-managers to craft this year's fisheries.

“Working together alongside tribal co-managers, we remain committed to fostering a cooperative process that engages all those who care about these important species,” said Kelly Susewind, WDFW Director. “Hearing from Washington’s angling community, commercial fishers, and others is critical to this process, especially as we head into what’s looking like another tough year for some salmon runs. Understanding the public’s priorities helps us and the tribes to come to resolution on which sustainable fishing opportunities can be realized while also meeting our conservation objectives.”

“We are committed to cooperative tribal and state salmon co-management because it works,” said Lorraine Loomis, chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. “Our job gets tougher every year because salmon are steadily declining as their habitat is being lost faster than it can be restored. It will take a lot of work to fix that problem, but we all want the same thing: Healthy salmon runs that can provide sustainable harvest for everyone far into the future.”

From 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Friday, Feb. 26, WDFW will present initial forecasts derived by WDFW and tribal fisheries biologist analysis. WDFW and tribal forecasters use a suite of scientific data, including watershed sampling and monitoring, ocean indicators, and previous year returns, to predict the number of salmon and steelhead that will return to Northwest waters, and how many fish will be available for harvest.

In addition to attending virtual meetings, other ways the public can participate in the state’s process include:
• Online comments: Starting in early March, the public can provide comments on WDFW’s forecasts and proposed fisheries at: wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-input.
• Conference calls and daily briefings: During the final days of negotiations, state fish managers plan to hold briefings each day, which will be available via conference call.
For a full timeline of the state’s North of Falcon process, including a public meeting schedule with opportunities to participate in virtual meetings and provide public feedback, visit WDFW’s North of Falcon public meeting schedule web page. To support COVID-19 social distancing guidelines, these meeting will be conducted online and be available to the public to watch or listen via webinar or conference call.

This process occurs in tandem with Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) public meetings to establish fishing seasons for salmon in ocean waters 3 to 200 miles off the Pacific coast. The PFMC will discuss preliminary options for ocean fisheries during its March 2-5 and 8-11 meeting and is expected to adopt final ocean fishing seasons and harvest levels at its April 6-9 and 12-15 meeting. More information on these virtual meetings is available on the PFMC’s website.
The collaborative state and tribal salmon season-setting process known as North of Falcon refers to waters north of Oregon’s Cape Falcon, which marks the southern border of Washington’s management of salmon stocks. This includes Puget Sound, Columbia River, and coastal Washington salmon stocks.

WDFW is the state agency tasked with preserving, protecting and perpetuating fish, salmon and salmon habitat while providing sustainable fishing opportunities for non-tribal state interests.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/21 07:09 PM

Two PM's asked if this is a "dog & pony show "? Not yes but oh hell yes! Then this, it is a WORLD class D & P ! I mean they have this thing down darn near a art form. So yup D&P but as good as it gets for a D&P.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/21 06:23 PM

Below is the information that staff sent out for GH / Willapa NOF.

The Zoom Web Conference link is available (see below) for individuals interested in signing up for the forecast meeting on Thursday February 25, 2021 from 6 to 8 pm.

North of Falcon: Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Forecasts
Feb 25, 2021, 6 - 8pm
WDFW presents salmon abundance forecasts for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2021 are discussed.
Join Zoom Web Conference
Meeting materials will be posted as they become available.
For more information about the North of Falcon salmon season setting process and a full meeting schedule visit our North of Falcon web page.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-willapa-bay-and-grays-harbor-forecasts


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/21 07:30 PM

No I do not know if they will take questions live. I imagine it will be the canned response bit that they have a tendency to like. E mail them and ask.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/21 01:33 PM

Links for ZOOM preseason and I see the links failed so to WDFW's website for the links. https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-willapa-bay-and-grays-harbor-forecasts

To All Interested Parties:

The meeting materials for tonight’s forecast meeting are available for your review, see below or the following link: https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-willapa-bay-and-grays-harbor-forecasts


North of Falcon: Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Forecasts
Feb 25, 2021, 6 - 8pm
WDFW presents salmon abundance forecasts for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2021 are discussed.
Join Zoom Web Conference
Join by phone: +1 253-215-8782
Meeting ID: 865 1045 5601
Meeting materials
• Agenda
• Presentation
• 2021 Willapa Bay salmon fisheries management objectives
• 2021 Willapa Bay preseason forecast summary
• 2021 Grays Harbor fishery summary
• North of Falcon background and glossary
• Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy
• Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management Policy
• 2019-2023 North of Falcon Policy
For more information about the North of Falcon salmon season setting process and a full meeting schedule visit our North of Falcon web page.
/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-willapa-bay-and-grays-harbor-forecasts
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/21 02:55 PM

I just looked at the summery for coho on the chehalis .. it shows only 23,801 hatchery return to the chehalis and tribs .. 42,000 unclipped

my ? is how many hatcheries are on the chehalis and its tribs?? how many coho do they plant? out of how many eggs they take? im sure they take millions of eggs from them and only getting 23,000 return?? i dont think the ocean conditions are that bad..

i just dont think they are planting the numbers they say.. or they aren't clipping the numbers they say they are..
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/21 04:26 PM

Well to start they do not take millions of eggs and have not for many years. Skookumchuck Coho releases are mitigation only at 300k. Bingham does around 500k combination of late / normal timed and the Springs 450k normal and Mayres does some. You can find all this information in the brood doc on the WDFW website. Eggtake is brood doc numbers plus and overage to cover minor problems such as blanks and normal mortality. https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02119 gets you to the page and you will need to download it. My numbers may be off a bit but not much but they do update the Doc each year.
2012 1,287,330
2013 1,327,854
2014 1,205,580
2015 1,473,300
2016 1,594,750
1,574,134


The run size forecast is 42324 w and 23801 H but the presentation document for tonight's meeting says we crashed right into the 3/5 clause in the GH Policy. ( failed to make escapement 3 out of 5 years ) Escapement goals is 28,506 which leaves about 14000 to be divided up between all the harvesters. That does not get us down the road very far. Using 2019 as an high example FW Rec harvested over 10K and 2019 as a low which was FW harvest of 1631.

What I am curious about is the going through the models I noticed changes between H & W caught in reconciling with QIN numbers. Kinda curious about that. Also the 5 yr window does not include 2020 which may or may not mean much.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/21 06:22 PM

the run size any year in the Chehalis is a fraction of what it should and could be. What a joke
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/21 09:29 AM

02/26/2021

I watched the whole presentation....relative to Coho "data is not complete, spawning surveys are still not done........come on now, how many Coho are still on the move after January of most years????

Does the time spent "covering miles of rivers, looking for a few redds, justify the man power costs and "not being better prepared for NOF.

This has been another year of high water flows, mudded up rivers, how many redds have been missed?????

Might be more meaningful to have charts that show "the amount of redds and locations".

Does the QIN and Chehalis tribe continue redd counts in February forward?????
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/21 11:40 AM

Odd comment by WDFW. The coho escapement goals/spawner surveys were based on a 12/31 cutoff. We know they spawn into January most years and February occasionally but they should have that all wrapped up by now.

IF they have to go this late every year, then they can't use the most recent year for forecasts anyway, so they should have (in this case) the 2019 ready to go. Besides, that's what updates are for....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/21 02:48 PM

It is a bit unusual CM especially if we made escapement in 2020 then we are not in the 3/5 box with Coho. When I questioned if 2020 would make a difference Mike said no then said yes then said they were not done counting. Two things jump up here, one the number of spawners this late is a very small % of the escapement. Second despite the high praise of Mr. Holt when a lady asked a question about redd counts to not having the numbers done that would allow the 2021 process to proceed in well thought out manner is NOT doing a good job. In fact he should have his rear in a sling over it. If this is what WDFW regards as excellent performance I am afraid to ask just what is the standard poor performance.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/21 02:54 PM

u got to give wdfw time.. they need the time to cook the books !!
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/21 06:43 PM

yep, they want to "find" enough redds to get us out of the penalty box so the tribe doesn't feel pressured to scale back
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/21 07:38 PM

The Nation is not governed by the GHP only their 50% plus the 7% or 8% taken in the ocean. To be frank the nation has, give or take on ones perspective, stayed within their sharing in recent years. Little high on Chinook but all within reason. In fact it is to the Nations fishers a bonus if our fisheries are restrained as makes getting escapement way easier.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 10:07 AM

Staff has provided the preseason forecast models for folks which should not be confused with the harvest forecast models which will be available in March as the season options are developed. If your not on my personal e mail list and want the models let me know and I will get them to you. The preseason models have a lot of information and frankly it can be confusing to say the least but a lot of run history is in them that allows one to look back in time. The one short coming is that they have is that escapement numbers only go to 2016 which is important when we are looking at a restricted season due to a low forecast.

So, the recent online forecast meeting, how did it go? The numbers for harvestable Chinook and Coho are low and we are in a bind with Coho numbers being low and missed escapement 3 out of 5 years which restricts NT harvest impacts to 5% of the run. Then we have the fact that the 2020 escapement numbers are not done yet which is confusing as few Coho spawn in February. This is important as if we made Coho escapement in 2020, we are not in the 3/5 penalty.

We are out of the 3/5 penalty for Chinook but frankly if we have a fishery on Chinook, we will blow escarpment in NY minute. Some folks want to be able to keep a clipped Chinook (hatchery) but these are the prodigy of the volunteer Broodstocking every year for over 20 years to rebuild and maintain the Satsop Chinook and not a true hatchery run. We blow that Satsop run apart (again) it will not only screw the fish over but have an extremely negative impact on fisheries from Fuller Hill downstream as these clipped adults are part of the natural spawning population in the Satsop. The local community volunteers have put in over half a million dollars in man hours trying to keep that from happening, again. To be frank that is their choice as they choose to give back to the resource while others simply want to take for their own purpose. I am in the give back group which puts me at odds with some folks. That said the fact the commercials can keep one as incidental rather than use the recovery box and release grates on some folks and rightly so but then the GH Policy does not allow for targeted commercial Chinook harvest which is good.

Then we have the fact that 2020 hatchery jack returns at Bingham were X6 & wild X 4 over the previous year which was about average. The ocean PDO was very favorable when compared to the previous 5 years which should indicate a good return. That appears to be the case in the Columbia so why the difference Grays Harbor and Willapa, I do not know but something is a bit weird about this. So, we wait to see what 2021 seasons will resemble.

On a personal note, I would like to say this. My e mail has been on fire with what can only be described as very personal attacks on Ron Warren and other staff, guys that is uncalled for. I have known Ron for over 30 years, and he is descent guy. Now why he makes some of the god-awful decisions he does is a mystery to me. Why rather than guide the agency harvest managers to be more open and franker he chooses to go for the bunker mentality is also a mystery. Take the Grays Harbor and Willapa Advisers and no notification or anything that they had been cancelled! We found out only from his comments at a Commission meeting. The list goes on and on, but this is business folks and WDFW has a system and culture that it operates with. You can disagree strongly with WDFW staff right down to being rude but get off the personal attacks guys it is unnecessary. It does not further your argument or position and leaves an impression of you being a bit (you choose the word).

All that said this, Ron your description of the Grays Harbor and Willapa Advisers at the Commission meeting is downright insulting, short sighted, dishonest and these are the kindest words I can think of to describe your actions. Your better than that guy and it saddens me to see you reach that low.

So, folks we wait to see what shakes out for 2021 salmon seasons as the process such as it is goes forward.


Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 10:44 AM

No one should have to release a clipped hatchery fish no matter what kind of rambling explanation anyone gives.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 11:07 AM

Let me see if I get you correctly. One should kill a clipped brood stock adult fish that is part of a rebuilding effort and wild genetics so you can fulfill your desire to kill the creature? I get that correctly? Even if that results in the natural spawners being drastically reduced and likely driving the stock below escapement is your thought? Interesting how your thought process works as to conservation.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 11:38 AM

My question would be why ad-clip fish that you want to spawn in the wild? If you want to identify the cultured fish, give them a maxillary clip or freeze brand or ?? but remove them from the "Hatchery" pool so they can spawn.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 11:46 AM

Yup no argument here CM but the agency said had to do ad clip vs vent fin or other. Not sure if it was before you came to us for the meetings but if you recall it got heated over that at the meetings as they were not clipped at all for years for that reason. Agency said all the mass marking requirements dictated ad clip. My preference is an vent clip which was used for some of the work on Coho the volunteers did. It was an agency thing.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 12:16 PM

I can understand that a vent clip comes with mortality issues but a maxillary clip shouldn't be a problem. Not sure how much I trust what I was told.......
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 01:29 PM

Personal attachment and emotion aside, there is ZERO evidence that wild Satsop kings aren't capable of sustainable NATURAL production on their own.

There is no credible basis for believing that hatchery-origin spawners on the Satsop are the cornerstone of chinook production out of the gravel beds. I'd be happy to reconsider that position if you can find me a document or study that says otherwise. Fairly confident it DOESN'T exist. I don't believe the agency even bothers to assess pHOS... the most basic metric of ANY well-run modern-day hatchery program.

The Satsop hatchery chinook program has been running for EIGHT full chinook generations now. The Satsop population is essentially flat over those same eight chinook life cycles. Looking at it objectively, what's the point in continuing the program at all. Just trying to be intellectually honest here. What say ye, SalmoG?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 02:16 PM

First off your lack of knowledge of the Satsop is substantial. Prior to the program the Satsop Chinook were the restraining stock for the river according to RW Stone. Harry Senn hoped to do something in the late 60's but the hatchery staff could not even find enough to use for brood. The other part that is not know is while LLTK was under contract to capture Chinook brood for the Humptulips the existing hatchery production was transferred to the Springs and reared to yearlings and released into the East Fork. These fish were a mix of many sources including Humptulips. Data on the returns is weak because the volunteers being new were unaware that they needed the blue pink white slips in the small bag with the snout and just sawed them off and put them in the freezer. Montesano no good that way so dispose of them and the Hatchery Ops about had a stroke. If I recall 30% of the captured broodstock had clipped fins.

Prior to Bingham the old hatchery at Schafer Park one year shipped 5 million eggs to the upper Chehalis hatchery and they perished with a power outage (this required about 1110 pairs). The records show 50 million transferred but it is considered a typo but the old hatchery was primarily Chinook and Coho came with Simpson in 1950 I believe.

Records are a bit strange back when. I used to have a picture of the old Springs Japanese Chum spawning channels with trays full front to back. A bio calculated that the number of eggs to be 5 million plus and they did not come from the East Folk and there are no records of a transfer but we were told the canal but I truly do not know of the origin. Dry bed Creek had several deep matrix incubators capable of up to 450K eggs that you will find no record of and I was shown one on the Hamm's property. Not sure what species was utilizing them but we were told late Coho by Carol.

So the purpose of the East Fork program was to stabilize the run so that commercial harvest % did not keep it distressed and Rec getting bounced off the Satsop and Chehalis. At that time the bay was no REC as was darn near the entire mainstem including tidewater. It was Tom Pentt, Senator Owen, and Jerry Paveltich with QIN support that finally forced fisheries to open up the river to REC. So the purpose of the program isn't to produce fish for harvest but to help the run survive the harvest. That the flat line on the numbers IS the desired outcome and that is why the eggtake goal has always been between 450k and 600k.

We can walk down memory lane some sometime if you would like. Hey I got a good example, where was the first Satsop Hatchery and what stock was used? Ok, the answer is near the mouth of the Satsop and the Coho stock used was Columbia.



Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 03:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


So the purpose of the program isn't to produce fish for harvest but to help the run survive the harvest.


Sorry, that sounds like a politician speaking in shrouded semantics. As Bill Clinton once said, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Regardless the fish are being produced to prop up harvest. Absent this magical boost from hatchery fish, the harvesters would actually have to manage for escapement and simply curtail harvest. But wait, you said earlier that these aren't "real" hatchery fish... never mind. rolleyes

Quote:
That the flat line on the numbers IS the desired outcome and that is why the eggtake goal has always been between 450k and 600k.

That flat line is a reflection of what WILD self-sustaining gravel-based production is capable of achieving.... which rests entirely within the capacity of the available habitat to support it. The habitat is the limiter on natural production.

The hatchery origin spawners are simply displacing the natural-origin fish that could otherwise make use of the available habitat.

Let me illustrate with this example. The natural fish factory has room for 1000 workers to produce fish. The factory manager can can hire 1000 top-of-the-line employees to staff the factory to get the job done with MAXIMUM productivity.... OR.... he could instead sub out a couple hundred of them with "cheaper" ho-hum employees that produce say 70%... 60%... 50% of their top-of-the-line peers.

The mere presence of these inferior employees NECESSARILY means that the factory's total production goes down by some (currently unknown but) measurable amount. In other words, some unknown amount of pHOS is necessarily squelching the full production potential from the gravel.

Couple this with the fact that the hatchery program simply enables the harvesters to keep harvesting wild fish and you quickly see the folly in this model.

What's even more ridiculous is that the guys paying for this hatchery program reap some number statistically indistinguishable from ZERO benefit from the Satsop chinook hatchery. With ONE singular exception in 2016, the rec fisher has harvested ZERO Satsop hatchery kings in the past DECADE. The commercial sector harvests perhaps a couple dozen of them.

WDFW foots the ENTIRE bill to make the Satsop hatchery kings with the benefits accruing almost entirely to harvesters indiscriminately killing WILD Satsop-origin fish. AK and BC account for ~75% of the total harvest, and the QIN takes another ~25% of the harvest, leaving an oh so tiny sliver of a fraction of 1% of harvested Satsop-origin king (on a good year!) for WDFW-managed fisheries.

It's high time to FINALLY throw the home team a bone and give GH recs an opportunity to take a hatchery king home for the table.

Otherwise, what's the point in making them in the first place?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 03:46 PM

Ah WDFW does not foot the bill it is RFEG & ALEA volunteer funds Doc. Oh and we will continue to disagree especially on your take on inferior which frankly is off. So I thought I would throw this into the mix.

As I am helping a friend out and tied to the computer I thought I would share this. If you want to be upset about Chinook think about this. In 1985 the Chehalis Chinook return for 3 year old was 1010, 4 year old was 3442, 5 year old was 12174, and 6 year old was 4418. By 2014 it is 3/ 2014, 4/12433. 5/2652, 6/0. There is a few years of higher returns but 1985 seemed to be a good choice to tear apart.

Now that is something that everyone should be concerned about. I have sent the preseason model to everyone I can and I urge folks to take the time and look at them. Doc and go around about Chinook every year, two different perspectives. What is not perspective if you look at the run composition by age (=size ) is that the Chehalis Chinook are in serous decline in age and size. With that is the decline in harvest that is only going to get worse not better as the fish keep getting smaller so will their ability to reproduce successfully. This not opinion but rather simple unescapable fact. I sent you the models, don't take my word look for yourself.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 03:59 PM

The WDFW-managed fisheries CANNOT constrain their take on these Satsop fish any further than we already have. We harvest next to NONE of them... hatchery or wild!

AK and BC take the lions share of Satsop kings... indiscriminately so, with disproportionate exploitation of older larger fish simply by virtue of where they take the fish.

QIN are the other major harvester.... indiscriminately so, but at least they place no disproportionate pressure on age classes like the northern intercept fisheries.

Look all I'm looking for at NOF is a fair shake for recs to reap some minuscule benefit, however small, from the hatchery kings produced by OUR tax dollars.

That it produces conservation benefits for Chehalis Basin wild chinook and wild coho in a year when we will have severe fishery constraints on those stocks makes it even more important that we just gitter'dun.

Who's in?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 04:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Ah WDFW does not foot the bill it is RFEG & ALEA volunteer funds Doc.


You miss the point that the only beneficiaries are the indiscriminate harvesters who have NO SKIN in the game of producing the fish they take.

The home boys PAY, but don't get to play.... TROOF!

Is it really that hard to grasp?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 04:13 PM

No Francis you miss the point. We started that program and built NOT so we could catch the fish but rather helping the fish survive THOSE WHO WANT TO AND DO KILL THE FISH. You seem to have trouble getting that some place value on the creature itself not harvesting it.

Much different concept than you have apparently.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 04:27 PM

A dead fish is a dead fish. Really doesn't matter where it is killed or by whom, it's dead. Obviously, of we could magically close BC and AK we would have more fish here for the folks who actually pay to produce the fish to harvest.

But, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. So, the program that kept the escapement level allowed the harvest to continue but the fish also did not die out.

As to the ability of the habitat to produce fish it is my belief (based on the studies I have seen and done) that you need to put at least 1 and maybe 2 kilograms of spawner for each square metre of stream, as measured at summer low flow. For each species. The river can hold this..

I once did an exercise for Rivrguy and his folks that took the estimated habitat in the Chehalis basin and made suggested escapement goals for Spring and Fall Chinook, coho, and chum. I forget what the numbers were other than they were 10-20x what was done then, which was in the 90s or early 2000s, I think.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 05:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
No Francis you miss the point. We started that program and built NOT so we could catch the fish but rather helping the fish survive THOSE WHO WANT TO AND DO KILL THE FISH. You seem to have trouble getting that some place value on the creature itself not harvesting it.

Much different concept than you have apparently.


I would much rather put a WILD chinook on the gravel than a hatchery one. Tagging a hatchery king encountered while the gear is ALREADY deployed means an angler can exit the fishery.... his/her 1-fish bag is FULL. Impact STOPS when the gear leaves the water.... it continues on if the angler is forced to keep sorting for a keeper. The more other stocks are deemed retainable, the smaller the impact on the one needing conservation.

Wild fish are saved by minimizing encounters. Not because I said so, but because it IS so.... and without quibbling about what "is" is. Putting a hatchery king in a ONE-FISH bag accomplishes that by eliminating the unnecessary sorting required to bag a coho.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 05:34 PM

Well I gotta eat and my eyes ache from spread sheets but just to be a bit of and ass, the best way in a perfect world to put a wild Chinook on the gravel is don't hook them or net them period. That ain't going happen. Hell Doc there a whole bunch of folks that have serous objections to the Johns River fishery because it is a prime Chinook transition area and the release mortality. My response has been and will be that is how REC fishers utilize our limited impacts which includes myself. Which is far better than a kill fishery that others do be it tribal or NT and a dead fish is a dead fish. That some go to the bottom rather than the table is a shame but that is the price we ( and the fish ) pay so we can practice our sport.

CM I do not remember all of it but I remember that the upper Chehalis only ( above Fuller Hill ) pre settler came in at about 180k Coho average run size which shocked all of us. I do remember that you figured biomass of fish and it was just plain huge. Your example for us get a perspective was if you took every hatchery fish carcass that returned to a hatchery in Washington ST and dumped them in the Chehalis for nutrients it would not come close to what nature did pre settler. In fact mile for mile back then no other stream in the state came close for natural Coho.

Doc just because a human touches a Chinook and rears it does not make it inferior. 1 to 1 spawning protocols are adequate and the short rearing time result in a smolt that behaviorally is a little different. When it returns as an adult and spawns its prodigy are 100% the same as those never touched. Now where you are so right is when you then reuse the returning fish several generations without incorporating wild genetics then the genetics drift you are 100% correct. It is all about how you utilize the fish and what is brood.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 06:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman


As to the ability of the habitat to produce fish it is my belief (based on the studies I have seen and done) that you need to put at least 1 and maybe 2 kilograms of spawner for each square metre of stream, as measured at summer low flow. For each species. The river can hold this..


I'll not disagree that that Chehalis Basin escapement goals are woefully TOO low. The Satsop itself could probably support the ENTIRE chinook goal for the Basin. But MSY-entrenched harvest management absent ESA will NEVER allow us to test the limits of carrying capacity. There simply isn't enough restraint out there to make it happen.

So for now, managers are content to prosecute a 60-65% exploitation rate on coastal chinook ( and I have ZERO reason to believe Satsop is anywhere below that) with 75% of that exploitation happening BEFORE a single fish swims over the bar. Bottom line, half the current gravel-borne production (3/4 of 2/3) is lost to harvest before a single Satsop fish swims past Westport.

Sorry.... we're NEVER gonna get to a point where we can test the production potential of the gravel in the context of that harvest framework.

When I first moved to Grays Harbor nearly THREE decades ago, I probed around inquiring about escapement goals. I was told that the 12,400 basin-wide Chehalis chinook goal hadn't been looked at in over 20 years. In fact my search led me to RivrGuy (though he didn't know me from Adam at the time) and I had difficulty extracting myself from what would ultimately be a 2.5 hour conversation. At the time, he informed me that Satsop was the backbone of chinook production for the system.

Well nearly 50 years after the fact, the e-goal for the system was finally re-visited... and true to form in the MSY/Ricker construct, where by definition there is ALWAYS a harvestable surplus that can be statistically calculated, the new and improved goal is now only ~9700. Predictably, the MSY mantra and Ricker curve produced yet another DECREMENT in the Chehalis e-goal. Gee-willickers... the problem isn't that we're NOT putting enough spawners on the gravel for sustainability; we're putting too many. Things that make ya go, "Hmmmmmmm?"
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 06:33 PM


and with that Doc I cannot and will not disagree.
Posted by: bushbear

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/21 09:09 PM

Some historical numbers (total) on Chinook plants between 1952 and 1973 for the lower Chehalis WRIA

Satsop River (main stem) 2,000,423
Satsop River (EF) 7,623,128
Satsop River (MF) 1,331,165

Sub-total 10,954,716

Bingham Creek 1,396,057
Cloquallum Creek 946,214
Duck Lake 5180
Campbell Slough 423,310
Humptulips River 1,153,111
Stevens Creek 105,993
Chenois Creek 967,575
Chehalis River 1,713,223
Wynoochee River 18,110
Johns River 1,403,980

Sub-total 8,132,753

Total Chinook plants 19,087,469

All Fall Chinook. Mostly fingerling releases. There were limited plants of fry and yearlings.

Total salmon (Chinook, coho) plants into the Lower Chehalis WRIA was 50,188,213.

Additionally, there was a release of 4,980 Masu salmon into Duck Lake in 1972

Total salmon plants for the Harbor District 1952-1973 was 150,971,619






Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/21 09:18 AM

I cannot claim any understanding about arguing over harvesting a measly few hatchery Chinook in the GH basin recreational fishery. From where I sit as a taxpayer and fishing license buyer, producing hatchery Chinook in GH is like throwing money down a black hole. And as long as QIN practice their policy over science that hatchery and wild fish are the same in the spawning escapement, managing for wild salmon production in the face of significant hatchery production is a fool's game. If I could be the WA salmon czar I wouldn't spend a dime of state money producing hatchery salmon in the GH basin. That simple act would force all parties who give a damn about GH salmon to employ management practices that conserve wild Chinook, coho, and chum.

I don't see that as having much effect on my opportunity to retain a Chinook in the foreseeable future. As it is, my wife and I each bagged a Chinook once in GH in the last decade, and I don't see that happening again anytime soon, if ever, whether hatchery Chinook are produced or not. Tell me again why it makes sense to spend our state money to produce hatchery Chinook for fisheries other than our own?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/21 10:46 AM

It makes sense because the people who catch those fish make significant campaign contributions to the Political Cl(ass).
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/21 03:35 PM

and most of the AK commercials reside in WA, OR, and ID with the majority being WA residents. The large gulf processers are mostly based in WA out of PS and the powers to be don't have any intention of rocking the boat, so to speak. Post Boldt commercials headed North so in a way WA residents still catch our fish but in the marine to get in front of tribal terminal fisheries.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/21 04:19 PM

And since the AK fish and BC fish taken by w=Washigtonians don't count against shares, those are "free" fish and the Tribes get corked. Of course, so do the SRKWs, the WA anglers, and the resource. But few of them vote.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/21 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Let me see if I get you correctly. One should kill a clipped brood stock adult fish that is part of a rebuilding effort and wild genetics so you can fulfill your desire to kill the creature? I get that correctly? Even if that results in the natural spawners being drastically reduced and likely driving the stock below escapement is your thought? Interesting how your thought process works as to conservation.


it's missing an adipose fin, it's a hatchery fish.

wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/hatcheries/mass-marking
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/21 06:25 AM

One of the questions someone asked was how accurate is the forecast. For Chehalis Chinook the forecast on average it bounces around pretty close sometimes a little larger return sometimes little short. Years like 1997 way short of forecast and 2004 much larger ( nearly 15k ) are the exception.

Coho is a bit different and the eval tab in the model only goes to 2012 but 2001 to 2003 well above forecast, 04 to 07 well short of forecast, 08 even 08 to 012 couple years above estimate couple years below but totally missed 012 by around 35k short of forecast.

So if you had to judge the preseason forecast performance, a little over a little under it varies but when they blow it it is big time usually the run being way short. 04 and 12 are the ones that show rather nicely in the eval tab.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/21 07:39 AM

One of the problems with forecasts, or updates, is how you evaluate them. "on average", they should average whatever the real run was. But, if the PSF can be off by 50K in each direction that averages spot-on but is rather useless for actually hitting escapement or catch.

Rather than looking at how well the forecast performed the real question is how ell did management perform? The season starts with a PSF, a catch estimate, and an escapement goal. How close were those to the numbers?
When I was in the mess, if you hit the escapement, management was successful. If not, it wasn't. Next, did you make allocations, which were I/NI. or US/Canada. Then, did you get the internal allocations right? Each level builds on success but the measure is performance, not forecasts.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/21 04:59 PM


I do not think this is a surprise.

March 3, 2021
Contact: WDFW Region 6, 360-249-4628

State announces early closure to coastal steelhead recreational fishing season to meet conservation objectives

OLYMPIA – Amid low returns, fishery managers with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) today announced a closure to sportfishing in the Queets, Quinault, Humptulips and Chehalis river systems as well as tributaries of Willapa Bay to further protect wild steelhead populations. The closure takes effect Monday, March 8.
This follows measures fishery managers implemented earlier this winter to modify the coastal steelhead season, restricting fishing from a boat and using bait, to help more wild steelhead return to the spawning grounds. In coordination with tribal co-managers, the Quillayute and Hoh rivers will remain open for coastal steelhead through March 31 under the previously adopted conservation regulations.

“The numbers that we’re seeing return are a real blow to our angling and conservation communities who have already made sacrifices and invested so much in recovery infrastructure,” said James Losee, fish program manager for WDFW’s coastal region. “We were fortunate to get some days in, but the dire situation of these runs is apparent now and we have to take aggressive steps to protect these wild steelhead.”

This year’s closure is about a month sooner than previous year’s seasons have ended. WDFW is operating under its Statewide Steelhead Management Plan, which requires the department to prioritize the sustainability of coastal steelhead runs, including issues of abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution. As those objectives are first met, WDFW is then able to consider angler preferences.

Tribal governments have taken similar steps to reduce fishing times and harvest of coastal wild steelhead. Early summer 2021 public meeting Fishery managers will review additional in-season metrics, spawning surveys, and catch monitoring data this spring in preparation for an early summer virtual public meeting to debrief this year’s season alongside the state’s angling community, partners, and others.

“Public feedback has been important from the beginning of this year’s season,” said Losee. “We want to keep that conversation open, share the latest data we’re collecting and analyzing, and provide an opportunity to hear from those invested in coastal steelhead recovery well ahead of next season.”

Prior to this year’s limited winter coastal steelhead season, WDFW held a virtual town hall discussion, attended by more than 160 members of the state’s angling community and conservation organizations and considered more than 300 public comments weighing four management approaches to support long-term coastal steelhead conservation.

WDFW will share additional details about its next coastal steelhead public meeting as they’re available.

WDFW is the primary state agency tasked with preserving, protecting, and perpetuating fish, wildlife, and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing and hunting opportunities.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/21 06:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman


Rather than looking at how well the forecast performed the real question is how ell did management perform? The season starts with a PSF, a catch estimate, and an escapement goal. How close were those to the numbers?


The local manager has little control over how many fish are eventually headed back to a particular system. But each season there is a pre-season plan based on a PSF to fish to a certain rate, to a certain escapement goal for the good of the fish.... and secondarily to a certain allocation split for the good of the fishing sectors.

You can't fault them for a run that falls short of PSF... nor give them credit if more fish show up than expected. They should however be held accountable to fishing to the intended rate and stated allocation in the preseason harvest plan. Hopefully doing so also puts enough fish on the gravel to make the escapement goal, but not always. In an extreme shortfall of returning fish, the pre-season conservation objective may well be met yet still fail to achieve escapement. This does happen occasionally, where even in the absence of all fishing, the total runsize falls short of the e-goal.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/21 07:25 PM

Yes I can blame the local manager. They should be actively managing the fishery, monitoring catch, evaluating the runs size, looking at early escapement indices. This is what managers do. Or did.

There are times when the failure of runs is great enough to overwhelm any one. When the PSF is less than the goal, you do everything to protect the fish.

Going with autopilot management on forecasts is a recipe for failure.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/21 07:59 PM

You're a TOUGH grader, CM! I'm at least willing to concede some credit where it's due.

I'll give three real life examples and how I would grade them... all on GH chinook.

Scenario 1: WDFW puts an impact season on the books for a marginally harvestable run. Fishing for other species is GREAT, but there's a lot of chinook encounters. Post-season, the managers vastly overfish their intended chinook harvest rate by 150%. Luckily WAY more fish showed up than forecast. Post-season spawner survey shows we comfortably made escapement.

I would give them ZERO credit for making escapement... it was pure dumb@$$ luck that more fish showed. Overharvesting their intended rate shows that their harvest model is low-balling the fishing power of the fleet. I give them a DE-MERIT for a $h!tty plan for NON-target chinook.

...


Scenario 2: WDFW forecasts a small unfishable run. A season is set in the books for a 5% impact cap to gain harvest access to other species. Post-season shows final harvest rate of 3.8%, spawner surveys show we missed the goal by 1000 fish.

Even though escapement was NOT achieved, fishing impacts were constrained within the intended 5%. NO amount of "management" would have achieved the escapement goal because the entire terminal run-size was smaller than the goal. They absolutely get CREDIT for managing within the 5% conservation objective.

....

Scenario 3:

WDFW forecasts a marginally fishable run (less than 110% of goal), prosecutes a chinook-directed rec fishery anyway to target a handful of paper fish. In-season data shows the rec fishery has overfished its paper allocation by at least 5-fold. (QIN's simultaneously overfish their share by 350%) Post season spawner survey estimates they barely make escapement by 132 fish. Total terminal run-size was much larger than forecast, but essentially all of the surplus from the return was killed because both sides overfished their intended preseason harvest plans both in terms of exploitation rate and absolute harvestable fish avaialable.

Yeah, they made escapement (by the skin of their left nut) but another huge DE-MERIT from me.... for going chinook-directed at all, and grossly overfishing their intended harvest plan. What was all the more egregious is that Scenario 1 above (still fresh in their minds) just happened the previous season! BTW, the guy who ordained that fishery and gave us pre-season assurances that more than twice as many fish were conservatively budgeted to cover the targeted chinook... well he's now the TOP salmon manager in the state.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/21 07:03 AM

Well now Doc try as I may I cannot find a good argument against your points. Star time!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/05/21 07:41 AM

I grew up in a tough neighborhood......

Rule 1, regardless of the method used (PSF, ISU) is that when harvest is taken, it's taken, and fisheries close.Whoesomever has taken their number is closed.

Rule 2. If you have actual in season data such as ISU, rack counts, spawner survey info (the old telephone was of great use) you could modify fisheries.

I have been involved in situations where we didn't believe the ISU, so we didn't chase paper fish. We even had one situation where we ignored one week's ISU because, even with a bad week of fishing, the next week would show harvestable.

One of the real risks with autopilot management is that you know the number is wrong but you don't know which way.

Management was a time intensive activity with lots of conflicting information floating around. The manager's job is to figure out the most likely reality and follow it. Sure, sometimes you overfish and that puts the next return's fisheries tighter. Sometimes you get more spawners which is, in my experience with wild fish, never a bad thing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/21 08:09 AM

It is spring, well almost, and some folks are out on the river for a ride which is great. Now the not so great, it is dead head season and things have changed on the river as always. If your going up the North side of Higgins Island be careful. Just west of the last house we have a really dangerous dead head. At mid tide it will be about 3 to 4 feet out of the water and swings with the tide. It totally disappears at about 3/4 to high and guys it ain't small. Yesterday a boat clipped it rather hard but all are OK. They made it to my dock and after looking things over boat seems OK but he was going to head for the launch to get out of the water to get a good look at the hull to see how much damage.

They said that another one was hiding out by Blue Slough but it was not as large and somewhat visible. So if your out on the Chehalis be extra careful until you run the river a time or two. No reason in this world to bang up your boat for a few MPH.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/21 09:16 AM

It looks like in Southeast AK, about half the salmon fishing revenue accrues to nonresidents.

https://alaskasalmonandpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Southeast_earnings_res.png
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/19/21 09:57 AM

Just a reminder that the March 24, 2021 NOF Grays Harbor Fisheries public meeting, https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-grays-harbor-fisheries, is coming up. Also staff has provided the first run on the GH 2021 harvest model so if you want it PM me and I will get it to you. Keep in mind the model is last years seasons on this years forecast numbers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/19/21 07:24 PM

Staff just sent out an updated model. They were able to update November harvest rates and changes things some. I will back track and get the updated model out.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/20/21 07:32 AM

Some have questions on why we do not have a Chinook fishery on the Chehalis so below is a C&P off the model. Now this is this years run forecast with last years seasons marine and fresh which will change as this years seasons are updated into the model. It helps to remember that for the rest of the world it is Grays Harbor Chinook not the Chehalis or Humptulips.

The C&P is a bit messy but if you take a minute to sort it out you will get a picture of things. To boil it down 9554 of GH wild Chinook are taken in the marine with AK & BC taking most leaving 10852 returning Chehalis wild adults crossing the bar. The escapement goal is 9753 leaving 1099 harvestable. Hatchery harvest % are similar in the marine but terminal harvest jumps up due to the Humptulips hatchery production being harvested. So guys it is not the QIN that take our Chinook in huge numbers but rather the marine fisheries in AK & BC. I have more question folks are firing at me but I need to group them up a bit later to attempt to answer them.


Model Run: 2920a (May-April, Age 2-5 AEQ Total Mortality)
GRAYS HARBOR CHINOOK
Chin2920; NT 54K, Tr 25K
PRIORS Wild Hatchery Total
SEAK 6,139 2,860 8,999
CANADIAN 3,169 1,478 4,647
SUS NON-TREATY 184 86 270
SUS TREATY 62 27 89

IN-RIVER
TREATY 1,621 922 2,543
NON-TREATY 486 2,329 2,815

TOTAL TREATY 1,683 949 2,632
TOTAL U.S. NON-TREATY 6,809 5,274 12,083


SUMMARY
NORTHERN FISHERIES 9,308 4,338 13,646
SOUTHERN US (SUS) 2,353 3,364 5,717

SUS TREATY 1,683 949 2,632
SUS NON-TREATY 670 2,415 3,085
453
28.5% 71.8% 54.0%

Just as a side bar I imagine the numbers are similar around the state so tell me how does anyone think that the problem is all habitat and fix habitat all good. If that is your thought then you need better drugs and a lot more of them.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/20/21 08:16 AM

Four PM"s already, damn you guys are up early! Ok the question boiled down, how could this happen & how could the Quinault Nation allow this? Well as I understand it the nation is entitled to 50% of the harvestable fish that enter into Washington waters not the run. This came about in legal actions and the results of them which included co management. ( somebody correct me if I am wrong )

For those of us in on the ground floor of efforts to stop the decline of our Chinook stocks it became very clear very fast our ability to stop the decline would be limited due to the marine intercept fisheries. In a conversation with Billy Frank years back I blurted out that Boldt got it wrong and I thought Billy was going expire right before my eyes until I added this, "50% of zero is zero " Frankly I never dreamed that we could get to where we are as fast as we have let alone completely ignore the damage that AK & BC do to our Chinook stocks.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/20/21 09:50 AM

how many times has the chinook escapement goal been lowered in the last twenty years?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/20/21 10:06 AM

once that I am aware of
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/20/21 11:53 AM

The treaties allow the tribes 50% of the harvestable fish that enter WA waters. So, all the NI and I catch of Quinault fish counts against the two sides. QIN does not get 50% of the fish produced in their U&A; Treaty Indians do. The general exception would be steelhead that are harvest only in rivers. Conceptually, the Makah (for example) in their troll and set net fisheries would take the whole tribal share of a stock, leaving nothing for the "home waters" tribe.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/21 06:18 AM

Question: Why can’t they target Chinook? There are a few available and we are out of the 3/5 box?

Yes we are out of the 3/5 box on Chinook but only have 550 wild impacts available and modeled impacts to a similar season to last year is 346 with C&R. It is the wild returns that govern everything so if we did a kill fishery on Chinook we would eat up 550 impacts so fast and could fish ourselves to limiting Coho more than it will be. Doubt if we would make escapement also.

I posted up the numbers on the marine intercept fisheries and that is where our Chinook go.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/21 07:53 AM


Question: Why in the h--- are we having trouble with Coho escapement now because we did not in the past. Why are river fishers paying the bill with shortened seasons?

Well yes and no. The lowest wild escapement that I found with a quick look was 1991 and it was driven by excessive harvest. Simply put the difference now is we are short about a million or more Coho hatchery smolt ( much more if you go back to the 70's ) than are produced presently. This is a big deal because in down years of natural production returns the hatchery adults provided the opportunity. Now the Chehalis is primarily a natural return fishery and the hatchery adults are more or less a bonus.

Additionally the growth in rec inriver fishers in the last ten years is huge. Every time Puget Sound or other streams are restricted we get more fishers in the Chehalis. Also in the 90's the rec bay fisheries were added which increased the fishing impacts of the rec fishers substantially. This simply means that we have many more rec fishers directing harvest at natural production and drastically reduced hatchery production. In fact I do not know how staff can even model rec impacts because they base the impacts on past years. As rec fishers loose opportunities in other parts of the state the Grays Harbor rec fishers continue to increase dramatically!

In years of good returns we do OK but when the we are in a down cycle on natural production as we are now it does not allow much. It would not surprise me if in 10 years we are completely C&R on wild everything. To many people chasing to few fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/21 08:44 AM

Question: Will rec fishers be allowed to target Coho? It is hard to believe anyone would pretend to troll for chum.

I doubt it as the numbers do not support it. Keeping in mind that the harvest planning model is last years reduced season ( two week Sept shut down ) with 2021 run forecast and will change but things look really tight. NT share for 2021 is 5809 for wild Coho and as modeled with last years season harvest would be 4657. Then this if we failed to make escapement in 2020 we are in the GH Policy 3/5 box ( failed to make escapement 3 out of 5 years ) and are limited to an wild impact of 5% of the run forecast which is 2006 harvestable adults. In the preseason electronic meeting staff said they are still working on the 2020 returns so that is an unknown.

To protect my poor computer from a e mail melt down NO I do not know why it is taking so long to get the 2020 numbers into the season setting process.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/21 11:40 AM


Question: Why can't we do one and done as some have suggested in other years?

Well conceptually it sounds ok but in reality it is full of problems. First it is usually a bay fisher who puts this idea in play as they fish the boat as in marine fisheries. In river you one rod one fisher so how it impacts your fishing is different. Next is few people would comply and it almost unenforceable. Think of it this way, your fishing and at about two in the afternoon you get a Coho to the boat, your likely to keep it. Now your fishing with your two kids and you get a modest sized Coho to the boat at 7:30 in the morning and what will you do? 99% of us will turn it loose!

Another example is one and done does not reduce by much ( it will some ) the total impacts because of 100 fish caught the % of fishers that would catch two or three decreases substantially. So the reduction in catch numbers is not nearly as great as one would think and coupled with the almost complete inability to enforce the rule makes a poor tool to limit impacts. Got to admit it sounds good or not depending on the fisher / location.
Posted by: eddie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/21 02:19 PM

https://www.chronline.com/stories/our-views-skookumchuck-dam-has-attention-of-the-chehalis-basin-board,261708
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/21 05:43 AM

Good article!

Question : Just what are the stinking high and low years Grays Harbor Coho hatchery Coho releases?


5,309,620 in 1984 was the highest release year I could find ( similar from 1979 to 1984 ) and the 10 yr average ending 2017 is 1,375,730 and the five year average ending 2017 is 1,286,580.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/21 06:48 AM

Question ( cleaned the verbiage a bit / whole lot ) : How accurate is the preseason Coho forecast over the years?

Several asked this in.. ah ..little more colorful manner so here is what I could find. The forecast evaluation tab in the forecast model has not been updated for a bit but from 2001 to 2012 it varied substantially by years but seemed to run in several year trends. 01 to 03 underestimated the returns, 04 to 07 over estimated the returns, 08 nailed right on the money, 09 & 10 underestimated the return but just some, 11 overestimated again but just some, and 2012 blew it big time and were short around 50,000 of the forecast. I imagine the years since will have the same pattern.

A quick compilation of thoughts on this years forecast. 2020 Coho jack returns to the hatchery were X4 previous year, and in 2020 the guys fishing jacks got more wild than hatchery. In 2020 the jacks and adults returning were down right fat indicating they ate well in the ocean. The PDO for this years return is favorable which the large Columbia returns seem to indicate came out well. Two guys who track this type thing thought the Grays Harbor Coho would perform similar to the Columbia hatchery returns.

So what gives, no idea. For myself it is if both WDFW and the QIN staff agree to a forecast then that is it. It does not matter that I have the questions outlined it is a done deal but something just does not feel right about the forecast. That is the difference between a citizen and the co managers as they manage by what the math says not by their gut or feelings.

Still something just does not feel right.






Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/21 10:27 AM

Understand that forecasts are based pn past performance. You get the first few years of a good PDO and you'll underestimate as conditions are better than historic. Then, was conditions decline you overestimate. Couple this with occasional blob...

Further, the impact of the AK pink situation adds an even-odd component (which actually may have affected survival somewhat back when there were on wild pinks). Also note the steep decline in hatchery fish which places more pressure on the wild fish in either consumptive or release fisheries.

I harp back to a model developed in the OPI that very accurately accounted for ocean survival and estimated return to the coast. Vet accurate. It used 4 separate ocean metrics. There were two problems. The first was that the last metric was available just before the fish hit the coast; too late for the ocean mixed-stock fishery. The second, but which we should all remember, is that any one of the metrics could drive overall returns. If #4 was good it would compensate for poor 1-3 with the opposite just as possible.

Fish terminally on known (ie updated) numbers or develop and implement oceanic in-season updates and modify accordingly.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/21 06:24 AM

So to finish up just what are our options? To be honest they are few but it is possible to craft a season be it a rather diminished one. If we missed Coho escapement in 2020 ( we are still waiting on numbers ) then we are in the GHP 3/5 box outlined previously and the entire NT fisheries will be limited to around 2000 wild impacts. Last years reduced season with this forecast would be 4657 and as you can see it don't work.

If Coho are in 3/5 then logic says we do a full catch and release on wild. I think the hooking mortality numbers would permit the normal Sept 15th start to Nov 31 if we release all wild. I have been advocating a change in how we use closures also. Rather than take out two weeks as was done last year we simply loose days of a week. If we need to reduce 20% then we fish Wen through Sunday and off the water Monday & Tuesday. This would let folks fish and not one group of fishers shoulder the whole load. Jack season stays the same.

If not in the 3/5 box with Coho the NT share 5809 we have some wiggle room . I think a fair solution would be a one fish bag limit Sept 15 to Nov 31, normal Jack fishery. Then if the numbers do not fit we loose days of the week be it one, two whatever it takes.

Chinook numbers have the total wild impacts at 550 and with last years season being C&R looking at this years forecast our impact would be 254 wild. Ain't no wiggle room here guys. Where our Chinook are taken is AK & BC and those numbers are in a previous post. We are in a permeant C&R for Chinook unless something is done about marine fisheries.

Chum numbers are 10624 harvestable are OK and rec impact is modeled at 650 and frankly it is the commercial adjustment if required.

The bay fishery would also be C&R as in recent times and any down time be days of the week ( as outlined prior ) through the season rather a late start or loose two or three weeks in a block as we do now.


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/21 10:08 AM


As I was getting information out to folks I also submitted my suggestions posted up for folks to staff. Mike took the time to get back with a 2020 update to share with folks as it is rather important. So unless something really turns our way it looks like the 3/5 box will kick in and the NT fisheries will be around 2000 impacts on wild Coho. Oh ouch!

FROM MIKE SCHARPF:

Just letting you know, we don’t have a final 2020 GH coho escapement at this point and probably won’t by the end of April. But what we have are index redd counts in the Chehalis basin to date from many of the main areas and what we are seeing is about 30 to 40% of the average over the last 15 years or so. The attached file Curt and I put together to track progress in-season. We can also use this to give us an idea what the return is looking like. In none of the expansions does the predicted escapement exceed the goal, all indications are that escapement will be 2,000 to 6,000 below the goal this year. However, these are just the index counts from Curt’s crew’s surveys and doesn’t account for QIN work or the supplemental surveys (QIN surveys don’t account for much of the work in the Chehalis basin). If spawner distribution varied from historical distributions, or flows altered where coho decided to spawn, than this wouldn’t be the best indicator. I don’t think this was the case this year, but that is why we don’t use just the indexes in estimating escapements. Bottom line for me is, based on information on hand, the Chehalis coho escapement for 2020 will be below the goal. We will continue to work on completing the escapement estimate and keep some options in the pocket in case of good news.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/21 03:05 PM

I really hate to keep beating a very dead and decomposed horse but it never used to take this long to get a useable escapement estimate, at least in PS. Hell, we had run reconstructions for the past season by this time.

Of course, back then, we did not have the powerful computers available now.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/21 03:23 PM

like i said before cooking the books
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/21 04:23 PM

If your doing the zoom call for GH https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-grays-harbor-fisheries check your email as staff sent new info out.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/21 01:26 PM

so what happen ?? what's there plan for fall fishing?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/21 03:00 PM

3/26/2021

Chehalis side.......1 Coho, H or W, Jacks Coho, I asked that the limit be raised to 12, time will tell on that, reason I asked was the simple fact that so many are being "surplused" if they do make it to the hatchery.

Humptulips side...Chinook, yes......Coho are still in the shitter, so don't count on that fishery.

Only 2 people played the "call in game" Rivrguy and myself.

Also talked about was instead of a complete 2 week closing, in September, or a shorter season was fishing days restricted during the week. It was also mentioned that NO WEEKEND days be part of the shut down, to help the "working people" who normally only get the weekend to fish.

Nothing, at this point is "cast in stone", there is another viral meeting coming up.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/21 03:01 PM


Well not much. Staff put forth the forecast and took about any question asked. The problem was that only myself and DW asked questions but I did ask for others also. Some folks texted my cell and email with questions that I asked for them. Seems some folks just do not the this video format thing at all!

Bottom line the numbers say that it will be a very very restricted season. We have another video meeting in April and I think staff will be better able to give everyone a look at some options.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/21 04:04 PM

DW and I hit the send button at about the same time but a little more. Last years season this years forecast and remember we were down two weeks last year. Wild Coho number here as hatchery are not the limiter, the freshwater impact number ( dead adult ) is 3450, bay 580, commercial 627, and then the Chehalis Tribal is 251 for a total NT impact of 4657. So with somewhere around 2006 wild Coho impacts available 2021 and subtracting Chehalis tribal 251 we will have somewhere around 1755 for our NT fisheries.

So bottom line is whatever this season is it will restrictive from recent seasons. To be blunt everyone is going to take a real hit and big time guys. Two ways to do this reduce time fishing or reduce harvest success be it C&R or other restrictions. If we do time then it is an additional two weeks or so putting the season opening somewhere around 15th of October for lower river Fuller Hill down and backing the date down similar upper basin and tribs. The other way is to fish early and go to you run out of impacts my guess being closing around mid October for the year. The big dog here is freshwater guys as that is where our harvest numbers go but the bay is in the same situation just different time line. C&R is difficult also with mortalities which can be reduced but nobody will like what that means. There are no easy answers to this one folks.




Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/21 04:51 PM

Considering the lack of effort in tidal waters below Monte last year and the lack of fish to catch with the Oct. 1st opening last year, if the 2nd week of oct. is going to be the opening for lower river why the fuc* bother? Opportunity to fish when no fish are there is no opportunity at all. Just go with Sept. 15th and let us fish, whether with limited days during the week or just catch allowable numbers, shutting it down after limiting numbers are reached. Otherwise just shut down the whole dog and pony show, we are more likely to catch ponies and dogs then fish with this proposal.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/21 05:16 PM

It is not a proposal Bob but a look at what the math says nothing more nothing less. The purpose of the post is to get folks off their butts and think about what options they can put forward to meet the challenges we face.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/21 08:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
It is not a proposal Bob but a look at what the math says nothing more nothing less. The purpose of the post is to get folks off their butts and think about what options they can put forward to meet the challenges we face.

Well, if the math is that dismal, not opening the river at all IS an option. Why waste gas and effort when it's a pointless season? I'd rather see realistic seasons or no seasons at all. All it does is give an appearance of a season that is pointless as far as the ability to actually catch fish. And give the state license money under false pretenses. At this point the only people who will catch fish with opening the river in mid-October are those fishing frog water 'cause all the fish will have already made their big push.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/21 09:25 PM

03/26/2021

bobrr:

You are just like many others, if you can't fish the fish YOU want to fish, then shut the rivers down.

There are fish, that YOU might not like to fish But many others enjoy the sport and table fare fresh and they are great smoked.......Jacks, Coho jacks.

Every year for the past 6 or 7 years, I go to all the NOF meetings.....listen to the fighting between NT and sports about how to divide the season, who gets what when and where.....I always stick around until the last part of the meetings just to get my say on "jacks", has it done any good????? Well, there doesn't seem to be a problem for those that enjoy "the catching".

Might not be everyone's cup of tea but it is a ACTIVE FISHERY for those of us that enjoy it.

Bobrr...sorry your season in the Chehalis was bad.....you and Melanie might have to "change how and where you fish", one of the best years I've ever had.

Oh by the way, many of the people I've met during the fishing season on the Chehalis, were 1st met jack fishing.....more than 40+ years, many still show every year, some are fishing in the "big river in Heaven"...... I'll be there soon enough!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/26/21 09:50 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
03/26/2021

bobrr:

You are just like many others, if you can't fish the fish YOU want to fish, then shut the rivers down.

There are fish, that YOU might not like to fish But many others enjoy the sport and table fare fresh and they are great smoked.......Jacks, Coho jacks.

Every year for the past 6 or 7 years, I go to all the NOF meetings.....listen to the fighting between NT and sports about how to divide the season, who gets what when and where.....I always stick around until the last part of the meetings just to get my say on "jacks", has it done any good????? Well, there doesn't seem to be a problem for those that enjoy "the catching".

Might not be everyone's cup of tea but it is a ACTIVE FISHERY for those of us that enjoy it.

Bobrr...sorry your season in the Chehalis was bad.....you and Melanie might have to "change how and where you fish", one of the best years I've ever had.

Oh by the way, many of the people I've met during the fishing season on the Chehalis, were 1st met jack fishing.....more than 40+ years, many still show every year, some are fishing in the "big river in Heaven"...... I'll be there soon enough!!!!!!
Actually, we did quite well overall, just nothing in the river. A good number of kings for a change. A nice one in the sound, a 1st for us in years, new area. So we do get around, just more then you know. I never said shut down the jack fishery, if that floats your boat, fine. I just think that the fish might as well get up the river untouched by anyone from Sept. 15th on if the river is closed at that time. That way lots of spawners rather then jacks will increase numbers overall. Lets face it, from Oct. on the guides take the majority of fish in the river 'cause they fish it day after day, with boats full of clients, upriver. Pain should be equally shared.

Actually, we did quite well overall, just nothing in the river. A good number of kings for a change. A nice one in the sound, a 1st for us in years, new area. So we do get around, just more then you know. I never said shut down the jack fishery, if that floats your boat, fine. I just think that the fish might as well get up the river untouched by anyone from Sept. 15th on if the river is closed at that time. That way lots of spawners rather then jacks will increase numbers overall. Lets face it, from Oct. on the guides take the majority of fish in the river 'cause they fish it day after day, with boats full of clients, upriver. Pain should be equally shared. Bob R
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/27/21 06:41 AM

I think I need to put this out for folks again. The GH Policy ( GHP ) requires that we have 110% of escapement in the preseason forecast or NT fisheries are limited to a 5% impact on wild fish of the species in question. It also requires that if we failed to make escapement 3 out of 5 years ( 3/5 clause in the GHP ) then again we are limited to a 5% harvest impact on that species.

We are restrained this year by the 3/5 provision ( called the 3/5 box ) but have a wild Coho forecast of 5809 NT harvestable but the 5% cap reduces this around 2000 wild Coho impacts. Again last years season, with a two week shut down, with this years wild Coho forecast the wild Coho impact number is 4657. Which in a perfect world would give 1152 fish pad or even get part or most of two weeks we lost last year back but we cannot because we are in the 3/5 box on wild Coho.

That is the issue and the thing is the Rec fisheries are the big dog here with fresh water Rec fisheries taking nearly 2 1/2 times the combined impacts of all other NT fisheries. So we need to be forward thinking and come up with strategies that provide opportunity for all but protect the fish so when the runs get out of this down cycle ( which they will ) we are not nailed by past failures to makes escapement.

Two other items. Some are .... ah .... a bit grumpy about the GHP restrictions. Well the GHP is a conservation driven harvest policy and when it bit the NT commercials in the ass big time that didn't bother you but now that the shoes is on the other foot your bitching ? That dog don't hunt guys.

Also we are out of the 3/5 box on Chinook but with the massive over harvest of our Chinook in AK and BC we only have 550 harvestable wild Chinook impacts. With wild Chinook C&R our impacts are modeled at 254 so a keep fishery is out as the Rec fisher would eat the 550 number in a NY moment.

The simple fact for the Rec fisher is the growth in fishers from areas outside the Chehalis Basin in the last 10 years is huge as other areas of the state struggle with their stocks. This is not going to change so strategies need to be developed that address this issue. As for the bay fishery when it was implemented it was for fishers from outside the local area. That was the purpose stated by the AD at the time and not much has changed. What has changed again is the amount of fresh water Rec effort. We can no longer fail to address this issue because it is not going away.

Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/27/21 11:44 AM

Originally Posted By: bobrr


I just think that the fish might as well get up the river untouched by anyone from Sept. 15th on if the river is closed at that time. That way lots of spawners rather then jacks will increase numbers overall. Bob R


Foregone opportunity.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/27/21 02:43 PM

Foregone opportunity is not relevant. The tribes have taken more then half repeatedly without using foregone opportunity as an excuse. They still can only take the numbers agreed on legally. If the state wants to let their share go upriver and spawn then that's what will happen to those fish.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/27/21 03:40 PM

No it won't. If the Tribes want claim opportunity, they can and if necessary take it to court. Those fish have been identified as fish that have to die (from the managers perspective). I have been in situations where the state wanted to pass a few Chinook into the escapement (less than 100) and the tribe said if the state won't catch them, we will.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/27/21 04:49 PM

Tribe takes its share and some with Chinook. Coho kinda goes back and forth. Chum somewhat similar but Steelhead we are way way out in front of them with C&R on wild letting us fish and then we are 100% a head on Summerrun and these two are large numbers. Also terminal sharing is not 50% as the marine harvest in WA ST waters is calculated in and state takes way more than tribal on the ocean. All and all the Nation has been more less fair about things. It was only a few years back that they informed the state guys that they would not pass on the states ocean intercept not be calculated in.

To be honest since the GHMP was adopted the Nation has worked around things in a manner that is acceptable.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/28/21 06:36 AM

Some folks have asked where to find the runsize history updated in the Coho forecast model and it is in the summary tab. The information is from 1980 on updated in the tab and it is rather startling to look back at numbers. This problem with wild Coho returns we have did not sneak up on us but rather just happened in 2015. From 2010 to 2014 the wild returns were above 80K and in 2014 hit the high of around 150k. Then in 2015 dropped all the way down to around 30K and has been hanging in at around 40K with 2018 being up a few thousand. When you look at the 10 year graph it is dramatic to see the line go from near the top of the page to darn near the bottom in one year!

Another question is why has the tide water fishing been so poor in recent years? Well a good portion of it is the reductions in hatchery production over the years which was substantial and the other is the bloody weather. I can remember in years back that hunting would be restricted into Oct. because the woods were to dry and the fire danger. In recent years that has not been the case and the last few years it has rained early and bounced the river. The rule is not much rain until Nov. tide water fishing is great but if it rains before mid Oct. the fish simply shoot right up the river and in the toilet we go. So the recipe for horrible tide water fishing is a low return and early rain. The effect is just the opposite inland as the rain brings the fish to them early. Does not matter where you fish but mother nature is not a very nice lady and can be a bit of a bitch.
Posted by: J. T. Piscator

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/30/21 01:29 PM

Does anyone know when we can expect the Initial Season Recommendations form the Department? I have sent two Emails asking that question and have received no response...which is unusual. I don't always receive the response I am looking for but I usually receive something.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/30/21 01:48 PM

I think the options or what it will be is going to be put forth on April 6th video meeting https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-grays-harbor-fisheries-discussion-0
Posted by: J. T. Piscator

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/30/21 02:01 PM

Thank You!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/21 07:54 PM

JT they sent options out late today but I have more than one question on what was omitted. If your not on their mailing list PM me your e mail address and I will forward it to ya.

Also for those that got the e mail remember we threw several new concepts at staff and frankly these ideas are a work in progress and challenging for staff. So if you want the options pm a address and its yours or wait until the 6th as those who participated in the last vid meeting are tracking this pretty tight. The options as they stand now are intended to be first look with feed back from the public and Adviser getting them to a final draft. In other words Mike and Kim are working with public participants to get it right and acceptable as to accuracy for the QIN representative Mr. Johnstone.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/21 08:03 AM

Update time and at the present staff have added some things. First they are labeling suggestions as ideas as from my seat some thought the option things were like the marine. Like 1,2,3 and that is it rather than a work in progress. So we are at two wdfw ideas and five rec suggestions ranging from loosing two weeks in Sept to keeping them and loosing days of the week season long. The commercials have only two suggested seasons.

Staff is modeling the suggestions and so far of the 7 only two meet the 2021 wild Coho 5% non treaty impact cap so far. If you want to propose a season or want the suggestions so far send your suggestion to Mike.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov or Kim.Figlar-Barnes@dfw.wa.gov.

Oh yeah almost forgot, North Bay is the bay and mouth of the Humptulips and East Bay the bay up to the 101 Bridge.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/04/21 10:28 AM

04/04/2021

I tried to "copy and paste" the document from WDFW. I don't know how to do that but I think its important that you see the 7 ideas.

I just checked the WDFW web site.....nothing was there that a person could click on to see the "7 ideas".

As I am anti gillnet, NT have NO restrictions in 2 A/D and 2/C, only time on the water.

Sorry I can't be more helpful........

Oh one more comment, I have NO idea how the general public will be able to vote on their choice of what they favor of "ideas 1 - 7".
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/21 09:09 AM


This is a bit jumbled up but I think you can sort it out. There are 3 ideas for 2021 salmon seasons and this a C&P of them and staff comments in the email. If anyone wants the e mail and models just pm me an address.

From: Grays Harbor (DFW) <graysharbor@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 5:57 PM
Subject: Grays Harbor Fishery Ideas and Excel Models



To All Interested Parties:

Based on comments received since the last meeting, we have reviewed the models, ideas, and opportunities, and provide three updated ideas that meet management objectives. There are concerns with some uncertainties and assumptions around effort; such as a shift in effort from ocean anglers to the North Bay by extending the season by one week and a shift in effort in the Chehalis River to the downstream selection that would allow any coho. Assumptions agreed to in 2018, when a similar season structure was in place for the mainstem Chehalis, where 40% of effort occurs downstream of the Hwy 107 Bridge. These models provide a little buffer if there are shifts in effort. Please take a look and if you wish, provide feedback.

Thanks again and have a good weekend.


Draft State managed Grays Harbor 2021 fall salmon fishing ideas
Areas Bag limit Season
Idea 2 Idea 3B Idea 3C
North Bay 1 fish, release wild Chinook and wild coho. Aug 1-Sept 23 Aug 1-Sept 23
East Bay 1 fish, release Chinook Oct 1-Nov 30 Oct 1-Nov 30, Tue-Sat only Oct 1-Nov 30, Wed-Sun
only

Lower Chehalis (Hwy 101 Bridge to Hwy 107 Bridge in Montesano) release adult salmon Aug 1-Sept 15 Aug 1-Sept 23
1 fish, release Chinook Oct 1-Nov 30 Oct 1-Dec 31, Tue-Sat only Oct 1-Dec 31, Wed-Sun
only
1 fish, Realease Chinook and wild coho Dec 1-Dec 31
Cheh R Hwy 107 Bridge upstream to
South Elma Bridge release adult salmon Aug 1-Sept 15 Aug 1-Sept 23
1 fish, release Chinook and wild coho Oct 1-Dec 31
Cheh R upstream of South Elma
Bridge and Tribs 1 fish, release Chinook and wild coho Oct 1-Dec 31

Humptulips River 2 fish, release wild Chinook and wild coho Sept 1-Sept 30
1 fish, release wild Chinook and wild coho. Oct 1-Oct 31
1 fish, release Chinook and wild coho Nov 1-Dec 31
NT Commercial 2A/D Week 44, Oct 24-30 Three (3) 12-hour days
Week 45, Oct 31-Nov 6 Two (2) 12-hour days Two (2) 12-hour days
NT Commercial 2C Week 43, Oct 17-23 Four (4) 24-hours days
Week 44, Oct 24-30 Two (2) 24-hour days
Management objectives
Chehalis coho impacts 4.90% 4.56% 4.81%
Humptulips coho impacts 3.05% 3.35% 3.36%
Chehalis Chinook expected Esc. (goal 9,753) 9,529 9,548 9,543
Grays Harbor Chinook expected Esc. (goal 13,326) 13,420 13,443 13,438
Grays Harbor Coho expected Esc. (goal 35,400) 36,042 36,174 36,072

Last year's QIN schedule.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/21 09:32 PM

what a [Bleeeeep!] show!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/21 08:17 AM


This is link to the Grays Harbor NOF video meeting tonight the 12th at 7:00 PM. Staff has refined options and I assume will brief folks on them.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-grays-harbor-fisheries-discussion-1



For those following the Willapa NOF here is the link to the video meeting tonight the 12th at 6:00 PM.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-willapa-bay-fisheries-discussion-1
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/21 06:21 AM

Couple folks asked when WDFW will release the season, the answer is no idea. We know that there is a hang up in the ocean with the tribes. The comanagers also need to come to an agreement on GH seasons and at the time of the Zoom meeting that had not been addressed. It may or may not take a bit for all the parts to fall into place.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/21 07:44 AM

It sounds like Sunday through Thursday will be the rule at the ocean out of Westport.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/21 09:53 AM

Here is the link to ocean recreational seasons from the PFMC website:



https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2021/...il-adopted.pdf/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/21 11:37 AM




THX for finding that info and here is a C&P of the posting.

TABLE 2. 2021 Recreational management measures for non-Indian ocean salmon fisheries - Council Adopted. (Page 1 of 5)
A. SEASON DESCRIPTIONS
North of Cape Falcon
Supplemental Management Information
1. Overall non-Indian TAC: 58,000 Chinook and 75,000 coho marked with a healed adipose fin clip (marked).
2. Recreational TAC: 27,250 Chinook and 70,000 marked coho; all retained coho must be marked.
3. Trade: commercial troll traded 7,000 marked coho to the recreational fishery for 1,750 Chinook.
4. No Area 4B add-on fishery.
5. Buoy 10 fishery opens August 1 with an expected landed catch of 80,000 marked coho in August and September.
U.S./Canada Border to Cape Alava (Neah Bay Subarea)
• June 19-July 3 (C.5).
Open seven days per week. All salmon, except coho; one salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
• July 4 through the earlier of September 15, or 5,730 marked coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 5,825 Chinook (C.5).
Open seven days per week. All salmon, except no chum beginning August 1; two salmon per day. All coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length; coho minimum size limit 16 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Beginning August 1, Chinook non-retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line (C.4.a) during Council managed ocean fishery.
Cape Alava to Queets River (La Push Subarea)
• June 19-July 3 (C.5).
Open seven days per week. All salmon, except coho; two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
• July 4 through the earlier of September 15, or 1,430 marked coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 1,300 Chinook (C.5).
Open seven days per week. All salmon, except no chum beginning August 1; two salmon per day. All coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length, coho minimum size limit 16 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
Queets River to Leadbetter Point (Westport Subarea)
• June 19-26 (C.5).
Open seven days per week. All salmon, except coho; one salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 22 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
• June 27 through the earlier of September 15, or 20,440 marked coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 12,925 Chinook (C.5).
Open five days per week (Sun.-Thurs.). All salmon; two salmon per day, no more than one of which may be a Chinook. All coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 22 inches total length; coho minimum size limit 16 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Grays Harbor Control Zone closed beginning August 9 (C.4.b).
Leadbetter Point to Cape Falcon (Columbia River Subarea)
• June 19-26 (C.5).
Open seven days per week. All salmon, except coho; one salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 22 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
• June 27 through the earlier of September 15, or 42,400 marked coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 7,200 Chinook (C.5).
Open seven days per week. All salmon; two salmon per day, no more than one of which may be a Chinook. All coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 22 inches total length; coho minimum size limit 16 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Columbia Control Zone closed (C.4.c).
For all Recreational fisheries north of Cape Falcon: Inseason management may be used to sustain season length and keep harvest within the overall Chinook and coho recreational TACs for north of Cape Falcon (C.5).
TABLE 2. 2021 Recreational management measures for non-Indian ocean salmon fisheries - Council Adopted. (Page 2 of 5)
South of Cape Falcon
Supplemental Management Information
1. Sacramento River fall Chinook spawning escapement of 133,913 hatchery and natural area adults.
2. Sacramento Index exploitation rate of 50.6%.
3. Klamath River recreational fishery allocation: 1,221 adult Klamath River fall Chinook.
4. Klamath tribal allocation: 8,135 adult Klamath River fall Chinook.
5. CA/OR share of Klamath River fall Chinook ocean impacts: 64.6% / 35.4%
6. Overall recreational coho TAC: 120,000 coho marked with a healed adipose fin clip (marked), and 14,000 coho in the non-mark-selective coho fishery.
7. For fisheries scheduled prior to May 16, 2021, see 2020 management measures, which are subject to inseason action and the 2021 season description described below.


A. SEASON DESCRIPTIONS
South of Cape Falcon
Cape Falcon to Humbug Mt.
• March 15-May 15, open for all salmon except coho, except as listed below for mark selective and non-mark selective coho seasons;
• May 16-October 31, open for all salmon except coho, except as listed below for mark selective and non-mark selective coho seasons;
• June 12 - August 28 or 120,000 marked coho quota. Open area extends to the OR/CA Border. Open for all salmon, all retained coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip;
• September 10-12, and each Friday, Saturday, and Sunday through the earlier of September 30, or 14,000 non-mark-selective coho quota. Open for all salmon, (C.5, C.6). Open days may be modified inseason.
Two salmon per day (C.1). See minimum size limits (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Any remainder of the mark-selective coho quota may be transferred inseason on an impact neutral basis to the non-selective coho quota (C.5).
In 2022, the season will open March 15 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2021 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2022 meeting.
Humbug Mt. to OR/CA Border (Oregon KMZ)
• June 12-18. Open for all salmon except Chinook, all coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip;
• June 19-August 15. Open for all salmon, all coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip. Coho retention closes when the Cape Falcon to OR/CA border quota of 120,000 coho is attained.
• August 16-28. Open for all salmon except Chinook, all coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip. All salmon fishing closes in this area the earlier of August 28 or the Cape Falcon to OR/CA border quota of 120,000 coho.
Open seven days per week. Two salmon per day (C.1). See minimum size limits (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
For Recreational Fisheries from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mt.: Fishing in the Stonewall Bank yelloweye rockfish conservation area restricted to trolling only on days the all depth recreational halibut fishery is open (call the halibut fishing hotline 1-800-662-9825 for specific dates) (C.3.b, C.4.d).
TABLE 2. 2021 Recreational management measures for non-Indian ocean salmon fisheries - Council Adopted. (Page 3 of 5)
A. SEASON DESCRIPTIONS
South of Cape Falcon
OR/CA Border to Southern KMZ Boundary (California KMZ)
• June 29-August 1 (C.6).
Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Klamath Control Zone closed in August (C.4.e). See California State regulations for closures adjacent to the Smith, Eel, and Klamath Rivers.
In 2022, season opens May 1 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2021 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March or April 2022 meetings.
Southern KMZ Boundary to Point Arena (Fort Bragg)
• June 29-October 31 (C.6).
Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
In 2022, season opens April 2 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2021 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2022 meeting.
Point Arena to Pigeon Point (San Francisco)
• June 26-October 31 (C.6).
Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
In 2022, season opens April 2 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2021 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2022 meeting.
Pigeon Point to U.S./Mexico Border (Monterey)
• April 3-May 15 (C.6).
Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
• May 16-September 30 (C.6).
Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).
In 2022, season opens April 2 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2021 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2022 meeting.
California State regulations require all salmon be made available to a CDFW representative for sampling immediately at port of landing. Any person in possession of a salmon with a missing adipose fin, upon request by an authorized agent or employee of the CDFW, shall immediately relinquish the head of the salmon to the State (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 1.73).
B. MINIMUM SIZE (Inches) (See C.1)
Area (when open)
Chinook
Coho
Pink
North of Cape Falcon (Westport and Col R)
22
16
None
North of Cape Falcon (Neah Bay and La Push)
24
16
None
Cape Falcon to Humbug Mt.
24
16
None
Humbug Mt. to OR/CA Border
24
16
None
OR/CA Border to Southern KMZ Boundary
20
-
20
Southern KMZ Boundary to Pt. Arena
20
-
20
Pt. Arena to Pigeon Pt.
20
-
20
Pigeon Pt. to U.S./Mexico Border (through May 15)
24
-
24
Pigeon Pt. to U.S./Mexico Border (beginning May 16)
20
-
20
C. REQUIREMENTS, DEFINITIONS, RESTRICTIONS,
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/21 05:29 PM

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/23/21 10:56 AM

In the chatter some folks are having a bit of a struggle understanding why the last two weeks of Sept. drive fresh water rec to such a degree. Well the primary reason is that the month of Sept have few commercial days including tribal. So the rec is fishing on the run that has not been diminished by commercial harvest which means a far greater success rate for the rec angler. Come Oct you have nets three to four days a week which frankly means give or take 50 to 60% of the run going up the river is removed. Also tide water fishing tanks as the tribal nets go to almost South Monte and if you do fish your not only fishing on a smaller number of adults but there is a reason a tribal fisher fishes where they do, that is the best place to catch fish.

So when a season is modeled in a low return year the last two weeks of Sept are where impacts are greatest. Add to the mix the run can be early ( like last year ) which creates a far greater angler success ratio inland. Dumps the bay and tide water in the toilet at the same time. Dry years ( missing for a bit ) it works to the bay and tide waters favor and some years of no measurable rains until Nov. creates what could be called a prime fishery low in the river and really ugly ( not many fish ) inland. If the fish are late such as the year Steve shut things down ( after the commercial fisheries failed ) you have a variation of the same thing but in that situation it is the freshwater rec that will carry the heavy load of conservation.

So the Sept shut down time for recs is all about historical harvest and uses several years averages to find the number for projected impacts. To be honest yes the system used for setting Grays Harbor salmon seasons is not ideal to say the least. All that said minus a substantial increase in funding to use sonar or staff on the river seven days a week to assess fish movement and angler success I cannot see how you can do anything any differently in a meaningful way. Considering the state wide legislators we have presently and the real lack of knowledgeable individuals one should not hold their breath on this one.

In Grays Harbor staff has went out of their way to provide honest information such as models and options ( ideas ) which is not done other places with Willapa being the poster child for 100% pure GRADE
A WDFW BS. So guys we gotta go with Mike and Kim on the season thing. We may not like the outcome but I doubt if a viable alternative exist at the present or will in the foreseeable future.





Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/26/21 10:57 PM

A couple of us have been doing the what if thing for a Chinook keep fishery and ended up with this. If not in the 3 / 5 penalty then the odds are better. In this down cycle of returns in recent years the NT share would have to be substantial not four or five hundred or even a thousand. With the bay fishery and fresh water fishery the rec have the ability to catch a lot of fish in a full season. It would draw fishers and little difficult to model something that has not happened in a while. ( Chinook keep )

The way they run the marine harvest AK down it would take one h--- of a run to get the number of returning adults required for a rec keep fishery.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 07:35 AM

At some point, the landowners in GH County may want to ask why they have to protect habitat so AK can fish. If you want to protect and restore the FW habitat then I believe those who have to pay for it (the locals) should be first in line for benefits.

This actually was, and may still be, one of the pillars of the US/Canada (or Canada/US depending on where you sit) treaty; the producer of the fish gets the benefit of habitat protection and restoration. Otherwise, why do it?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 08:57 AM

4/27/2021

Sportsmen in the Marine area, Chehalis River and ALL tributaries, no hatchery or Wild Chinook are allow to be kept.

The total amount of "Bay, In-river and tributary" fishermen really have a hard time that the commercial fleet is going to be allow a 100% kill, included in that 100% kill is Chinook.. Wild and Hatchery, Coho....Wild and hatchery and of course all Chum.

What happened to the "recovery boxes", that were in use in the recent past?????

I've been around the Grays Harbor area since 1968, depending on the weather. there could be vast amounts of fish move past South Montesano because of "brown outs" or a mass kill by the commercial fleet, QIN and NT, because of "low water" where the fish "hang" in lower part of the Marine area and lower river to South Montesano.

WDFW can monitor NT fishermen, 24 hour reporting........but posting on the WDFW web site on QIN results can be a much longer delay. Mass wild Chinook and Wild Coho, killings could have long range effects...... There has got to be a better way of reporting netting totals.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 09:45 AM

There was. Back in the day, WDF required that all salmon sold be on fish tickets. WDF checkers looked at all the fish tickets daily and reported them to Olympia where they were put into the AFCRS system and available for viewing and use. Something over 95% of the fish caught on any given day were on the system within 3 days, normally even faster. Indian, non-Indian; all of it (Commercial). In the Spirit of Cooperation, WDF allowed the Tribes to compile their catch and then share it. Makes day to day management impossible.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 10:42 AM

Sometimes folks I wonder if any many really take time to look at the information provided each year. The modeled seasons this year have Chinook impacts modeled at bay rec W 51 & H 20, fresh water W 158 & H 42, and commercial W 12 & H 7.

Recs utilize C&R to extend opportunity ( time on water ) and commercials are not allowed a targeted Chinook fishery but do keep the few encountered as incidental. Coho are similar but again recs do C&R to extend the season and commercials burn their share in a shortened keep fishery. Also depending on how the fish are moving commercials ( and recs at times ) can have a god awful mortality if they get the fish in transition from salt to fresh. It is a rather short window of time but can be lethal to the fish and nets will get a bunch all at once. Recs might get a few as they swim by but they just do not encounter them the same way or numbers. ( hooks are not as effective as nets )

Take this year if Recs had a keep fishery on wild Coho we would have about a 10 day season, loose a rather large portion of the jack fishery, and likely all of Nov and Dec. The fresh water fishery above S. Monte 107 bridge eats a 5 1/2 times wild Coho impacts than the rest of the rec fisheries COMBINED.

As to the clipped Chinook these are part of the local communities long standing effort to rebuild and maintain the East Fork Satsop wild population that was nearly wiped out prior to the 80's. As one who was involved with the effort I have little sympathy for those that just approach salmon with I want to kill a fish at all cost mentality. That is how we got to this screwed up mess of management allowing marine fisheries to drive stocks to barely make or not make escapement. They do enough damage and we do not need to make it worse with the terminal fisheries with the same uncaring greed that drives marine fisheries.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 12:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


As to the clipped Chinook these are part of the local communities long standing effort to rebuild and maintain the East Fork Satsop wild population that was nearly wiped out prior to the 80's. As one who was involved with the effort I have little sympathy for those than just approach salmon with I want to kill a fish at all cost mentality. That is how we got to this screwed up mess of management allowing marine fisheries to drive stocks to barely make or not make escapement. They do enough damage and we do not need to make it worse with the terminal fisheries with the same uncaring greed that drives marine fisheries.



04/27/2021

Rivrguy:

You know my feeling on "no Chinook adult or jacks in my boat", just me but even if I have others in my boat,,,,,no to smelly jacks and no adults Chinook for many years.

My post had to do with the NT not using recovery boxes on the very same fish that sports MUST PUT BACK, why don't the NT boys have to protect the very same fish sports have to??????

Time for the NT fleet to develop ways to release fish OR STAY OFF THE WATER !!!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 01:29 PM

While I agree that the netters have to develop more selective fisheries, we need to seriously look at any and all C&R. The goal of C&R should not be the live release of the fish. It should be THAT fish successfully spawning. So, we need to do studies that tag fish post catch and then find out how many make it to the grounds. THAT then becomes the survival rate used in management. Wherever the fishery is located. Releasing a wild fish 5 times out in the ocean and having it die after #5 doesn't help rebuild the runs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 02:18 PM

Going from memory the reason was with no directed Chinook fishery for commercials with the few encounters they have the few they impact is not enough to require that they release them. If the encounter numbers rise to the level of significant then they do require the use of recovery boxes but I do not know what the number to be significant is as it would vary with run size.

2021 harvest model has NT commercial at 19 total Chinook impacts which is nothing in the big picture. If your upset that nt commercials have 19 impacts while rec have 271 impacts with C&R I imagine I can find a commercial who will gladly explain why they think rec's impacts being 14X theirs is not fare.

Frankly with the GH Policy ending targeted non treaty commercial Chinook fisheries, requiring 3 days the river being net free, and harvest limiters for run size under 110% of escapement goals bitching about 19 Chinook impacts on the commercial side is a bit of a reach.

Comparing the two fisheries operating under two very different requirements is not really a defensible mental exercise. Considering that prior to the massive ocean intercepts we have now the GH NT fishery in GH was Chinook and hatchery Coho. In 2021 they are limited to around 20% rec share of wild Coho and around 66% of the NT share of Chum and impacts for Chinook barely move the graph bar off the bottom of the page. Actually to put it bluntly NT rec fishers have little to bitch about with the sharing with commercials and not in past years either since the implementation of GH Policy.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 03:59 PM

04/27/21


19 Impacts, what if it ballooned to 300 impacts? Don't say the NT fishers don't know when they are far past their allotted 19 impacts......

I need to remain you of the NT Chum fishery in Willapa, where they exceeded their impact by 15,000 Chum......think they didn't know they were way over????? Ron Warren said "a mistake was made".

I'm not sure the Chum run, in Willapa,+++ has recovered at this time....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 04:56 PM

Quote:
19 Impacts, what if it ballooned to 300 impacts? Don't say the NT fishers don't know when they are far past their allotted 19 impacts.....


NT Commercials and rec run on the preseason forecast and both can be under or over the modeled forecast depending on run size vs forecast. NT commercials are not required to call WDFW to tell them how harvest is going and neither is it a requirement for rec. Both have been known to exceed preseason estimate of harvest. To compare Willapa managed fisheries with GH fisheries is a bit out in wah wah land to say the least as the management is totally different, Willapa is managed for nt commercial.

Also just so all know commercials have WDFW onboard observers in place that do blow the whistle if things come a part and fish tickets at sale show the commercial catch. Recs catch on the other hand do not as a creel census only shows what hits the beach not how many were encountered to produce mortalities, also it takes two or three years for punch card data to be available. The fishery tracked the most closely is commercial for accountability. The fishery with the least accountability is rec fishers by a mile with the nation hanging out in the middle.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/27/21 09:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


As to the clipped Chinook these are part of the local communities long standing effort to rebuild and maintain the East Fork Satsop wild population that was nearly wiped out prior to the 80's. As one who was involved with the effort I have little sympathy for those that just approach salmon with I want to kill a fish at all cost mentality. That is how we got to this screwed up mess of management allowing marine fisheries to drive stocks to barely make or not make escapement. They do enough damage and we do not need to make it worse with the terminal fisheries with the same uncaring greed that drives marine fisheries.


A clipped hatchery fish is not a wild fish, no matter what kind of convoluted explanation you give. If you want them to be treated as "wild" then they should not be clipped. Everyone is thankful for people like you who dedicated time and effort to rebuilding the run, but saying that certain hatchery fish are not really hatchery fish even though they are as defined by WDFW regs is contradictory and confusing.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/21 10:47 AM

04/28/2021


Wild Chinook, NT caught, in a tote is a dead fish, Wild Chinook released in marine or in river is not necessarily a dead fish and maybe has the ability to help increase the Wild Chinook run......

Until the Wild Chinook reach the level that they are no longer threaten, then the fish should be, indeed must be released to help increased the ability to spawn "in the wild".

Recovery boxes should be used, on wild Chinook, then released !!!!!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/21 10:55 AM

The WSC has shown that traps are able to selectively remove hatchery fish and pass wild fish. This wild fish then show up on the grounds, hundreds of miles upstream. There is no (good) reason not to convert the NI commercial fishery to traps or perhaps reefnets.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/21 11:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The WSC has shown that traps are able to selectively remove hatchery fish and pass wild fish. This wild fish then show up on the grounds, hundreds of miles upstream. There is no (good) reason not to convert the NI commercial fishery to traps or perhaps reefnets.


So, do we give each NI commercial fisherperson a couple traps with thier name and license number stamped on the traps ? Or, maybe a reef net or two in trade for their boats, gear, gas, moorage, and fishing permits. Will they own the trap locations, or do they draw traps and locations from a fishbowl for fairness in trade? Maybe site leasing from the state or tribes?

Yup, I think it’s a possibility.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/21 11:59 AM

Working on my roof but this. Chinook in GH as a whole are not at risk, make escapement more than not, and anything above the goal is harvested with most being in the marine fisheries. That is salmon management in our state. Again the GHMP intentionally removed targeted NT commercial harvest allowing only minimal impacts when coupled with three net free days a week. The release mortality from a net is rather substantial be it with a box or not and we are talking 12W and 7 marked fish for 2021. To think that 19 fish will have any measurable impact the health of the run is off more than a bit.

So what I am seeing in all the post is philosophical arguments revolving around harvest. One I want to kill a fish, two the NT get to kill them so I should be able to also. That the NT impacts are tiny fraction of what the rec fisher places on the run ( 19 fish guys vs 271 rec fish with C&R ) is inline with the GHMP appears to irrelevant to some folks. Interesting way to look at things and DW GH has zero threatened salmon of any species. Over harvested I think yes but that damage is done in the marine fisheries with Hump Coho being the odd one.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/21 08:00 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA


Recovery boxes should be used, on wild Chinook, then released !!!!!!



Yep. The NT boats should not even be there, for the few that still fish it is just a form of state welfare.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/21 09:01 PM

One piece of the puzzle is that one fish harvested in a terminal area may represent 100 or more to be harvested in a mixed-stock fishery. When the goal is "maximum participation" that in-river fish, from a smaller stock, is more valuable in the outside fisheries. If WA gave up all mixed stock fisheries we could still get the full harvestable on WA stocks but would miss out on the "free" Canada, Oregon, and California fish.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/28/21 09:02 PM

I think the use of traps could be a real problem for recreational fisherman. Done correctly they can be very efficient and have zero or near zero impacts. If impacts are the restricting factor in any run, this would allow them to fish at any time the hatchery components allow, with less impact than a recreational fishery. That said, in very low impact years, there could easily be a big push to let the traps fish and take out as many hatchery fish as possible but not allow the sports fishery in at all.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/29/21 06:21 AM

As in all things fish traps are no different, it is location location! Let me share my experience with you all. LLTK had a contract to capture Chinook brood for the hatchery on the Hump and utilized a tidewater area. Getting fish not that difficult but keeping them alive was something else. After a bit in the hatchery a full wedding band of fungus from gripping the fish showed on many as the stomach with a hand print! Even worse on the Wishkah and it was well documented. Seems we hit the salt fresh thing that tidewater gives you so any effort in tide water got dumped.

On the Chehalis we found that the water temp has to drop or the females do not do well. Satsop not so much but by the time they reach that far they are slimed up and sturdy as h===.

Bottom line is traps can work but not everywhere. Rain driven streams on the coast not so much UNLESS you can release the fish without touching it. Frankly fish wheels would work best and the technology exist now to hit a pedal and clipped one way fin the other.

So traps or other methods can work but it is about release, water temp, and location. It can be done but it ain't cheap and is difficult to site. Then the coastal streams can go up to flood stage in a few hours so construction cost are likely be high as a bunch of net strung up in pilings will not work on the coast.


Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/29/21 07:21 AM

Yes, traps could, by the efficiency at release, severely impact the recreational fishery. Right now, we see, or should see, the opposite as the recs can be more efficient at release than the netters. In which case, the pre-season negotiations will be even more critical to participate in. That, and getting clear policy from the Commission that allocates fish amongst the user groups.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/29/21 10:56 AM


The GHMP does allocate harvest between users and for rec the different reaches of the river. Other streams or areas someone else will have to address as my knowledge is limited in that aspect.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/29/21 12:49 PM

I am speaking more holistically. Bring in all the harvesters (and those who support the ecosystem needs). To my mind, if there are harvestable fish available, the areas where they are produced (spawning areas) should bet first call.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/30/21 06:55 AM


I can see nothing to object to CM but how that could happen with the management system that exist in the state and federal agencies would make it rather steep climb.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/30/21 07:22 AM

Very steep climb. The Tribes, with a strong conservation ethic, could push for it. The NGOs that support whales, birds, and such could take it to court. In the end, we'll just let it collapse.

I did see that WDFW has formally made a move to traps, beach seines, and purse seines in the Columbia. Identifying them as a new, experimental gear.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/30/21 08:44 AM


Not Chehalis but this on the Columbia CM referenced is a peek at what direction the beast is moving on harvest concepts.

April 29, 2021
Contact: Charlene Hurst, 360-605-5247
Public Affairs contact: Ben Anderson, 360-480-4465
Three alternative commercial fishing gears designated for 'emerging commercial fishery' status on the Columbia River

OLYMPIA – After several years of test operations, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Director Kelly Susewind yesterday announced that the Department will begin the rulemaking process to designate the beach seine, purse seine, and pound net as an “emerging commercial fishery” on the lower Columbia River, opening these alternative gears for expanded study and use in the river.

The emerging commercial fishery designation would allow Columbia River commercial license holders to apply for a permit to use these gears. The designation is the first step in a process to better evaluate the commercial viability of these gear types and their role in helping meet conservation goals for certain salmon and steelhead runs under the Endangered Species Act.

“The emerging commercial fishery designation is significant, but it’s important to note that this is just the beginning of a much longer process toward potential wider adoption of these alternative gears,” Susewind said. “This designation does not restrict any existing commercial gears, nor does it mean these alternative gears will suddenly dominate the non-treaty commercial fishing landscape on the Columbia River.”

Without the emerging commercial fishery designation, these gears can only be used as scientific collection devices or in a test fishery, which limits managers’ ability to evaluate whether they are commercially viable. The new designation would allow authorized commercial operators to sell the fish they catch using these gear types, while still allowing fishery managers to carefully monitor catch and mortality rates on sensitive fish populations.

All three gear types are currently legal in Oregon, and the catch-and-release mortality rates for the gears have been approved by the U.S v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee, which consists of state, tribal, and federal staff and evaluates salmon and steelhead runs and forecasts in the Columbia River.

Currently, only gill nets and tangle nets are authorized by Washington statute for commercial use in the Columbia River mainstem. Development of alternative gear and corresponding efforts to optimize economic benefits while supporting conservation objectives for threatened or endangered fish populations are key components of the latest version of the Columbia River Salmon Fishery Management Policy, which was adopted by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in September 2020.

WDFW will continue to work closely with the commercial industry and other interested stakeholders during the continued development, implementation, and study of these alternative gears.
After collecting additional data, fishery managers will prepare a report to the Washington Legislature and, if warranted, request changes to existing statutes that prohibit the use of these gear types in the river.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish, wildlife, and recreational and commercial opportunities.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/30/21 12:09 PM

Before really jumping on the bandwagon, I have actively worked (as in hands in the fish) in what was supposed to be selective beach seine and purse seine fisheries. In both we hade real problems in handling the fish to release. Based on that huge sample of two times, one would need to carefully site the areas where these would be used and the abundance of fish worked on.
"Too many" fish will significantly gum up the works and kill fish intended for release.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/30/21 02:00 PM

No doubt CM. We found out seining that you had to keep the bow in the seine parallel to the current our the fish became packed in the bow and not good. Also hand pulling really sucked so it was block and tackle with a tow vehicle but you had to be very careful not to bring it in and jam the bow. Then if that was not enough that was the easy part. Sorting without harming the fish is not easy as you have literally dip net the fish in the water to avoid damage. Then the last thing was it takes about a 4 person crew to operate the seine safely bank based and if using a boat for a tug cost, man power, and risk of injury for the fish and people go way up. It can be a bitch especially if your effort involves mixed species and the number captured is substantial.

Tried traps twice and if the cost and effort did not chase one off all you had to do was wait for a rain. If the current didn't try to wash you away ( which it will ) then the mass of crap from sticks, logs, and everyone's favorite ......... grass. On a rise things coming down stream leaves, algae, just everything nature has laying around the stream turns a trap into a giant garbage catcher. One of the guys said that his wife said it had one benefit, it took care of his desire to man the trap at night.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/30/21 03:09 PM

It will take a lot of planning, for sure. The issue I saw was simple safely sorting. In the beach seine we were keeping male chinook and passing females. Try grabbing 20-30 pound fish without too much stress. In the purse being we hit a slug of fish and there was no way to sort other than to bring them on board (ie kill). I worked some permanent traps that fished the whole creek and floods/freshets/leaf fall could be challenging. Of the three, I think traps would work best, but they do require attention. Fish wheels could probably work well too.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/09/21 08:21 PM


I found this to be interesting. Using 2021 forecast for harvest BC and AK will take as many GH Chinook as cross the bar. So I think a step in right direction but do not think this will work as it is just another truck load of BS to continue on. It will take a judge with a pair ( of something ) to put an end to the massive damage marine fisheries continue to do. To be honest this bit NOAA is proposing is insulting as they continue to dodge the issue of AK and BC.


https://www.king5.com/article/news/natio...08-7533d1b0fd11

NATION WORLD
Feds could restrict West Coast salmon fishing to help orcas
The fishing restrictions would extend from Puget Sound in Washington to Monterey Bay in central California when Chinook salmon forecasts are especially low.

Author: Associated Press
Published: 7:29 AM PDT June 9, 2021
Updated: 7:29 AM PDT June 9, 2021
Facebook Twitter
SEATTLE — Federal officials are proposing to curtail nontribal salmon fishing along the West Coast in especially bad years to help the Northwest’s endangered killer whales.

NOAA Fisheries is taking public comment on the plan, which calls for restricting commercial and recreational salmon fishing when Chinook salmon forecasts are especially low.


The southern resident killer whales — the endangered orcas that spend much of their time in the waters between Washington state and British Columbia — depend heavily on depleted runs of fatty Chinook. Recent research has affirmed how important Chinook are to the whales year round, as they cruise the outer coast, and not just when they forage in Washington's inland waters in the summertime.

The fishing restrictions would extend from Puget Sound in Washington to Monterey Bay in central California, and they would be triggered when fewer than 966,000 Chinook are forecast to return to Northwest rivers. The last time forecast Chinook returns were that low was in 2007.

The restrictions would include reducing fishing quotas north of Cape Falcon in Oregon; delaying the start of the ocean commercial troll fishery between Cape Falcon and Monterey Bay; and closing parts of the Columbia River and Grays Harbor in Washington and the Klamath River and Monterey Bay to fishing much of the year.

If NOAA Fisheries adopts the plan as recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, it would be one of the first times a federal agency has restricted hunting or fishing one species to benefit a predator that relies on it.


Credit: Wirestock - stock.adobe.com
A orca whale jumping out of the sea in Vancouver Island, Canada
There are 75 orcas in the three pods that make up the southern resident orca population. The whales have in recent years been at their lowest numbers since the 1970s, when hundreds were captured — and more than 50 were kept — for aquarium display. Scientists warn the population is on the brink of extinction.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/10/21 08:41 AM

Did you notice that the Fed proposal is Puget Sound south so it really doesn't help GH. Like moving boats away from the whales it sounds nice but accomplish little.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/10/21 09:43 AM

Quality lip service and feel good actions are the hallmarks of WA leaders. Who knew the feds wanted part of that action?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/10/21 10:53 AM

Not to be political what I find simply strange is the last two governors ( and present ) touted that they were strong enviros. Lots great sounding PC phrases then you look to the actions, ah not so hot is being very kind to their actual priorities and actions.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/10/21 11:31 AM

In a state that is unable to provide (mandated) funding for education, maintain our highway infrastructure, maintain a functional ferry system, maintain a functional mental health system, and so on why does anybody think they give a rat's backside about something as non-voting as fish.

They'll say whatever is necessary to keep the serfs quiet.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/21 09:03 PM


I was wondering when the final seasons were to be set.


WDFW PUBLIC NOTICE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia, WA 98501
wdfw.wa.gov


June 21, 2021

Contact: Fish Program, 360-902-2700
WDFW Director to adopt state salmon fishing regulations
OLYMPIA – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind is scheduled to adopt 2021-2022 state salmon season fishing regulations at 3 p.m. Thursday, July 1.

The event will be conducted virtually; the public may tune in at https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ZAX26jCoT0aZXOGDWbx3VQ.

This follows a June 22 public hearing and marks the final step in the annual salmon season setting process, commonly referred to as North of Falcon. For more information about the North of Falcon process, and to see tentative season summaries, visit wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/21 09:05 PM

Such fanfare...

Sort of strange considering ocean salmon already opened 2 days ago.

Gee... can anyone spell I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/21 06:04 AM

06/22/2021

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Such fanfare...

Sort of strange considering ocean salmon already opened 2 days ago.

Gee... can anyone spell I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T?



Its like, I haven't gotten any press lately......Oh here's my chance !!!!!!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/21 08:23 AM

Wonder how opening a season before the regs are "legally" filed is a legal opening. But, I digress...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/21 12:32 PM

No idea CM. It was just a few years back that it became clear that the NOF process violated the laws of the APA requirements. In other words they filed the CR 102 and 102 for public comment and processes after setting the seasons ( unofficially sorta/kinda/what the he--) which is ass backwards from what the law requires. I guess they came up with another innovative way to pull it off that they regard as good enough .........until somebody sues their collective butts.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/21 02:01 PM

Until somebody sues. That's what they are betting on. They have very deep pockets while the folks affected by the regs are not interested in paying to sue.

Yes, they are violating the law. But they have set up a process that seems to have state and federal support, regardless of legality. It gives seasons, the fishermen are happy. They might piss and moan, but they'll drink the kool-aid and buy licenses.
Posted by: ONTHESAUK

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/24/21 05:34 PM

Last November I sold the boat, December traded the truck in for a car and after a garage sale and Craigslist I sold the last of my fishing gear yesterday. The two notices I got from them about sending in my catch card for last year just got sent back with "Deceased" written on it. I've had some great pictures and memories but time to move on.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/21 08:26 AM

Some folks have asked how the river is this year and it has been a bit different. One would think the river stays somewhat the same but it doesn't, not at all. Some years it can actually stink mid summer and other years not so much. This spring the river has been happy which may sound a bit weird but is pretty much right on. Birds have been hanging out in much larger numbers than usual. From eagles to ducks and geese just a lot of them. Bears, otter, racoons, just everybody are down right fat already so whatever is going on wildlife are just a bunch of happy guys.

Fish no idea! Sturgeon are not showing well but the eagles and other preparator birds have been kicking the crap out of something that is 5 to 6 inches moving up and down the river. Seeing some large fish jumping off and on nothing to right home about.

So this year so far the river and wild life have been not just happy but in a pig out mode. Water quality must be rather good because geese and ducks love to take baths on the island gravel bar when the water is clean and fresh which they have been doing daily.

So again the river is happy this year but we wait to see just how this translates for fish.
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/18/21 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Some folks have asked how the river is this year and it has been a bit different. One would think the river stays somewhat the same but it doesn't, not at all. Some years it can actually stink mid summer and other years not so much. This spring the river has been happy which may sound a bit weird but is pretty much right on. Birds have been hanging out in much larger numbers than usual. From eagles to ducks and geese just a lot of them. Bears, otter, racoons, just everybody are down right fat already so whatever is going on wildlife are just a bunch of happy guys.

Fish no idea! Sturgeon are not showing well but the eagles and other preparator birds have been kicking the crap out of something that is 5 to 6 inches moving up and down the river. Seeing some large fish jumping off and on nothing to right home about.

So this year so far the river and wild life have been not just happy but in a pig out mode. Water quality must be rather good because geese and ducks love to take baths on the island gravel bar when the water is clean and fresh which they have been doing daily.

So again the river is happy this year but we wait to see just how this translates for fish.


Interesting.

Thanks for the info.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/22/21 07:42 AM

Your welcome DS. On flows as the yearly panic on water flows has sets in with the Chehalis is about half way between average 420 cfs and record low flows of 300 cfs sitting at 380 cfs and dropping at Porter. For the Chehalis this is normal as it is a rain driven watershed not snow melt run off. This pattern will stay the same until November. Our risk in the basin for fish is if it does not rain around the first week of Nov and that causes fish to return and spawn differently.

Frankly right now the river is looking fine, flows will drop as usual but we are hanging out in good flow territory. Could be better but much better than the dry years of the early 90's. We seldom have summer rains in Sept that alter this pattern much other than little events that bounce the river some but only temporarily.

So what we will likely see is the salmon will start in normally, ( unless they decide differently ) move upstream to stage up and wait for rain. The one thing that is always the same is they will not move to spawning areas until the beaver ponds and swamps get enough water to keep them full. On the East Satsop it is rather dramatic as you get a rise you will get the browning of the water but it is just run with dust and crap. When the ponds dump the East Satsop actually turns a golden black color for about a day or so depending on the size of the rain event. Then Coho from the bay up will move rapidly upstream.

So flows and temperatures are normal ( water temp hit 70 during the heat wave but dropped back down ) for now and as I said the river is happy.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/20/21 07:42 AM


Got a couple of unusual things for ya! First part of the week we had several flocks of birds running around the river. After doing a search for pics and video it appears they were Terns and I have not seen that before up here. River was full of a fish maybe 5 in or so that came from the bay which I have seen many years just not the Terns, no idea.

Then the strangest thing. I found a bunch of salmon jumping around and it seemed like the river was full of them. After playing around for a while a guy the has been fishing jacks also came down and anchored up next to me and we compared notes. Seems that in a ¼ mile of the river you see nothing until last couple of hours of incoming then fish jumping all over. The tides in the day time are really soft now so there is not much of a push. Don put me on to what was going on as it appears that the river was not full of fish but rather they are down deep ( 25 to 45 ft ) until toward slack then they simply start swimming all around in a school or two jumping like crazy. This conclusion came from simply setting and drawing a mental line following the jumpers. The pattern was pretty clear but a bit confusing as they did not seem to have any particular direction just back and forth & around the river. Tide turns to outgoing and nothing again. We saw bright fish along with some color plus some seriously colored guys but they looked to be small Chinook. I have seen all sorts of strange things with salmon but I have never seen them act like a trout in the river. I mean they were going all over the reach of the river like planted trout in Lake Sylvia! Oh to ease your mind jumping yes but no biting as I would have better odds of shooting one out of the air on the jump than hooking one. Lock jaw time which is OK for now. One thing for sure is it was fun to watch as it was like a play ground for fish just having a good time !
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/20/21 08:55 AM

I'd say (guess) terns following baitfish upriver and jumping jacks (not just an exercise anymore!) are good indicators for the ecosystem. Hope it's a harbinger of things to come this fall....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/20/21 09:01 AM

More adults jumping than jacks but the jacks were the colored ones.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/22/21 08:22 AM

8/22/2021

Glad to hear some areas of the Chehalis River has fish jumping and rolling around.

My area, above South Montesano, has "nothing" going on....not even people that are normally nosey around, trying fishing for Coho and Chinook jacks.

I've not been fishing, having balance problems so walking and fishing from shore is not a option for me. That leaves my boat to access the jack fishery, there might be lots of water in the Aberdeen area BUT in the area toward the end of tide water, it is not a boat show. I do drive to areas where I can view the normal jack fishing areas, no one is around while I'm there.

Some major gravel movement has areas that have gotten "very skinny". Even with some rain, I predict "filled pumps or torn off lower units". Please be careful or it could get costly, nothing like "running up on a gravel bar, then having to wait 4 or 5 hours to float boat again"......wonder how I know that??????
Posted by: Dan S.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/22/21 08:40 AM

I'm really enjoying reading about the happenings on the Chehalis in this thread, so thank you guys for taking the time to fill us in!

Much appreciated!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/26/21 09:17 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

Well now we are entering new territory with flows in the Chehalis as summer flows kick in. Use Porter to get a clear picture of things but flows are getting down to near record lows. Keep in mind that very low summer flows are normal and it does not mean much to fishing unless we get to a low oxygen levels but it has to have an impact on rearing areas. Years back it was not uncommon to have Chinook adults die above Fuller Hill due to water conditions but we have not seen that in many years.

What we know presently is the Chinook are moving pretty much normal in timing but in greater numbers than one normally sees early on. The other side is Coho seem to be performing just the opposite. They are around to be sure but not that many which is normal but what is not normal is usually you have the smaller adults with the jacks and not so now. This time of year normally one can be on the river in the evening and for whatever the reasons Coho Jacks like to jump around in the evening but not so much at this time.

Nothing I see at this time would indicate that the water volume or quality is of much concern to the fish but it is the last of Sept through the first week of Nov that things can get a little strange out if it does not rain. So the fish are going to do what fish do !

The long range weather forecast is similar to what we have have now through Sept with five or six showery days. Oct is shaping up much differently with 18 days of showers and some rather substantial amounts of rain on some with Nov looking to be wet. Now I have little faith in day to day long range forecast but I do pay attention to trends in the weather. In general terms it is likely to rain early and simply get wet with rising flows through Oct. In river guys should love this trend but bay / tide water it is 100% the opposite of good which will likely suck...... big time.

Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/02/21 10:19 PM

What sucks big time is getting hosed with an Oct 1 opener.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/21 06:56 AM


Got that one right! The problem was that the last two weeks of Sept are, as staff stated, expensive. Rec catches are high because your not ( normally ) fishing behind the nets. So we fish those weeks we would get fish but loose much of Nov and Dec. Input from many folks in recent years has been that an restricted catch full season, or what can be put together, is better than a short wide open keep fishery. Simple fact is that the cuts in hatchery production means we are a minimum 25K on hatchery adults short from the past driving the encounter / mortality rate on wild Coho way up. So now a days on low wild return years means substantial restrictions and as much as I would like to offer an alternative there are really none that I can think of. If Bingham went back to full production it changes everything but I would not hold my breath on that one.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/21 09:03 AM

Update time, Jack fishing has been spotty either really good or really bad from my spot in the cheap seats. Seeing more fish all the time as one should just not many Coho of any size. Water temp is hanging out a little above or below 64 degrees very clear. Should get the murky spots in the tide once we are done with this set of shallow tides.

Now for something totally different. A couple of days back while fishing George came by and we chatted a bit. Then this he was fishing a mile or so above and he said ( with a straight face ) that as he was fishing the river erupted with sturgeon coming out of the water everywhere and some huge guys in the mix and he had never seen that before. Not sturgeon doing the rise and falling like a tree but that many of them. George has been fishing this river longer than most of us have been alive so it had to be something to see. Nothing when I headed back to the dock.

Well yesterday I fished a bit but decided to move upstream a bit and stopped to mess with my Lowrance settings and all of a sudden one hell of a splash right next to my boat. I could not figure what had hit the water and was busy making sure nothing was wrong then it happened. Sturgeon from a couple of real monsters to five / six footers plus a assortment smaller guys doing the straight up rise and just falling over like a tree. Now I know what George was talking about and I am with him, I have never seen Sturgeon in the numbers do that. One or two here there yes but damn this was much more than that by a mile. I am with George on this it was pretty amazing to see! As I said before the river is happy and everything from birds to bears are doing well and evidently fish also. No idea at all on what's up.

The usual warning, watch out for dead heads there are several new guys between Friends Landing and the Muck and they disappear toward high tide. Nothing to mess with guys so be aware of your surroundings and take care.

Little edit: Far more than usual seal bites on released fish. Most I have seen were in the back 30% of the body which usually means they were swimming like all dickens with Mr. Seal in hot pursuit. Presumably a Beaufort T Justice moment!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/21 09:31 AM

I witnessed the sturgeon event you described at the Mary's River corner a few years back. Full moon, so we could see them all over the river. Really cool, strange spectacle. It was that same night I hooked my only sturgeon. It slammed a chunk of tuna while I was reeling in to check bait. Felt like my lead was hung up on something until the headshakes started. The fish swirled and took off for the deeper water after that. Got a good look at what must have been about an 8-footer. I stayed tight to it for about 15 minutes, but I never had a chance once it got out into the current, and the 80-lb. leader eventually broke. Most fun I ever had getting my butt kicked by a fish.

So: if you see the sturgeon jumping around, as long as it's legal, it's time to go fishin'!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/21 10:46 AM

Back in the late 70s we had a few sturgeon come up the two creeks I was working on. Thought was that they were following the summer chum for eggs and carcasses. A couple years after I left there were more than 200 that came up one creek a bit, apparently to feed. These guys may be coming up, following the spawners (or hoping there will be some) and this may be a response to the fresh/salt change. I would guess, that if it is a response to that interface, that low flows may make for a very small mixing zone.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/21 11:29 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

Question on flows so take a peek. At Porter still some above record lows but Satsop is record low flows as are some of the upper tribs. Also weather forecast ( crystal ball time ) now has Sept staying dry and Oct rather wet.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/21 07:37 PM


We pray for dry weather through Oct. 10. Coho are thick off of GH. Lights out on Friday with lake like conditions. Last day is Tuesday at midnight, we pray for good ocean conditions again. Unreal that with a better forecast then last year we lose the last week of Sept. for area below 101 bridge, much less having lost that last week in the river.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/21 06:20 AM

9/06/2021

Originally Posted By: bobrr

We pray for dry weather through Oct. 10.


Good for Bay and river, to about South Montesano BUT area above South Montesano, and tributaries could get costly if you have jet boat and are not skilled at running the boat.

If you try to move up or down at the lower part of the tide water influence, as one operator found out, better be skilled at taking lower unit off and "moving shims" from bottom to top of impeller. Gravel bars have changed above South Montesano.

Don't forget hatchery Adult Coho and hatchery/Wild Coho jacks are the only legal fish above South Montesano, after 10/01/2021.

Tributaries and Chehalis above Montesano.....need rain, both to aid fish, in spawning run and fishermen chasing their legal chance.

Stay safe!!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/21 01:04 PM

This should be interesting to say the least. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ From the 18th to the 20th the flows are supposed to double or more from the present 208 cfs to around 500cfs at Porter. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi This is not a major event to be sure but it should change things with lower water temps and moving fish inland. Hit the precipitation forecast button and the 240 hrs to see the daily totals. As luck would have we are off the water for a week starting the 24th but it will be interesting to see what happens!

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/21 02:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
This should be interesting to say the least. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ From the 18th to the 20th the flows are supposed to double or more from the present 208 cfs to around 500cfs at Porter. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi This is not a major event to be sure but it should change things with lower water temps and moving fish inland. Hit the precipitation forecast button and the 240 hrs to see the daily totals. As luck would have we are off the water for a week starting the 24th but it will be interesting to see what happens!


Long range weather forecast says little precipitation through early Oct. in the PNW. We can but hope this holds true. And once again, why would the state hand us further restrictions then last year when the coho run is predicted to be higher? No wild fish above Monte? No Sept. season in marine area much less in the river? You know, when thety don't have to face us in public meetings these a-holes sure know how to screw us over .
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/21 08:18 AM

Not sure what else could have been done Bob. We had a NT share of only 550 W Chinook and 6,000 W Coho that had to go from Sept to Dec. The GH Policy defines the NT sharing which really came down to go all in early and loosing the vast majority of inland Nov & Dec. Feedback has been consistently that folks would rather have a full season, Sept to Dec, than harvest ourselves off the water in the late summer months. We do not have the hatchery Coho production numbers that reduced the encounter rate and mortality on the wild Coho that we used to. It is a numbers game.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/21 11:23 AM

Thought I would add that the water temp mid reach tide water is 65.9 to 66.1 which is warm.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/21 12:43 PM

So we continue to have less hatchery fish which means more impact on wild fish since the ratio of wild to hatchery goes up which means more wild fish die due to impact of having to release more wild fish to catch your limit. So the A-holes that decide we don't need hatchery fish get to cut our seasons due to their fuc*ed policies. How are we (and the fish) not getting fuc*ed? Maybe we should just get to keep the 1st 2 fish we catch and fuc* the fin clipped restriction. Just use it for data collection.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/21 12:53 PM

If we were truly serious about wild fish recovery we would stop planting any and all hatchery fish UNLESS they can be harvested in a clean fishery. By that, for example, we would wipe out Minter Creek coho and chum and fish adults in Carr Inlet and the creek.

We simply can't have mixed stock fisheries because the release mortality/encounters is too high. If we were willing to have, say 90% of the fish in MS fishery be marked, then it might work. But the proportions used today just kill off the wild fish slower.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/21 03:04 PM

How many think that the wild stocks will survive without major changes to climate conditions and commercial harvests unless maybe all fishing stops. Not much chance of that happening.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/21 09:55 PM

They have survived worse and would, as a species, survive. They likely will have to move north, until the really cold weather returns.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/21 09:20 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

Take a look guys and the rain event is going to be larger than previously thought. It looks to be Friday will be near two inches in the Olympics ( pushing 4 in in three days and less in the upper Chehalis. Simply put the Satsop go above 500 cfs but Porter will from a little over 200 cfs to over 1500 cfs in two days cresting the 20th. Remember it takes around 4 days for upper Chehalis water to reach the bay.

Simply put things are about to change dramatically in the Chehalis Basin. Great for inland and the Oct 1 start but should really suck in the bay and tide water. Mother nature is not a very nice lady.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/21 09:59 AM

Another year fuc*ed by the state. What kind of shi*heads do we have "negotiating" for the sportsman? Meanwhile lots of wild fish will die upriver by those trying to find hatchery fish. Just let us keep the 1st two friggin' fish fin or not.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/21 01:46 PM

It would probably be better to require all landed fish be retained. But, that still leaves what many would consider too small a fishery. At a 10% mortality (ya gotta model something) you can "kill" through release 1 wild for every 10 caught which means that the allowable kill lets you contact contact 9 for every one killed.

Under the kill 'em all, each encounter counts 1 for 1 and you get to the limit a whole lot faster. That means the surplus hatchery fish either flood the hatchery and spawning grounds or we have traps used.

WDFW should do an intensive educational series to fully demonstrate the how's and why's and impacts of the various ideas folks have.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/21 02:40 PM

yeah big rain comming get the fish up river above the nets.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/21 07:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
It would probably be better to require all landed fish be retained. But, that still leaves what many would consider too small a fishery. At a 10% mortality (ya gotta model something) you can "kill" through release 1 wild for every 10 caught which means that the allowable kill lets you contact contact 9 for every one killed.

Under the kill 'em all, each encounter counts 1 for 1 and you get to the limit a whole lot faster. That means the surplus hatchery fish either flood the hatchery and spawning grounds or we have traps used.

WDFW should do an intensive educational series to fully demonstrate the how's and why's and impacts of the various ideas folks have.

If that's the case what are the difference in numbers of hatchery fish released in the Chehalis basin between this year's run and last year's run (2018 vs. 2019?)
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/21 08:48 PM

09/14/2021


Originally Posted By: bobrr
Another year fuc*ed by the state. What kind of shi*heads do we have "negotiating" for the sportsman? Meanwhile lots of wild fish will die upriver by those trying to find hatchery fish. Just let us keep the 1st two friggin' fish fin or not.


Above South Monty, hatchery only.....don't like the hatchery only but if it keeps the guide boats going to the Cowlitz then I'm ok with the current rules.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/21 09:58 AM

even though i dont fish up DWs way i agree with what he said..

wow guess there's a first for everything.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/21 10:33 AM

Quote:
WDFW should do an intensive educational series to fully demonstrate the how's and why's and impacts of the various ideas folks have.


Staff has been doing that for many years. The virus and zoom bit has left that wanting but frankly almost every question posted recently has been answered by staff many times. Some folks only hear what they want and that usually leads to unnecessary confusion.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/21 10:57 AM

The old "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make hime drink"? I guess that must be the case because of all the questions/complaints that keep being made. But, we still have folks out there who don't understand Boldt......
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/21 02:33 PM

I understand boldt, either put more hatchery fish in the system or don't let us (and by us I mean all commercial and recreational fishing, period) fish. The way the seasons on the Chehalis are structured it is a meaningless season when fish are already out of the area that you are allowed to fish in year after year. The only people catching fish are tribal or commercial. The way that the state works is that figures don't lie but liars figure. And where are the figures on how many hatchery fish were released in 2018 and 2019? The fact that the state isn't releasing hatchery fish the way they used to is the problem. If they can't do that then shut down everyone they are legally capable of shutting down. Spread the pain equally. And for those of you who used to work for the state and still think the state has our (and the long term survival of the wild fish) interests at heart go buy shorefront property at washaway beach, that even makes more sense then buying into the crap we are handed every year regardless of better projections. And how many years have we made escapement on the Chehalis for kings in the last 3 years?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/21 03:02 PM

Well Bob one last time on numbers. Non treaty share Chin 550 Coho 5904 total available. Impacts off modeled seasons Bay Chin 51 Coho 278, Fresh water Chin 158 Coho 1274, Commercial Chin 12 Coho 459, Chehalis Tribe Chin 92 Coho 255.

Then you add that the Hump is separated for harvest from the Chehalis by WDFW only, not the tribes or Feds and Hump Coho are modeled at minus 1759 which means it does not make escapement and is really short.

Finally BC and AK will take as many Chehalis Chinook as cross the bar and non treaty impacts are relatively minor. 550 Chinook would last about a week with a take fishery. Coho maybe available but it is about limiting success. Your two and off the water is pure BS and you damn well know it. Just the last two weeks of Sept a keep fishery burned enough in harvest that we would loose Nov and Dec.

As to hatchery releases or escapement numbers you can look them up on WDFW's website. Pretty simple click here click there scroll around. Only takes a few minutes Bob.

Little edit: As to the Bay fishery anyone that fishes it is lucky. I say lucky because when WDFW implemented it the Deputy Director and Fish Program guaranteed the local community that only available fish that above the 101 bridge could not take would be taken. As we all know that did not last a minute once salt water Phil followed by Mr. Ron came along.

So we all suffer from broken promises and a long list of just plain crap. Staff did their best I think and Chehalis harvest staff less has than zero influence on WDFW's budget. Want to argue your case go drag Director Kelly out of his basement he has been hiding in for over a year. With Warren gone he has one less body running interference.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/21 03:57 PM

I've tried unsuccessfully to find out if we have lost hatchery plants between 2018 and 2019. trying to navigate the wdfw website to find that info is frustrating to say the least, they won't even answer the phone. How long will the covid excuse keep them from having to deal with facing fisherfolk they are ignoring? Since it's so readily accessible to you just post the numbers. And did we make escapement 3 out of the last 5 years? If so we were told that's what it would take to keep chinook. I personally don't care about how long the season lasts, the same number of hatchery fish will be taken out of the equation 'cause the ratio of wild to hatchery will be the same. If that affects local business and guides who cares? Shut it down or produce more smolts. Excuses that the state won't fund more hatchery releases just proves my point, the state does NOT provide meaningful opportunity, just a dog and pony show. The tribes control the governor's office so regular folks can stand holding their dicks in their hands. I've watched you yell at these same folks for 5 or 10 years while they still held meetings "cause you thought they had their heads up their asses. What's changed? ( Besides less opportunity). They can always pick a "model" to prove their point, Figures don't lie but liars figure.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/21 07:43 PM

If I remember correctly we have made escapement 3 out of five. That is the good news the bad is that AK and BC harvested nearly all the harvestable fish. ( about as many as will cross the bar ) This left 1099 terminal NT & QIN on the Chehalis to be divided. Not enough Chinook for a keep fishery and recs use the hooking mortalities to allow fishing for the other species.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/21 06:48 AM

So 3 out of 5 is just a dog and pony show, keep us hoping for something we'll never get while wild fish both coho and chinook die in nets and we don't get a real season. And some people wonder why I'm pissed off.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/21 07:45 AM

At the present time, wild fish actually matter because if the runs get too small ESA is invoked and it gets ugly (or uglier, if you prefer). To have the fisheries you seem to want, the wild fish must simply be written off. That is not currently legal to do, but have at it convincing Congress to change the law.

Rivrguy is spot on in that fisheries up north take much of the harvest. Plus, and this still seems too be ignored, the catch of GH fish in all the WA coastal fisheries (and even PS if tags show they wander in) count against the share.

Finally, in most cases the rec downside of rec fisheries is that they don't take a lot of fish in a short time. As Smalma has noted often, nets (and traps) are the only way to catch a lot of fish in a short amount of time.

If we went to a management scheme where there were no marine mixed stock fisheries and escapement goals can be as high as 2 kg/sq m (or even a little higher) then you could have decent bay and river fisheries but then absolute "sharing" would likely be out of whack.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/21 07:45 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

The rain is still coming or so the forecast says it is. Right now it looks like the real volume will be on the Olympics side but look at the Satsop and that is a real rise. You can do the forecast precip but the one that catches my eyes is Haywire Ridge ( near the West Fork Satsop ) with a total 5.49 over 3 days but 2.8 inches Friday. Everything will drop back to near average flows in a couple of days but about the time the Olympic streams drop the upper Chehalis water will arrive. If fishing it looks to be about a 7 day not nice event on the mainstem Chehalis.

It has to get muddy fast but it will clear fast also so we wait but it will be interesting to see what happens.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/21 07:57 AM

On sharing the QIN ( tribes ) are entitled to half of the harvestable fish that enter Washington State waters. Charter, troll, rec just whatever counts against the NT share just as the tribal marine fisheries count against the tribal share. For years the Nation did not require the state comply but few years back insisted that sharing requirements be fully implemented.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/18/21 08:37 AM


Doesn't anyone sleep anymore? So what did I see yesterday as the storm came in. Leading up to the rain there was a movement but to what degree I am not sure. What I am sure of at high slack yesterday while talking to DW it was a airborne time with Coho doing the tail dance all over the river. This morning rather quite but the fish are moving as my early fish warning system ( commonly known as seals ) are at it big time. So what we know is yup the fish moved just as one would expect with rain. Now how large was the movement that is still up for grabs.
Posted by: Get Bent

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/19/21 07:59 PM

Ran up to a tidewater riffle the next drainage south and saw an impressive push of fish pulsating and charging for 3/4 hours as the afternoon tide dropped. Mainly mint bright silvers mixed the occasional king. So cool. Too bad they were too busy to bite.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/21 06:18 AM

Well the rain came in as expected and we got some mud but it has not been enough to mess up tidewater much just some color. Yup the fish are moving out of tidewater so it is slim pickings down low. I am told jack fishing has been excellent which is a plus.

Little edit: What we do have a lot of is a lot of debris coming down stream. Limbs, chunks, just about some of everything so be aware if running tide water as it is a bit zig zag thing to get up and down the river at times for a bit.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/21 08:25 AM

Several of us were wondering about the QIN schedule for next months fall season. Hump is posted on the nation website but not the Chehalis. So I e-mailed staff and asked if the information was available. This is the reply and folks you can ask questions of staff. The Grays Harbor team is very good at getting back to those who have questions.

From staff:
The QIN schedule for the Chehalis is not available at the moment. Mike was communicating with tribal staff regarding their fishery schedule in the Chehalis before he went on vacation. I am hoping once Mike returns at the end of this month I will be able to post the QIN schedule for the Chehalis.

In the meantime I have taken down last years schedule on the agency webpage and left the schedule table fields blank. I did leave a notice stating: “2021 Fall Fishery – No schedule available at this time”.

Curt Holt floated the Satsop River yesterday and reported some fall Chinook and coho in the river. Looks like fish that were staging in the lower Chehalis River were able to migrate further along on the river and tributaries thanks to last week’s rains.

Thank you for your inquiry and updates on salmon presence in the Chehalis.

Have a great week,

Kim Figlar-Barnes
WDFW – Fish Management
Grays Harbor Area F & W Biologist
Kim.Figlar-Barnes@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/21 12:51 PM

I just would like to note how much things have changed in 40 years. Back then, no (as in not any) front-line harvest manager could be gone for more than a day or two, and that early in the week, during salmon season in PS. That was July to December. Maybe GH was different, but now folks are gone for full weeks during the season with no backup. Should add it was the same when the Leg was in session. If you were part of the team that analyzed bills, testified, etc., you stayed put.

Times change.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/21 03:09 PM


they can just say he's away cause he doesn't want to be bothered..
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/21 07:54 AM

09/23/2021

In defense of Mike, he enjoys deer hunting as we all know there is a "time period" for this activity.

But that said, QIN netting schedule should have done long before this time, IMO.

Personal note on boat movement above South Montesano, on the recent rain system, yes it helped but now water level is back down and October could be costly as there was gravel movement this past winter. I'm aware of long time boaters, having to wait for incoming tide to get floated off a gravel bar.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/21 08:13 AM

I enjoyed deer hunting too, but part of the job job of management requires you be there. Don't like the conditions, find another job.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/21 08:18 AM

I think DW has it right. I know of a hatchery employee that each year hunts also and it leaves them a bit short handed. Now the other side of the coin is that if this was in the private sector your employer makes arrangements to cover the gap and insure continuity. I used to bunch up my vacation and hit the road for 5 weeks starting end of August. It was known so the company had someone to fill in.

This is not brain surgery and frankly the QIN should have provided the dates several months ago. Just because one works for WDFW your life should not stop because the QIN have not got their crap together.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/23/21 11:47 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

Another storm this weekend and when it is all done we will settle in at average to a little above average flows. Also while out and about I looked at a couple of creeks and both had brackish colored water. That is a bit early to have happen!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/21 09:02 AM

We cannot fish but in 5 days we will be able to do so and from what I have seen folks are ready to fish, that's the good news. Now the question is what should we expect? Starting tomorrow at Haywire Ridge ( near upper W. Fork Satsop ) it is over two inches with over 7 inches total over 5 days. The Satsop flow graph looks like an M with double peaks and the final peak the Oct. 3rd then drops like a rock. So one should expect less than favorable conditions on the Satsop but it will be changing rapidly every day.

The upper Chehalis is around 2 inches for the same 5 day time frame so flows will go up but nothing like the Olympics side, in fact will just get to average flows.

So all should pay attention to Olympics side of the Chehalis watershed because it has to get mud out of this thing. The Chehalis side takes time to reach tide water and it should arrive about the time the others clear and should not be nearly as muddy. Do the 240 precip to see the storms daily anticipated rainfall and flows.

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/25/21 09:35 AM



just saw a video made today showing a system brewing in gulf of alaska thats going to hit us next saturday.. it show 5+ inches of rain on the west slopes of olympic pen.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/21 05:29 PM


I see the Quins are netting today.. wonder what the schedual is?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/21 06:51 PM

09/26/2021


Originally Posted By: steely slammer

I see the Quins are netting today.. wonder what the schedual is?



Butch:

Good for you for posting the QIN netting in the Chehalis. I was in the area on Saturday, there was a boat on the boat ramp, South side. I thought they were working on the boat. I've been on the WDFW and the QIN web site to see if the Chehalis tribal netting schedule was there......no Chehalis schedule BUT I WAS ABLE TO FIND THE HUMPTULIPS NETTING SCHEDULE.

I've been following the NT and QIN netting schedule for at least 24 years. The reason I follow the schedule.....it affects my sport fishing schedule above South Montesano.

Now I don't exactly why no QIN schedule, I could put down a few reasons but will wait to see how long, until its posted.

Something is going on!!!! mmmmmmm Time tells all!!!!



Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/26/21 08:33 PM

Last year it was 2/2/3 but started a week later on the Chehalis.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/21 07:44 AM

So round one of the rain ( it looks to be coming in two waves ) it was 2 inches and change in the Olympic side but less than an inch in the upper Chehalis. This is five day storm track ending the first of Oct. with the crest on the Satsop the also on the first then everything drops like a rock back to average flows.

With no formal announcement of the QIN schedule but as they started their season yesterday past practice says they should be out Tuesday noon and back in Sunday Oct 3 for two days. Now I would not bet on that as the QIN have the same problem with harvestable fish available as the NT.

That is the best I have now using the crystal ball but hopefully either the Nation or WDFW will post the QIN season on their websites. As to why both QIN and WDFW failed to get the Nation's schedule up I have no idea. As it appears to be only the Chehalis schedule that is not up that the co managers are having a communication problem. Or as the movie line goes " what we have here is a failure to communicate."
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/21 07:57 AM

i dont think wdfw wanted it posted so the phone calls and the bitching would be less.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/21 10:49 AM

Here you are folks from the WDFW website and this means 3 two day fishing weeks. Then Nov but one never knows about that with flows and weather.

Chehalis River and Grays Harbor Areas 2A-1, 2A, AND 2D
2021 Fall Fishery - Tentative and subject to updates Maximum mesh size is 6 1/2 inches

All Green Sturgeon must be released immediately when encountered.
The Chehalis River downstream of the power line crossing below the confluence of the Wynoochee River, and Grays Harbor Areas 2A-1, 2A, and 2D will be open for commercial gillnet fishing for authorized Quinault Tribal Fishers. The fishery will begin at Noon on the set in day and will end at Noon on the pull out day of each week. The opening and closing dates are as follows:

Stat Week Set In Pull Out
40 Sun. Sept. 26 Tues. Sept. 28
41 Sun. Oct. 3 Tues. Oct. 5
42 Sun. Oct. 10 Tues. Oct. 12
43 Closed Closed
44 Closed Closed
45 Sun. Oct. 31 Thur. Nov. 4
46 Sun. Nov. 7 Wed. Nov. 10
47 Sun. Nov. 14 Wed. Nov. 17
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/21 01:57 PM

Bet the nets doing pretty good right now....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/21 08:30 AM

Initial thoughts are you got it right but still poking around to get a little better view of how the Nation is doing.

On another note it is a shame that harvestable fish numbers were so low and I say that because if not it would have been one hell of a summer fishery. Chinook came into the bay and tide water early and just hung out in rather large numbers. Coho jacks were available in good numbers then the Coho adults showed. To put it in plain language the bloody river was just plain full of fish and then the first rain and it must have been a stampede because they were gone in 2 days.

Be interesting to see how the Nations fishers are doing because it looks like the fish moved on the barometer drop again. Have to wait until we find out more as to what fish are moving.

Little edit: After asking around some the answer is " they did pretty good " and little perspective, much better than last year.


Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/21 01:47 PM

i was out behind tractor supply sunday morning.. and the fish were jumping everywhere .. u could see the wakes in the calm flat water.. so im sure the hammerd the hell out of them
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/21 12:29 PM

Well bunch of folks fishing but the muddy water made it to just above Cosy and is slowly moving down. With the shallow tides we have now it is anyone's guess how long it will take to clear. I just fished morning and found the fish / sea lions in deep parts of the river but that was about all.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/21 09:29 PM

10/01/2021

Word I got was "some fish blew right past Satsop", which is good for those fishermen that often don't get many chances.

Mud all coming from "lower Satsop", Willis property giving way. I went to Monty boat launch, Chehalis was "ugly, ugly, ugly". Did chat with a person, that had just flushed his motor...his comment "bay is full of fish" !!!!!!!

Remember, above South Monty Bridge its hatchery only Coho adult.......
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/21 10:48 PM

DrifterWA,
Is the Well's property the property that is just above the mouth of the Satsop on the south side of the river? The water has been chewing at that bank of that property for a couple of years now that the lower changed course a few years ago.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/01/21 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
DrifterWA,
Is the Willis property the property that is just above the mouth of the Satsop on the south side of the river? The water has been chewing at that bank of that property for a couple of years now that the lower changed course a few years ago.


You are correct.....but just over a year ago there was a major project to change the river flow by driving "lots of piling" in different areas in the lower river.....I'm wondering if the project "didn't do what it was suppose to do????

Hope the project, this summer, did a better job......that project was between Scheafer Park and the West Fork. Was busy all summer, so never checked.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/21 03:48 AM

Satsop gage hasn't been updated since Thursday afternoon. Wondering if some new debris somehow disabled it. Anyone know?
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/21 05:44 AM

Drifter,
I saw the bank eroding on that property and thought the people might lose their house eventually. I was down there when they were doing all the piling work and thought they were going to change the course of the Satsop so that the river would flow back to the pumphouse again.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/21 09:20 AM

10/02/2021

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
Drifter,
I saw the bank eroding on that property and thought the people might lose their house eventually. I was down there when they were doing all the piling work and thought they were going to change the course of the Satsop so that the river would flow back to the pumphouse again.


The piling project was to "protect the pump house and help protect Keys Road".

I believe there is another phase of work to be done to protect the Willis property, and move the river East but not so far that it would affect the pump house.

As we all know "Mother Nature is going to do what She wants to do"
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/21 02:10 PM

Drifter,
Thanks for the information.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/21 08:38 AM

Yesterday as we drove to Westport (about 10AM) there were quite a few folks fishing amongst the pilings around the bridge to Westport. Almost looked like a bunch of pass fishermen plugging.
Posted by: FISH'N BRASS

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/21 09:21 AM

https://www.ezview.wa.gov/site/alias__1973/37263/library.aspx

This link will give you a wealth of info on Lower Satsop restoration project. The drone videos give a really good picture of what was done. Unfortunately there are no videos of what happened this last winter-the river didn't get the memo! The canal cut to provide secondary river channel in front of pump house no longer exists-it has filled in.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/21 10:31 AM

Water went to heavy colored last night down to about one ft visibility and fish are moving, Coho are chrome scales not set in tide water, and they are up the river and I mean way up the river. I am told the bay fishery is good to OK just depends on the fisher. The strange one is Chum are coming up chrome ( no stripes ) with some stripers in the mix.

So in tide water fish are moving but showing little on the surface and seem to be 20 to 25 ft down choosing to travel deep water.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/21 06:46 AM

One of the fun things that has happened to me, while working traps, is when the run hits. Small creeks and suddenly a couple hundred coho or chum or a bunch of steelhead. Often on a freshet, sometimes at night so we stayed late.

Speaking of odd chum, I once passed a fish through the trap that was just above head of tide. Nice clean fish, somewhat silver. Next morning on a spawner survey I found her dead about 100m further upstream. And 100% spawned out.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/21 11:51 AM

10/05/2021

Originally Posted By: FISH'N BRASS
https://www.ezview.wa.gov/site/alias__1973/37263/library.aspx

This link will give you a wealth of info on Lower Satsop restoration project. The drone videos give a really good picture of what was done. Unfortunately there are no videos of what happened this last winter-the river didn't get the memo! The canal cut to provide secondary river channel in front of pump house no longer exists-it has filled in.


Thanks for posting this web site...... Pages of bidding stuff, and other pages that probably not meaningful to the average person...BUT the drone videos are really good. Gives a really good view of the work that needs to be done OR the Satsop mouth will continue to move West.

As a person that spends 100's of hours fishing down river from where the Satsop enter the Chehalis....gives me a better understanding of all the gravel, trees, and dirt that is now 3-4 miles down river. There are gravel bars being built higher, changing where people can safely run at lower tides.

Sure gives me a better understanding of "where all the mud is coming from".....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/21 07:05 PM


Habitat work done for now:

WDFW partners with local communities to restore river habitat to benefit salmon and other aquatic species in the Chehalis Basin
Construction work done for this year, will continue in Summer 2022 on Satsop and Wynoochee rivers

OLYMPIA – Construction work to restore habitat in the Satsop, Skookumchuck, and Wynoochee rivers has wrapped up for the year. This summer, crews worked to restore 12,700 feet of river shoreline and treat 288 acres for invasive plants to benefit salmon and other aquatic species in the Chehalis Basin.

As the second-largest watershed fully within Washington, the Chehalis Basin sustains southwest Washington communities, economies, and some of the most important salmon runs in Washington. It is also home to the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation and the Quinault Indian Nation.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is sponsoring five river restoration projects as part of the Aquatic Species Restoration Plan (ASRP), a science-based plan designed to effectively rebuild and protect a productive ecosystem that is resilient to the impacts of climate change. These five projects are taking place on the Newaukum, Satsop, Skookumchuck, and Wynoochee rivers, and on Stillman Creek, a tributary to the South Fork Chehalis River.
The ASRP Steering Committee with the support of the Chehalis Basin Board received funding from the Washington State Legislature in 2019 through the Department of Ecology’s Office of Chehalis Basin and the Chehalis Basin Strategy to complete these projects. The projects will provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife and inform future river restoration efforts throughout the basin.

The first WDFW-sponsored project was completed in September on the Skookumchuck River restoring over 4,700 feet of shoreline and protecting 102 acres of land to provide critical habitat for salmon and other aquatic species.

This summer was the first season of construction for the Satsop and Wynoochee River Restoration Projects. The second and final season of construction is expected to be completed in 2022, with a combined total of 8,000 feet of shoreline restored.

“We appreciated people’s patience and understanding during in-water construction work this summer on the Satsop and Wynoochee rivers,” said Celina Abercrombie, Chehalis Basin Strategy Manager for WDFW. “Access to sections of these rivers was restricted from mid-June through August, and the same restrictions will be in place next summer to protect public safety during construction.”

To view maps of restricted access areas during in-water construction on the Satsop and Wynoochee rivers, visit WDFW’s website.
Much of this year’s construction on the Satsop took place on over 100 acres of permanently protected land acquired by Forterra to support restoration efforts in collaboration with private landowners. This fall, crews will enhance this area with native plants.

The Grays Harbor Conservation District has also been a steadfast partner on the Satsop and Wynoochee projects by bringing landowners and project partners together to advance these large-scale restoration efforts.

Restoration projects on the Newaukum River and on Stillman Creek will begin in summer 2022.

Each of the WDFW-sponsored river restoration projects includes installing native trees and shrubs, removing invasive species such as blackberry and knotweed, constructing engineered log jams, and reconnecting floodplain and off-channel habitats.

Rivers in the Chehalis Basin provide important habitat for Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead, as well as other native fish species, including mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, and bull trout. Olympic mud minnow, a species of concern in Washington, are found in nearby wetlands and sloughs. Freshwater mussels and various amphibian species, including the western toad and Van Dyke’s salamander, may also benefit from these habitat restoration projects.

WDFW works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/21 11:59 AM

Tide water is a total mud out and not showing much. Stay out of the foam line as a ton of garbage is hanging out. Also DW got the Nations numbers up but I thought I would duplicate it for those who follow this thread.

10/06/2021
QIN numbers for 1st Schedule days, 9/26---29

Chinook------995
Chum--------- 21
Coho---------2276

So lots of dirty water and fish at this moment are scarce or in hiding!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/21 03:20 PM

Had to wait but the ugly mud was at low tide and thinned at South Monte. It is high tide now and the water is much better but back to the light grayish color. Hopefully the tides will move it this afternoon. Ugly coming your way Doc!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/21 06:40 PM

QIN updated numbers for Humptulips and formatting is off but you can figure it out.


2021 Fall fishery
Date Stat Week Chinook Chum Coho Steelhead White Sturgeon
Sept 19 - 24 39 545 0 582 0 0
Sept 28 - Oct 1 40 47 0 336 0 0
Oct 5 - 8 41
Oct 10 - 16 42 CLOSED
Oct 17-23 43 CLOSED
Oct 24-30 44 CLOSED
Oct 31 - Nov 5 45
Nov 8 - 11 46
Nov 15 - 18 47
Totals
Chinook Chum Coho Steelhead White Sturgeon
592 0 918 0 0

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/21 08:54 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

and the 10 day forecast says we have a rain bump 11th and 12th on the Olympics side but minimal on the upper Chehalis. Short event that will effect the Satsop the most. You can get the precip info by hitting Forecast precipitation / 240 hours.

Plan a head because South Elma down fishing is going to be about mud and the fish's calendar catching up with the weather. Early part of the run is way up and we will be fishing on just what swims by that day. Add that to tribal fisheries and mud off weather events it will be a day to day thing for Recs.

Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/21 02:31 PM

Given the current management paradigm of squeezing the last possible "harvestable" fish out of a run I think a nice series of storms, say every couple days, from September into mid-December, would be neat. Not gully-washers, just high enough water to put some cold in, quite a bit of leaves and sticks, and so on. But, then again, I'm warped.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 08:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Given the current management paradigm of squeezing the last possible "harvestable" fish out of a run I think a nice series of storms, say every couple days, from September into mid-December, would be neat. Not gully-washers, just high enough water to put some cold in, quite a bit of leaves and sticks, and so on. But, then again, I'm warped.

You know, you must really hate rec. fishermen to have an attitude like that, you must be a former wdfw worker, why so much hate for fishermen who are already getting fuc*ed by the state? The conditions you wish for screw over folks who are NOT responsible for the current state of affairs. You are right, you are warped, and an ass*ole to boot. Why come to this board and bitch if you are not a fisherman who wants a fair deal for those who should be the LAST group to be shut down. Forcing us to fish in blown out conditions is as fuc*ed as having the tribes and dicks fishing our fish in Canada and Alaska low hole us time and time again.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 09:15 AM

Well now for something different. Yesterday the Chehalis on incoming had a foam line full of debris that ran from Cosy to South Monte. The river was everything from pure mud to bad full of crap of all sizes. No idea why as I am told up river has cleaned up. Today looks better as to the water color but the garbage is still out there and I imagine will be running back and forth. The Nation goes in tomorrow at noon for two days ( out Tuesday noon ) then are done until Nov.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Given the current management paradigm of squeezing the last possible "harvestable" fish out of a run I think a nice series of storms, say every couple days, from September into mid-December, would be neat. Not gully-washers, just high enough water to put some cold in, quite a bit of leaves and sticks, and so on. But, then again, I'm warped.

You know, you must really hate rec. fishermen to have an attitude like that, you must be a former wdfw worker, why so much hate for fishermen who are already getting fuc*ed by the state? The conditions you wish for screw over folks who are NOT responsible for the current state of affairs. You are right, you are warped, and an ass*ole to boot. Why come to this board and bitch if you are not a fisherman who wants a fair deal for those who should be the LAST group to be shut down. Forcing us to fish in blown out conditions is as fuc*ed as having the tribes and dicks fishing our fish in Canada and Alaska low hole us time and time again.



Truth...
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 10:04 AM

I don't hate the recs. In fact, I prefer recreational fisheries in rivers as the most appropriate management. But, I prefer even more to see good levels of escapement and since current management achieves 5-10% of that...........

And while yes, I did work for WDG, WDF, WDFW I pushed for enhanced and expanded recreational fisheries in rivers.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 10:13 AM

Well, now for a fishing report. After all, isn't that what the thread title suggests? We fished the opener outside of the Hoquiam river after a not too crowded launch at 28th street. Melanie took the 1st fish on a vip spinner and in-line flasher, 9 to 10 lbr. I took a 6 lb. buck chrome bright. Done by one. 2nd day I was skunked on herring and Melanie took a nice 8 lbr. and a coho jack, plus a coho smolt which convinced her not to swap out her spinner pattern. 3rd day I was skunked on herring one more time but had a few drive-bys, Melanie took a nice 9 lb. buck. We took Monday off, Melanie worked Tuesday and Wednesday we went clamming on a northern beach, got our 40 by sunset. We heard that some fish were caught around Lakeside, but the same folks were going up towards Monte the next day as more fish were seen there. We fished the river below the launch at Monte, caught our two by one and beat it. Next day I took a 6+ lb. hen and Melanie had what we believe was a monster king that took her on quite a trip before pulling the hook about 10 yards out, never saw it which was the clue to species. Didn't want to think about it being a huge silver. Lots of crap in the water but high tide cleaned it out
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 10:53 AM

Hey CM most of the younger guys are not aware of your efforts back in the years and I still rate you A+ on note taking despite the F- your superiors graded them. I still love the " Dave expressed his displeasure bluntly and loudly " one. Bob you got the wrong dog with this one but your right about conditions. When Rec's loose Sept for a normal season we loose about everything if it rains. Over 10 inches in the Olympics so far takes care of that one so tide water fishing has been the worse than I have seen it in many years. Mud, crap, flows jumped the front of the run way up and about the time it clears you have nets in tidal water. Dream come true inland as this is as good as it gets inland.

These are the dates for the non treaty nets.
44 24-Oct-21 cheh 3
45 31-Oct-21 cheh 2

These are the remaining tribal dates.
45 10/31-11/6 cheh 2
46 11/7 -11/13 cheh 2
47 11/14-11/20 cheh 2
48-53 11/21- 3
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 10:57 AM

Oh, and other people? 3/4 of the people we saw and talked to did NOT catch fish, the 1st day we saw about 30 boats out, declined daily after that, even though it was the weekend. Always ample parking at both launches, even on the opener. The tribe nets 2000 coho in two days that the state keeps us out of the water, how many fish got caught by recs? My guess, no more then a couple of hundred. How's that for 50/50?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 11:05 AM

Again, as is often pointed out, the 50:50 is for all harvest in WA. Those GH coho taken in the bay and ocean by recs count against the recs. So long as we have marine mixed stock fisheries, most of the in-river catch will be by the Tribes at a 50:50 sharing.

The only fishery I am aware of where the in-river catch itself was supposed to be 50:50 was steelhead, as essentially nobody fished much in marine waters for them.

Ideally, I suspect, from a WDFW perspective, taking the whole NI share "outside" is preferred as those fisheries generate more money and there are much fewer on the water conflicts.

And, yeah, Rivrguy, taking notes was fun. Especially making sure all the information was there.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 11:20 AM

So fishing report, well with the rain shot gunning things upstream tide water sucks. What I know is this lots of Coho jacks with size and quality. Coho adults I am not sure because of the rain and timing but frankly at this moment I am not sure the run is as large or larger than forecast. We will have a better idea when the Nations second set numbers are posted.

Chinook on the other hand appear to be different and the nations catch on the first set was way past modeled expectations. In Sept the entire tidal reach from 101 bridge to South Monte was just plain loaded with Chinook, seals, and Sea Lions chasing fish constantly slowly moving up. I have only got a hold of 3 Coho adults but damn I was turning loose 3 or 4 Chinook a day. About half were in the three year old range judging by size and a couple really nice ones in the mix and way more furry guys bite marks mostly near the tail than I am used to seeing. So I stopped fishing a week before the shut down waiting for different conditions.

Not fishing today but again the last few days have been the same, cannot buy a Coho but Chinook are still coming strong and we either have one god awful number of three year old adults, larger than expected run size or ............. something ! Again it is darn near impossible to get a real feel for things because of the substantial rain events messing everything up.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 11:44 AM

quins fish the 10th to the 12th oct
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 12:48 PM

Talking to fish counters on the satsop: “not seeing any more fish than average” after trying to count in high muddy water. When I asked about what that means; if there were plenty of fish would they bump the limit up by one hatchery coho? He said that’s not his decision (obviously) but honestly he said if they counted 10,000 coho they wouldn’t be likely do it.
What Bull$hit.

Before the opener, well over 5000 (likely 7-8000) came up the satsop. (One of the biggest fish movements iv ever seen in just 3 days)

The WDFW is inept at in season management. Period. People who spend most days on the river have a better pulse of the fishery. It doesn’t take a degree to understand how many fish are or are not in the river.

I’m so sick and tired of a bunch of pencil pushing a$$hats with out a clue trying to manage fisheries from a computer. Plant fish, make in season adjustments and for god sake listen to the largest user group and their needs, not the minority.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 01:15 PM

Oh chit you're smart.
Follow the money.
The end.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/21 06:38 PM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Given the current management paradigm of squeezing the last possible "harvestable" fish out of a run I think a nice series of storms, say every couple days, from September into mid-December, would be neat. Not gully-washers, just high enough water to put some cold in, quite a bit of leaves and sticks, and so on. But, then again, I'm warped.

You know, you must really hate rec. fishermen to have an attitude like that, you must be a former wdfw worker, why so much hate for fishermen who are already getting fuc*ed by the state? The conditions you wish for screw over folks who are NOT responsible for the current state of affairs. You are right, you are warped, and an ass*ole to boot. Why come to this board and bitch if you are not a fisherman who wants a fair deal for those who should be the LAST group to be shut down. Forcing us to fish in blown out conditions is as fuc*ed as having the tribes and dicks fishing our fish in Canada and Alaska low hole us time and time again.


Anger management?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 07:01 AM

The idea that someone who is a former employee of every fish and game agency that the state of WA. has ever implemented and has stated that he wishes for rain to blow out all the locals in Grey's Harbor is "one of the goods ones" is like stating that WDFW has rec fishermen's best interests at heart and that is is total bullsh*t. Either they go by numbers to support their positions and if that doesn't work then go by "models". The Quinault exceed the model and harvest something like 10 times the numbers taken by rec fishermen in Grey's Harbor and the Chehalis, and we make escapement for Chinook 3 out of 5 years and then they say "the numbers don't allow us to let you fish" Which is it ? Numbers or models? Melanie and I have caught enough fish to freeze enough for the year, but we took almost 1/2 of our fish in the ocean on one trip unlike the older small boat folks who have fished the river all their lives and are losing their sept. seasons because of bullshi* management by the state. Anyone who does't believe that the state would rather have tribes do all the meaningful fishing and not have to spend resources to support rec people aren't paying attention or are in the state's pockets. And "anger management"? This from a real A hole who has had he and all his ilk kicked off "the dark side" and brings his garbage over here. Get a life, loser. If you are not angry about a lot of older fisherfolks in Grey's harbor being low balled by Alaska, Canada, and tribes here at home and then have their meaningful season shut down by bought and sold wdfw employees and a corrupt governor who is bought and sold by the tribes then you are a heartless moron. I have lots of other fishing options with a larger boat but I am tired of seeing older residents with small boats go home empty handed because of numbers manipulation and out right lying by paid employees on our dime. Not to mention the a s*hole former employee who tells us his wet dream is that no one gets a timely chance at catching fish except the Quinault tribe and then I'm told he really looked out for terminal fisherfolk. What has he done for us lately?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 07:47 AM

Someone with 7 posts resents being called an dick? show me where anyone called you a dick, you latecoming dick!(see, NOW I'VE called you a dick, an a-hole, and a troller. get fuc*ed. And actually I don't have to spend money in Alaska to catch fish, like some dicks with more money then brains (or fish catching abilities). I'm done now, so if you think that WDFW has anyone's interests in mind other then the governor and the tribes you are beyond brain dead. I'll see you at the next public meeting if they bother to ever have them again. Oh, that's right , you've never been to a public meeting. Too busy in Alaska low holing us poor folks?
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 11:16 AM

Never heard you comment at a public or zoom meeting in the last 2 years bobr...
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 12:10 PM

Originally Posted By: On The Swing
Never heard you comment at a public or zoom meeting in the last 2 years bobr...

Not surprising when we haven't had a public meeting in over a year and a half. Figuring that my wife spent 8 days in the hospital with below the waist paralysis , 8 months and still recovering from G.B.S syndrome and another 3 months with a broken ankle and the fact that there are only so many people fitting in a zoom meeting and commenting it's not surprising. Why aren't you complaining about the fact that the Chehalis tribe's chinook come out of our share and our share is zero. How the [Bleeeeep!] does that work? Tell me again how the state isn't screwing us over? Or do you support the current regime?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 12:50 PM

Chehalis tribe are a non treaty tribe. They are not part of the treaty tribes 50% but rather have the right to fish on the tribal land and are part of the Non Treaty 50%. They were part of the tribal catch back in time a bit but the courts called BS and ended that.

Oh Mike once said given a choice he prefers face to face meetings but with Guv Green Jeans steering the SS Washington I seriously doubt that changes any time soon.

Bob your going to blow a blood vessel if you don't ease up, take a deep breath, take care of Mel which is the most important thing to do and fish when you can. It is a crappy year all around and it ain't going to get any better soon.

Hey tell Mel I said hello.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 01:04 PM

As to the river it is mud or big mud or little mud but we got mud. To make it more fun we also now have grass by the truckload to the mix keeping the wood chunks and limbs company. I will say it again " Mother Nature Is Not A Nice Lady! "
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 02:39 PM

Melanie adding her two pieces of bait to the conversation, and responding to the hello. This isn't even close to Bob blowing a blood vessel, I find it a passionate objection to the state of washington affairs, something I have seen Dave engage in also. We all understand the "facts" of how we got here, it just seems to me the goals keep getting changed by the state, due to a multitude of issues and the recreational fisherfolks keep getting the short end. Why some fisherfolks don't see that and would prefer to argue about trivial bs is beyond me. Divided we stand, united we fall, the monster is the state not recreational fisherfolks. Marine, lower or upper river areas are all being screwed over by the people who run the State of Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 03:21 PM

Mel I think you captured the thing in a few words. Not bad girl!
Posted by: Flatbrim Pescador

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 04:15 PM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
I don't have to spend money in Alaska to catch fish, like some dicks with more money then brains (or fish catching abilities).


I'm pretty sure Jake was just like a deckhand or something. Working at his parents restaurant barely pays for his weed habit.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 05:40 PM

Originally Posted By: MakingNoyes



A quick review of PP history reveals that having your girlfriend, wife or mother log onto PP in your defense never ever works out well. Just sayin.

[/quote]
Just another loser who broke the dark side with inane, homophobic, racist and misogynistic posts, then re-registered under another loser handle. Yeah, I have someone to stand up for me, has my back when we are out crossing the bar, or just being the best fishing partner I've ever had. A loser like you? Hell, even your dick won't stand up for you.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 07:18 PM

Quote:
Melanie Divided we stand, united we fall, the monster is the state not recreational fisherfolks. Marine, lower or upper river areas are all being screwed over by the people who run the State of Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife.


I agree! Most of the fish impacts are being taken before the terminal areas.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/21 08:18 PM

So the water thing, as posted earlier low was mud and high this afternoon was that grayish color and fishable. So we got a mud spot running back and forth. The water will be changing with the tide so high is cleaner than low South Monte 101 bridge.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/21 11:27 AM


The water is dramatically different this morning. The mud spot is gone at low this morning and we have good water. It is bound to still be running back and forth but it has diluted down enough that one can get around it. Nets out at noon tomorrow so we should be able have descent conditions to fish. That's all for now folks!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/21 09:44 AM

Here are the Nations second set and projected harvest. Because the model I have does not have the first week the Nation fished I am not able to show the total so far as to what would be modeled. I do think it is safe to say Chinook and Coho are performing above expectations but with the rain it screws up things when trying to get a really firm idea of just what numbers say. Bingham is still not reporting and the Springs has a few Coho and Chinook. What is not known is just how far into the run the early rain brought the fish into the harbor. If just the early part we are good but if it brought in the fish normally coming later then our impression of the run size could be way off. So we wait to see but I am betting the Chinook over performed and Coho also but not to the same degree as Chinook.

Oct 3 - 5 week 41 Chinook 409 Chum 112 Coho 2,614
Modeled week 41 Chinook 627 Chum 283 Coho 2,222

Total Two QIN Sets Chinook 1,407 Chum 134 Coho 4,915
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/21 02:26 PM

Here is where my "but here is how we used to do it" gets wound up. With the long history of net fisheries coupled with the tide records and flow records it should be relatively easy to develop a model that looks at tides, flow, catch effort, rinsize, and so on. It may not be statistically "perfect" but it should give us a real-time view of what is going on.

Way back when the Fraser managers (after IPSFC) were willing to share with me the model they used to manage Fraser stocks by individual stock timing. I wanted it for SS chum, as there are a number fo different stocks and timings within the "South Sound Fall Chum" that we were managing as a conglomerate. This was 35 years ago. That model, which adjusted for changes in observed timing, would probably be a good place to start.

I must be getting old.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/21 06:29 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

We have four to five days before the river blows out. Flows will go up 10X what we have now with upper Satsop having one day of nearly four inches.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/21 02:20 PM

This is the kind of event that should get coho up into all the small creeks as far us as they can. Great for spawner distribution if the can survive the blow-out.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/21 04:43 AM

They will survive well enough. The old rule was river at at flood stage and 4 inches of additional rain comes in 24 hours you will have a hundred year flood. Right now we are below average so the streams in the Chehalis will absorb the flows.

After that no idea but if I remember the previous two events in upper Satsop had nearly 12 inches of rain and add the coming storm with around 5 inches and you get 17 inches South Olympics BEFORE November! That is one really bad set of weather patterns and long range forecast is for this to be the winter storm pattern.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/21 06:34 AM

10/19/2021

Saturday to Monday, 10/15/2021 - 10/18/2021, quite a few fish moved past South Monty. LOTS of wild fish, being caught and released above South Montesano, NOT MANY HATCHERY!!!!!

Sure would like to see the H vs. W in the 2 reported QIN nettings, this season.

I'm thinking the weekend fishermen, will be looking at lots of muddy waters, also hope the Willis property, lower Satsop, stabilizes.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/21 07:14 AM

I recall on winter when we had lots of rain, like 40 days and 40 nights, but never a huge amount at once. The streams got high, but not really ever flooded except in the first pulse. Other wise just high (higher than normal) and actually ran reasonably clear. Did a lot of habitat restoration, gravel moving, and such. Maybe we get something like that. Not really good for stream fishing, but cleans up the channels.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/21 05:24 AM

This is a double of a post to help keep folks up to date so to speak. Keeping in mind the QIN started on a different week this is this years forecast last years seasons. The only difference is the 3 weeks fished being set back 7 days which does make a difference. So view this as a general look at things so far.

Talking last set only using this years modeled harvest, Coho catch massively over performed. Chinook were just opposite and catch was well below anticipated. The opposite of Chinook and Coho coming early with the rain Chum are an absolute no show which means they are late as the numbers cannot get that way.

Also the total numbers I have modeled are off due to this years season being a one week set back. That said the Nations Coho numbers are about 1300 above estimate. Chinook 235 is 200 and change over, and Chum 377 is way below 5683 anticipated harvest.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/21 12:46 PM

OK folks heads up the NT Commercials start a 3 day set at 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM each day.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/21 05:41 AM

10/25/2021


Aberdeen area....Heavy rains started around 3:30 a m. I'm thinking this is the rain and wind that's been in the forecast, if so fish will be long gone before the Chehalis is fishable again.

Word was "Satsop above highway launch", was fishable Sunday morning BUT the Chehalis was getting mud, tells me that the "Willis property" is getting eaten away. Rain in next few days will make "the big October Brown out"...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/21 08:51 AM

From my e mail some of you folks pay attention I see. So in red the Nation and NT Commercial seasons. You see they are both scheduled for the same days and the GH Policy requirement of 3 net free days comes into play only on the states side. So the Nation fisheries past practice is the state doesn't fish the NT Commercial. Then with the Nation doing those days the state side does not have any days available to comply with 3 net free days required by the GH Policy.

Nope I do nor know how it will work out but staff has always complied with the policy so ............................

Tribal Net Schedule Chehalis

Stat Week Set In Pull Out
40 Sun. Sept. 26 Tues. Sept. 28
41 Sun. Oct. 3 Tues. Oct. 5
42 Sun. Oct. 10 Tues. Oct. 12
43 Closed Closed
44 Closed Closed
45 Sun. Oct. 31 Thur. Nov. 4
46 Sun. Nov. 7 Wed. Nov. 10
47 Sun. Nov. 14 Wed. Nov. 17


NT Commercial Schedule Chehalis

Area 2A and 2D: • Live box use REQUIRED for All wild (unmarked) Chinook and All Steelhead.
• Soak times must not exceed 45 minutes.
• Notice of Intent to fish any of the days in the 2021 fisheries is REQUIRED by 5 pm (Noon), October 11, 2021.
Date and Time Area Miscellaneous requirements and gear restrictions:
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM Oct. 25, 2021
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM Oct. 26, 2021
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM Oct. 27, 2021
Noon through 11:59 PM Nov. 02, 2021
AND
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM Nov. 03, 2021.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/21 10:59 AM

Dave,
When the state set up the NI netting schedule, it looks like they thought the QIN would only fish from noon Oct.31- noon Nov.2 since they had the NI netters going back in on noon on Nov. 2. instead of 7 am on Nov. 2. Was there a miscommunication between the State and the QIN?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/21 12:14 PM

I think the Nation had more than one option of dates in the mix and took the one we see. It would appear your right I think but then we are guessing. That said damn good guess I think but I do not think miscommunication rather like two bulls butting heads.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/21 05:17 AM

I have been told that the NT Commercial set Monday and Tuesday was not red hot in fact some pulled out early Tuesday. I watched Tuesday morning two boats three drifts each and the nets came up empty but the Sea Lions were getting them. In fact I watched 3 or 4 just from behind Staples but was told it was worse other places. As strange as it sounds I think we are at a point that the amount of fish taken ( Chinook in particular ) by Sea Lions is going cause the model to be way off being accurate for escapement.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/21 09:52 AM

i fished monday night over by the old price plus... i saw alot of fish being taken by the netters.. and i mean alot.. the one pull the guy had over 50 fish that i counted.. and the other boat when he pulled he had over 30 it one set that i counted.. so im sure they did very good.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/21 10:39 AM

Yup but it was Tuesday that went South and some pulled around noon. It has been more than a little strange year.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/weekly_escapement_10-21-2021.pdf

This last Fridays rack reports for the hatcheries. Scroll down and find Bingham, Mayr, and Satsop Springs and the numbers are still low. Have wait to see what shows this week with the blow out.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/21 04:32 PM

Something has to be off with those satsop numbers. They must not have counted many because there were thousands and thousands of fish that pushed through since the last week of September. Fish movement like I’ve never seen on the satsop, 25 years fishing it and it’s never been so good. (Especially before the first of October, the amount of fish moving up a riffle in one push were groups of 50-100 all day for 2 days straight).

Makes you wonder why the hatchery counts are so low.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/21 06:11 PM

They count what is in the pond. Fish still in the river aren't part of the count.
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/21 07:17 PM

A couple good days fishing doesn't paint a accurate image of run size. Cmon man beathead

I'd bet a bottle of Barrel whiskey that this won't be a "for the record books" kinda run given the 25 history.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/21 07:42 PM

A couple good days? Try 4 weeks. 2 weeks of that was absolutely insane. I’ve spent more time on that river than 99% of people…it’s more than “oh man, I hooked 40-50 on the satsop last week” kind of thing. The sheer volume of fish moving through the river for a sustained amount of time; I’ve never seen that.

What was the year? 13? We had that “pumper” crop of fish? This is better.

The B run may not show up. That’s a real possibility. We’ll see. I did already see a 20+ coho caught before the rain. Probably just a big A run fish. But next week will determine if it was just a fluke or not. Right now, based on what I saw the last month…this is a huge run of fish.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/21 08:45 PM

they might have the gate closed for some reason.. and are only taking so many fish at a time into the hatchery..
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/21 10:07 PM

That’s my thought. Maybe the opened, took some fish in and closed it. Or they are guessing 800 (combined hatchery and wild) is a pretty round number don't ya think! Most of the time it 792.806 or something like that. Rarely is it an exact number like 800. Maybe they are understaffed?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/21 04:31 AM


You estimate the number of fish in the pond as "on hand " but the number of spawned or surplused is accurate as they have to handle each fish.

Bingham has been known to keep the trap closed early in the year and the fish stay in the river as it is a better way to hold the fish. I got two hatchery hens last week and both had skeins around 1 to 1 1/4 inches in diameter. Way off being ready to spawn.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/21 06:49 AM

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/21 09:35 AM

Today's escapement report shows a big surge in numbers from previous. Total for the three stations is about 7600 which is significantly higher than the counts for a similar date in 2017-2020. Not up to the 24,600 in 2014 though.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/21 10:18 AM

10/28/2021

jgreen, Rivrguy, Cassman, Swing, Slammer:

All good comments..."Time will tell"

My take, 100% of my September-October, has been in the area around the "Pump Houses", which is above South Montesano. So my fishing has been jacks and Hatchery Coho.

Jack fishing was good, if you had good eggs but that said was it like the "old days", 25-40 years ago, not from what I remember when hatchery Coho release numbers were MUCH greater.

Wild Coho adults FAR out number Hatchery Coho adult caught in my area of the river, now I don't have a exact ratio, but I'd guess it was 10 to 1, Wild over hatchery.

There was never a day when a boat with 2 or more people "limited the boat" with hatchery Coho, on my stretch of the river.......now are we the best fishermen around????? but we do have gear that has worked for years....AND WE ARE ON THE RIVER, LOT'S!!!!!!!

Sure hope rivers get fishable, quickly....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/21 10:28 AM

One hell of a jack count (5200) at Bingham with the adults at 5700. A lot of jacks this year.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/21 12:02 PM

we still had a good number of jacks down in the lower chehalis last week... still not many dogs-- hope there just late.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/21 03:39 PM

I noticed from the last week of September “trout” fishing until about the 10th of October on the satsop that it was the opposite. Many more clipped fished to unclipped. Then it turned around after that to mostly unclipped fish and lucky if you hit a decent looking clipped fish.

Those certainly aren’t 2014 numbers. I’m probably just a better fisherman now. laugh
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/21 08:22 PM

Originally Posted By: steely slammer
we still had a good number of jacks down in the lower chehalis last week... still not many dogs-- hope there just late.


They're here...

Cowboys quick-reporting past 3 days:
4000 chum dominated the catch with about ~4 chum for every coho. Coupla kings retained.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/21 08:25 PM

Not sure how spawning chums behave when charging up such a short distance in the mud. Gonna be days before their preferred lower trib spawning sites clear up.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/21 08:05 AM

Tidewater Chehalis getting pummeled with nets Oct 31 thru Nov 10.

So much for 4/3.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/21 08:31 AM

There seems to be a difference between the QIN website showing days fishing and the WDFW website showing days fishing. NT appear to be consistent with what we know but the QIN season is different on the WDFW website. I have e mailed staff asking for clarification.

In the process WDFW had NT's in on the same day as QIN so evidently the disagreement has escalated.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/21 08:40 AM

I smell lotsa dead chum
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/21 08:43 AM

word is 50 / 50 Chum Coho at present.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/21 11:34 AM

i saw NT boats heading towards pakonens..

wdfw site says noon today till 11:59 tonight.... 7:00 am to 7:00 pm 3rd..

tribe goes 4th through the 6th 7th -10th

so anyway u look at it, it's way to many days of nets!!! so much for any late coho
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/21 12:01 PM

Mike has sent out the final model now that the QIN and State have agreed. I sent it out but if anyone wants it not on my list let me know and I will get it to you. The model shows days of weeks to be fished by both Nation and NT Commercials.

To be honest guys the harvest model is required reading to have an idea of schedule and impacts.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/21 12:59 PM

11/02/2021


Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
I smell lotsa dead chum



Just as many Coho

I have the luxury of going to Pakonen's and watch the set net right West of the boat ramp. The past few days this set net seems to get quite a few fish. Are the fish all Chum, no there are many nice bright Coho, many are female.

The person "picking the net", yesterday was not cold, he had to move quickly because there were at least 3 sea lions just on the river side of the net. I saw no fish the sea lions got, from the net, but in the main part of the river both sea lions and sea gulls got their share.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/21 11:06 AM

I Thought I should add this, the number of commercial fishers decreases with the primary runs being upstream. Today one boat was not catching much and then disappeared. So a 4 day QIN or combination QIN / NT is not the same in November as October especially when it rains wayyyyyyy early like this year.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/21 02:28 PM

For those who do not care for the model it shows a couple of things. If all numbers are come true ( never happens ) the Chehalis Chinook 400 & change under escapement with QIN massively exceeding NT share. Now the other side of the coin with the Hump the NT's ( all ) will be ahead by 1400 or so. As nobody but WDFW separates the Chehalis and Hump for management and the QIN is entitled the court mandated GRAYS HARBOR the numbers projected have the QIN ahead by 355, we not meet GH Chinook escapement. Also remember ocean impacts of both tribal and state fishers count which probably means the QIN is within their share.

Also GH Coho will fall short but that is mostly due to the Hump Coho be under escaped for years and they will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Those new to the model a box turning red means below escapement or exceeding shares. A box turning green means above escapement.

Hope that helps you all.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/21 12:54 PM


A lot of discussion a on where are the hatchery fish so I did a C&P on that subject. Pay attention to the Bingham numbers for the rack returns as right now for this time of year Bingham is 600% more than last year. One last time, it RAINED EARLY not once but several times and nothing good comes from that.


You got the movement down. The hatchery Coho shot above the cut off lines for fishing and parked as it only takes a day on a small rise to get them above the Springs on the Satsop let alone blow out three times. Also the Skook Mit Coho are late returning as a portion of Bingham’s. So while the hatchery % looks OK on paper nearly half do not come back Sept through October but rather mid Nov through Dec. So again if it rains early let alone three times before the end of the first week of Oct the fish will move up rapidly and stage up out of the areas open for fishing. Those that stay lower simply stage go to hiding non biting mode which is how you get red fish mainstream.

The movements of Chinook were huge but moved up with the rain before the QIN landed on them but they still got a bunch. Coho seemed to be moving in school’s that were here one day gone the next. If you found a bunch of Coho they were sea lice & scales not set which translated means right out of the ocean and high speed nose down moving rapidly upstream and except for South Elma where they would stop for a bit but mostly ran right by Recs in a day. There was a two week window on the Satsop that those knowing the movement got into Coho when they slowed down but the rain took them above the fishing boundaries. Early rains like this year are not any help to any terminal fisher.

One final thing. Last year this time Bingham had 1700 Coho this year 5700 with 5000 jacks. At the end of Nov. 2020 Bingham had 6788 adult Coho and 3682 jacks. Not sure I want to take up a bet on run size for Coho but it is as he said because it rained early.

Hope this helps compare apples to apples.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/21 01:48 PM

We sporties really took it in the shorts when the opening date moved to October 1. Not always the case (as has been said, the rain came early this year), but it certainly was this year. I understand the reasons, so I'm not upset; maybe just whining a little.

I tried fly fishing the Lower Satsop in late September, mostly looking for anything that might bite (cutts/steelhead) and to get a feel for how the river had changed. I didn't catch any cutthroat or steelhead, but I did run into lots of chromey, bitey, mostly clipped coho and even a couple kings. This was great fun (best salmon angling I've ever experienced in WA), but it was a bit frustrating putting back all those hatchery fish, knowing they were more numerous than I had seen in recent years and that by the time they were open for harvest, most of the clipped ones would be way up the E. Fork. Like Rivrguy said, the lower river was still pretty good fishing for a couple weeks after the opener (if crowded), but the catch was easily 90% unclipped fish.

I've had a pretty good season overall in-river (as regards catching; most fish have had extra fins), but it could have been one for the ages had we had Sept. 16-30 this year. Oh, well. Anymore, a good day of C&R fishing is worth a lot, so I'm fairly satisfied. Those who place emphasis on harvesting fish are probably less pleased....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/21 09:37 AM

For those who believe in natural selection, consider that hatchery fish are harvested at high rates. Used to be over 90%, maybe still is. That means only 10% of the total return actually make it to the hatchery and of that ben less are spawned.

What do they spawn? What makes it back. The fish that didn't bite, the fish that blew through the net fisheries, the fish fish that swam through the nets (too small or too big), the fish that returned after fishing closed, and so on.

It should come as no surprise, especially in a high harvest situation, that what is left evolves to not get caught. That is why, in a lot of places, we have wild coho that spawn in January and February.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/21 12:37 PM

So doing the numbers game reported rack returns for Bingham Coho. As of Nov 4 6250 H & 1550 w. For 2020 same date it was 4250 h & 800 W. For the entire 2020 years returns Bingham had 6768 h & 1250 W. These numbers are for normal timed Coho and Dec 1 they close the books on normal timed Coho and report late Coho Dec 1 on.

So right now it looks like the 2021 returns are nearly 100% of the 2020 returns which lends credence to those who say the Coho run forecast was way off. Now the fun part anything returning in Nov will be past expectations but do not get carried away because a lot of Nov timed fish are up already because of the rain. Now my favorite number checker SB says the preseason forecast was way off ( short ) and it looks to be leaning his way. We got the rest of the month to see but it is trending his way. It is the wild Coho returns at Bingham that I use to gauge things be it only a snap shot and nothing solid.

Bottom line if the rack returns continue to perform only moderately to the plus side the 2021 forecast is going to be below the actual returns. If the returns continue to do well and the numbers continue to climb then the preseason forecast was way off and pretty much toast.

Three more weeks and we will know but being 300 ahead of 2020 with w at the rack now with that much time left it is is starting go from looks like the Coho over performed and the forecast is wayyyyyy off. Three more weeks and we will know.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/21 04:12 PM

im just asking a question.. why would wild fish go into the hatchery???

im sure they can get a stray once in a while but 1500+ ???
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/21 04:56 PM

Bingham has a weir that stops all fish. When the pond gate is open they swim up a ladder into the holding ponds and when sorting fish wild are put in a hole in the side wall of the pond which is really a tube slide that puts them back into the East Fork Satsop above the weir. Bingham Cr itself has a weir operated by the science division that also stops the fish. Bingham uses both Bingham Cr and East Fork Satsop water so wild would be inclined to return somewhat with out a weir.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/21 05:18 PM

ok thanks for the info...
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/07/21 08:45 AM

Another aspect about coho is that they try to go as far upstream as possible, regardless (especially) of where they smelted from. The higher up a watershed they spawn, the more smolts are produced. This probably is the case in hatchery fish, too, that will push upstream even passing the hatchery outfall. Wild fish will, also, explore any and all tribs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/21 08:48 AM

Heads up for those still fishing, tomorrow's forecast for the Olympic side tribs is 4.31 inches in 24 hrs at Haywire Ridge with the 10 day at 9.97. The vast majority of the rain will be between Tuesday to Thursday. The lower elevations and upper Chehalis about half the rain of the Olympics is going to get. So bottom line the rivers are about to blow big time.

Now for those of you who fish the rise it looks like the rain will hit late afternoon tomorrow through the night. That said the East Fork Satsop will take a bit to blow out but the Middle Fork and West Fork Satsop looks to get that rain in about 8 hrs so your going to have a wall of water and crap running hard so be careful as this forecast is butt ugly.

Bingham rack reports ( plus the Springs ) for Nov 10th have 9351 total Coho total thus far and 2020 was 7878. One number that jumps out is in 2020 the W was 1000 and 2021 thus far 1550 W Coho. The jack totals at present are darn near double last years for both H & W which is one hell of a bunch of jacks.

From one guys observation ( not me ) the Nation is catching fish this set that look to be mostly Coho. One always has to be careful though because Chum running hard right out of the ocean look like Coho from a distance. The number of tribal fishers has dropped way down also which will have a dramatic effect on the weekly catch.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/21 09:26 AM

Almost forgot, one has to go to the modeled commercial harvest then to the actual harvest on WDFW's website. Then compare those to see if the numbers reflect lower or higher than expected which then lets you get a better feel for things. Bottom line Chinook look to be over performing as are Coho. How much is always the fun part as it gets right down to the "gut" thing.

Think of it this way, by harvest Chum crashed but we know that a huge number went up on the brown out reducing anticipated catch. So are the Chum over or under performing? This is where the gut thing is subjective and why for Coho I use Bingham for Coho. Weirs stop the fish making the count absolute so you can get a feel for Coho. You can be way ahead on early rain years in Oct. but into Nov loose some on the count that came in early with the rain.

One final thing, DW has been tracking the Nooch for many years and gets the trap reports at the dam. This years Coho returns to the Wynoochee appear to below expectations and historical performance which is a red flag. So lots of good signs but also some red flags.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/21 02:33 PM

The Nooch being behind schedule for coho seems strange, but it might be explained by the fact that run is mostly wild, or late-timed. Tribe and NT Comms. have been fishing later this season, to target those fish along with chums. Maybe they're catching a significant portion of the late run. Since Bingham is slightly ahead on wilds so far, that guess might be complete crap, but.... Either way, let's hope that improves.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/21 08:32 PM

11/13/2021

I've been getting the trap report for about 35 years, while this year Coho adult numbers are down some, it wouldn't really matter as most of these fish are trucked above the dam by Tacoma City Light.

If I had a say, I'd put 500 over the dam, then I'd shut the trap and force the remaining Coho to find a place in one of the feeder creeks to spawn.

What is a surprise to me is the amount of Wynoochee Coho jacks this year, 140, in the past 8 years the largest number has been 42.

I tried this year, NOF, to get the legal daily jack limit raised to 12....was told no but no reason was given as to WHY.....grrrrrrrr

I will try again, think there is a better use of these jacks than to surplus them...

not trying to steal thread.....bored on a black, rainy night in zip code 98520
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/21 09:01 AM

The only argument I can think of against a higher jack count is that it could result in a higher impact against adults received. That said, if it is a concern you would think they would put a stop to some of the lining fisheries. As someone told me, the correct way to do it is to count to 3 and yank. Then he bragged that they had hooked over 40 the day before.
Posted by: Larry B

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/21 09:51 AM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
11/13/2021


I tried this year, NOF, to get the legal daily jack limit raised to 12....was told no but no reason was given as to WHY.....grrrrrrrr

I will try again, think there is a better use of these jacks than to surplus them...

not trying to steal thread.....bored on a black, rainy night in zip code 98520





WDFW's bureaucratic inertia in full bloom!

No surprise there insofar if they were to give a reason it wouldn't pass the whiff test. Easier and safer to just say NO.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/21 03:07 PM

Just to guess, assuming that a li it of 12 would actually result in more fish caught (perhaps lots) these would apply to NI share and reduce the adult harvest in the rec and/or commercial sectors. I don't what the the adult equivalent is for a jack; it may even be 1:1 since the fish is at end of life and can spawn. Might be able to get 12 jacks in Willapa, since there is no sharing there.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/21 06:55 PM

6 jacks is plenty for one day.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/21 06:59 PM

Then it doesn't matter if the limit is 6 or 12; you stop at 6....Other folks may be able to utilize 12. Just like the limit on waterfowl; I am satisfied with one or two.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/21 12:13 PM


This a C&P from a multi person email that Mike got a copy. This is Mike's reply and it is straight forward and pay attention to the failure to make Coho escapement last year. I have asked for the years we failed to make escapement for the last 10 years as the RR in the forecast model is lagging 4 or so years. When we find the info you will have it also.

From : Scharpf, Mike (DFW) <Mike.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov>


Hi all,

I really appreciate this type of conversation, particularly as NOF is approaching. The Agency is not against the retention of the first coho encountered, but we need to consider all things important to all anglers. Until you exceed hooking and releasing 10 wild coho to 1 hatchery coho, you are killing more wilds by retention. We can argue hook and release mortality rates all we want, but the best scientific information available suggests a 10% release mortality rate is conservative. Things to consider are, is releasing that many wild fish socially acceptable, harvest limits or season lengths, complexity of regulations (different bag limits in different river sections and/or systems), and what are the limitations. Just a heads up, the Chehalis coho spawner escapement last year did NOT achieve the goal, so that is another year below goal, 3 of the last 5 years. Policy says 5% max impact regardless of forecasted abundance. A bright note, the early indicators for this year’s return are very positive, more than forecast. I will caution, early indicators last year showed a promising return, but fizzled. Hoping we see bump the late component this year.

And just a reminder, the forecast for Chehalis coho was 2 to 1 wild to hatchery, the basis for current season.

Please continue this type of conversation. These will lead into the NOF process and hope to lead to developing more and productive options.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/21 12:39 PM


And Mike got the years to us: Attached is a file with a bunch of numbers, it should help. Chehalis natural spawning goal was not met in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2020. Let me know if this helps.

He attached a spread sheet that breaks it down by years and trib. For those who are truly interested in escapement management rather than foaming at the mouth uttering " I wanna kill a fish" , it is a rather interesting spread sheet and sobering also. Let me know and I will send it to you.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/21 01:03 PM

Oh the spread sheet has the numbers for escapement by reach / trib for all salmon and steelhead.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/21 03:01 PM

I would add that you can't be all things to all stakeholders. For example, centering the hatchery retention in (say) the Hump and Satsop could allow a more wide-open fishery there but more restrictions elsewhere.

The most liberal scheme (in terms of dead fish in the boat) is to not fish mixed stock, probably have little concern for the wild stock in the hatchery stream, and fish the appropriate rates in each stream.

We actually see this with the mixture of deer seasons; some either sex, some any buck, some 3 pt or better, and so on. Each GMU has a season based on what is in that GMU.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/21 09:37 AM

OK the November 18 Coho rack return numbers for Bingham / Springs are up on the WDFW website and here are 2020 and 2021 returns for the comparison same point in time.

2020 Hatchery Adults 8374 Wild 1204 Jacks Hatchery 3728 Wild 195

2021 Hatchery Adults 11749 Wild 3220 Jacks Hatchery 7015 Wild 365

On the hatchery side the return appears to be hanging out at around 34% above 2020's numbers for adults. Now 2021 wild adults are coming in at 250% of 2020 which is outstanding! Keep in mind we DID NOT make escapement in 2020.

2021 Hatchery Jacks are about 190% above the 2020 returns and 2021 Wild Jacks are looking to be 180% above the 2020 returns.

So the fears that the backside of the run would not materialize as in some years in the past appears to not be happening. This is a really big thing because in 2020 a lot of folks caught the big movement and wanted expanded opportunity. Well the big movement ended up being the vast majority of the run and we blew escapement. Again this year same thing and again bitching about hatchery numbers and wanting to expand the season. Well it appears that the backside of the run is holding up but with the rains and harvest restraints it is just OK not off the map.

Now the Hatchery Jack thing is looking good coming in at over 180% and Wild Jacks hanging out at about the same 187%. Because Bingham has a weir and can do a accurate adult count for the East Fork this is a good number. That it mirrors the hatchery returns would indicate that 2021 Coho returns are above forecast and escapement should be a non issue. It also looks like the fresh to salt survival for both hatchery and wild Coho was very good so we got fresh and out migration looking good. The next year in the salt before the adults side of this years Jacks comes around appears to be the make or break part of the cycle this time around.

As Mike said in his email we are crashing right into the GH Policy 3/5 clause for failing to escapement so 2022 should be better for the fish but restricted for harvesters if we fail to make escapement for 2021. That is the thing about the GHP it sets parameters for NT harvest opportunity but it is conservation driven. Screw up and not make escapement and harvesters will pay a price. Well we didn't do well from 2016 forward on escapement and we are going to feel the pain if we blow escapement again.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/21 09:35 AM


I have gotten a several calls from folks questioning the hatchery return numbers. Couple of things, first the harvest model goes from Jan 1 to Dec 31 of any given year. ALL hatchery Coho are in the model but all Coho are not the same run timing. With out looking everything up Bingham & the Springs are at around 700K smolt of NORMAL timed Coho which are the fish you see in the river to around the end of Oct but do not make it to the hatchery until Nov are when rains & flows move them up. Bingham does another 300K of late timed Coho that do not get to the hatchery before Dec 1 and the Skookumchuck Mitigation Coho are a late timed stock also. Normal timed Coho have a higher smolt to returning adults ratio than do later returning adults.

So when one sees the forecast of returning Coho adults be it hatchery or wild it does not just include those that we fish on in Sept through Oct but all the way to Dec 31.

This is getting to be an issue because that Satsop has only made wild Coho escapement 7 of the last 20 years and not in the last 5. The Hoquiam, Wishkah, and Wynoochee are performing similar with the Nooch being an absolute basket case. The Nooch Coho returns are so bad that if they did the mitigation Coho ( that WDFW has not done as required ) that we still could not fish that river itself because the wild Coho are so weak that a release wild hooking mortality would bring the numbers way down.

The simple fact is that the Chehalis Basin Wild Coho production that enables harvest is being propped up by the streams ABOVE the Satsop. Why is the question and frankly I think it is a nature thing. The upper basin tend to come back more toward Nov. ( increased rains / flows ) which results in less harvest pressure, the rain thing.

I try to not put things up on this thread that I cannot verify but I will now. We keep this up and as a good friend said to me "we are going to screw the pooch one to many times and take ourselves right off the water". We are really close to doing real damage to wild Coho tide water streams Satsop down.

Now that is a fact not opinion.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/21 08:31 PM

11/19/2021

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy



This is getting to be an issue because that Satsop has only made wild Coho escapement 7 of the last 20 years and not in the last 5. The Hoquiam, Wishkah, and Wynoochee are performing similar with the Nooch being an absolute basket case. The Nooch Coho returns are so bad that if they did the mitigation Coho ( that WDFW has not done as required ) that we still could not fish that river itself because the wild Coho are so weak that a release wild hooking mortality would bring the numbers way down.



Well here I go again, Hoquiam, Wishkah, Wynoochee rivers not enough Wild Coho to make escapement so looks like things need to change from Westport to 105 Bridge.

Alaska and Canada are part of the problem, BUT no one wants to take that on.

I've felt that 100% of the NT and QIN fish, need to be accounted for either Wild or hatchery, in a timely manner. WDFW should post those numbers on the State web site.

As it is now there is more value to wild fish, than hatchery.....short Wild fish, then maybe major problems for future years.

The present method of getting a handle on wild numbers is spawning surveys and punch cards data from sports fishermen.....both long after the majority of the Wild Coho have spawned.....for sure way to late to do anything in the current year.

If the NT and QIN would make available the Coho numbers, maybe something could be done in the current year. Region 6 doesn't like to make any adjustments to the schedules.....so even if the nets showing waaaay more Wilds than hatchery, I doubt if anything would get done?????? I think that is why there is no accounting of Wild vs. hatchery during the season, THAT I'VE SEEN.

Sports above 105 Bridge did our bit this year, hatchery only, not many of those caught around the area I fished.........I checked the Satsop Springs and Bingham hatchery's. quite a few hatchery Coho are showing now.....guess I need to re-learn how to catch those hatchery Coho????

Now I do know that Region 6 has shut the whole season down, 2015, Chehalis and tribs. 100%, no Chum fishery and no summer run steelhead on the Wynoochee, no nothing but it was after QIN, NT, Bay fishery was ending.....I never did, know what prompted that closure.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/21 10:25 AM

11/20/2021

A next morning thought.......

Coast Wild steelhead are getting a type of protection that most of us never thought would happen:

1. No bait

2. No fishing from a boat

3. release all wild steelhead

others, that I've forgotten but that would really be scary to most salmon fishermen if those same kinds of rules were applied.

WDFW personnel have had about 18 months of "out of office time", lots of "tv time" to get creative.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/21 01:42 PM

something u need to remember is the old school personal at WDFW are retierd well most anyways..

so now u have a bunch of younger people who were raised as tree huggers and wild fish lovers.. no problem there with that..trying to run the show and figure out how to take it to the next level of keeping fish for the next generations.. I feel kinda sorry for them cause they got left holding the bag on the (whats left) of the fish runs..

though most of what there doing and the way there doing it doesn't make sense..
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/21 05:29 PM

Not to derail this thread. So... What is going on for this winters harbor and coast winter steelhead fisheries? Have I missed something since the meeting in Oct.? Any concrete regs out yet? Any dates for concrete regs to be announced? Dazed and confused!
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/20/21 05:39 PM

a guy told me he listend in the other nights meeting .. and he said it sounded like no fishing on the chehalis or its tribs.. but i haven't seen anything yet.. should be next week you'd think..
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/21/21 08:47 AM

11/21/2021

Sunday morning:

More reflections, looking back to my arrival in Grays Harbor....1968

No Wynoochee Dam, no Bolt Decision, lots of hatchery salmon/steelhead, lots of wild Coho, Chinook, steelhead, Westport "Salmon Capital of the World", NT gill nets had the complete Chehalis--probably 50+ boats.

Wynoochee River and Chehalis River had spring Chinook, Wynoochee, Satsop, Humptulips all had wild steelhead, many over the 25# - 30# range, seasons on the Wynoochee and Satsop never closed until April 30, Humptulips had a 3 fish SH limit.

2021----Humptulips only Chinook fishery for sports, Coho and Chum legal for Chehalis, and tribs., fisheries are about closed because Wild Coho can't make escapement, Wild Steelhead, coast wide, are in danger, compared to 1968. Reasons for many of the problems....too many people wanta fish, commercial NT and Tribal, still allow to fish non-selective, guides, drifting craft and jet boats, have increased, from 1968 to present day, at an alarming rate. Technologies have improved, that fish can't hide anymore, fishing gear in general has improved leaps and bounds from 1968 days, now there is talk about 2/3 fishery per week. Sh!t and I don't know how to golf.......grrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/21 08:57 AM

Ok it is the Bingham / Springs Coho update time for Nov. 24.

2021 adult Coho H 11,851 W 3270 Jacks 6836

2020 adult Coho H 8516 W 1250 Jacks 3880

As I said before I am using 2020 as a past reference because Wild Coho DID NOT make escapement. That said that the hatchery adult total is running around 29% to 30% above 2020 which means the back side the run is holding its own which is a good thing. The wild adult returns appear to be around 176% of the 2020 returns a really good thing as we are in serous deep crap activating the GH Policy 3/5 clause if we blow escapement this year ! The wild jack returns for 2021 are 362 and 2020 198 which gives us a 2021 W Jack return that is 182% of last year and that is really good news.

So I think we look OK for Coho this year but keep in mind all the tribs below Fuller Hill ARE NOT making escapement most years. I have had questions about Chinook escapement but I really do not know. The Springs numbers are not that substantial for Chinook but outside redd count results which come much later I do not know of a way to get a look at the numbers game with Chinook. I will E mail staff and ask but we may be a bit premature on trying to get Chinook data.

The one thing that jumps at me in looking at the rack returns is Skookumchuck. Remembering that the stock is a later returning fish and IT RAINED EARLY these numbers may or may not be misleading.

2021 H Coho adults 1266 W Coho adults 15 H Jacks 63 W Jacks 15
2020 H Coho adults 414 W Coho adults 4 H Jacks 63 Wild Jacks 1
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/21 09:51 AM

Forgot to add that the coming Saturday storm is going to slam the Olympic side of the Basin. At Haywire ( near W. Satsop headwaters ) nearly 5 1/2 inches Saturday so things are going to rumble in the tribs Fuller Hill down. Upper Chehalis rain nothing out of the ordinary.

So the 10 day forecast is around 8 inches on the Olympic tribs but the Saturday shot is going to be butt ugly!
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/21 08:09 PM

Last week the QIN released this year's regulations for steelhead, I think the Queets/salmon river season is the writing on the wall for what WDFW is going to tell us on monday..

Sad to see it come to this.

BTW steeley plenty of the old wdfw guys that retired or are about to retire are certainly "wild fish guys".
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/21 07:41 AM

Originally Posted By: On The Swing
Last week the QIN released this year's regulations for steelhead, I think the Queets/salmon river season is the writing on the wall for what WDFW is going to tell us on monday..

Sad to see it come to this.


Saw that! Hardly even gets going until Jan. The predictions must be the worse ever. What do they use to determine winter run predictions? Summer returns?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/28/21 10:09 AM

For those that are fishing the Satsop did as forecasted going from around 2500 cfs to around 11,000 cfs overnight. It is 10 AM and it is cresting at the Satsop Nursery bridge. It is going to take around 4 days to drop to 6000 cfs and a few more days to be back down to 2600 cfs. How fast it clears is going to depend where you are I think but the Chehalis is going to be around the same flows as the Satsop above Fuller Hill so you should have a burst of color there but not a blow out. The Willis property on the Satsop will likely muddy things up as it continues to erode.

So choose your poison the mud is going to be one place or another. The old rule is Upper Chehalis water takes 4 days to reach the bay so the Satsop may clear and the Chehalis muddy up as the upper basin muddy spot comes down stream.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/30/21 10:45 PM

Little back some of us were wondering what the numbers look like for escapement. Mike Scharpf got back to us and this a snap shot of were we are this year on escapement. I would have bet that the Chinook did better, this rain sure made those fish act differently.

From: Mike Scharpf

Thanks for your patience. I’ve updated my Chinook redd in-season update model that gives me an idea how this seasons redd count looks. There’s an interesting mix, but overall, numbers of Chinook redds in ten select index reaches enumerated this season is about half the average. With that said, there has been high water this season and many of these indexes are mainstems, and survey conditions haven’t been great. We haven’t completed a survey in on the Skookumchuck yet, visibility and high flows have prevented any. These numbers don’t include any of the supplemental surveys or in smaller, less influential index reaches, so this are very preliminary. We aren’t sure yet how this year’s flows have influenced spawner distributions. With what has been enumerated in these ten indexes in my model, the spawning escapement may be around 9,000 to 9,500 fish. Coho numbers, however, are looking pretty good.
Posted by: FISH'N BRASS

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/21 08:59 AM

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=2782

Have I missed this post somewhere? Chehalis, Hump, Satsop among others-CLOSED to all fishing on 1 Dec !
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/21 09:39 AM

yup in the Steelhead Regs thread.
Posted by: FISH'N BRASS

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/21 10:22 AM

Thanks-I did miss Todd's post. I wasn't alone yesterday-at least 4 others also missed the change. Going to be a long winter!
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/21 10:53 AM

Thanks WDFW
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/21 11:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Barrier Damn
Thanks WDFW


Should WDFW have done something different? If so, what?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/21 11:24 AM

I think what he is getting at is that WDFW should not have allowed the runs to deteriorate to the point they are at now. Some they can control, like escapement, but they really seem to have little impact on land use.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/21 12:06 PM

We do not have much of the Dec & Jan returning Steelhead as they hit the dumpster with the early timed hatchery releases by old WDG intended to be primarily caught by the Nation. In the process they decimated the Late Native Coho to the point darn near not viable. To be honest even if the winter Steelhead numbers were better or much better the Chehalis should have been closed in Dec & Jan simply to protect the remnant populations of native Late Coho. That simple and that ugly all in one sentence. The jig is up.

In a conversation I was asked what about the winter Steelhead hatchery programs? Well rounded off using 2020 releases from the preseason forecast 276,000 are Wynoochee and Skookumchuck mitigation and 64,300 are WDFW production on the Satsop. The mitigation fish are required due to the dams and the Satsop production is a WDFW program at their discretion as to if it continues or is dropped.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/05/21 01:49 PM

One thing I observed at the presentations at the Pacific Coast Steelhead Management meetings (but it was a decade ago) was that the only really successful hatchery programs were the huge ones. The piddly-assed 10-20-30K plantings returned next to nothing. It was the 200-300-500K stockings that supported fisheries. As I recall, when I asked, nobody was looking into why it took the larger programs to be successful. I suspected then, and still do now, that the smaller programs were supported by so few spawners that genetic issues were easy to have.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/21 02:09 PM

Many of us had questions on Coho escapement for 2021 so as asked I e mailed Mike to see if it was possible to get an update for everyone. His response is below.

From Mike Scharpf:

Everything I’ve seen related to Coho shows escapements will far exceed goals. However, even if the goal is achieved this year, which it will, the goal was missed in 2017, 2019, and 2020, so even with a strong 2022 forecast, we will have missed the goal 3 of the last 5 years. Its going to be an interesting NOF.

Rather have this out as opposed to a surprise. I kind of think the forecast will be fairly robust for next year.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/21 02:58 PM

Missing it 3/5 years puts us in the penalty box, correct?

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/21 03:23 PM

Yes sir that is correct but only Coho.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/21 03:31 PM

I suspect that will translate to some significant escapement the next couple of years.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/21 04:42 PM

Hope so. We certainly do not want to blow escapement in 2022!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/21 07:17 AM

My bet is we will blow it in '22. With lots of "harvestable" there will be pressure to kill them all rather than put in a buffer. Last year's really hot spell will come back to bite us in the *ss.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/21 07:47 AM

The Forecast Eval tab in the forecast model says you might be right. We make escapement ( some streams ) when the run forecast is below actual returns. If you look at the Eval graph over the years it sorta cycles up and down but it is an window of around 4 years each way more or less. In other words in years of an up cycle the forecast lags behind actual return but in years of down cycle declining run size forecast over predict returns. The Eval tab only goes to 2012 but I imagine the pattern holds true.

The lowest wild Coho return I could find was 1991 with the Chehalis at only 6615 / Hump 1005 which gets you 7620. That years return was in a 10 year window with a high of 44k to the low of 7620. The returning adults off the 1991 brood was 17k and change. So the simple fact while Chehalis Coho our prone to a pattern it does have years of rather large or small returns that are not anticipated.

By not allowing the tidewater tribs to make escapement when we have an up cycle we do not benefit because of the reduced brood in those tribs. Make escapement consistently and up cycles are years of abundance vs what we have now is hanging in there good years or bad. Like the man said " Houston we have a problem "!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/21 10:03 AM

A problem with salmon forecasts is that they rely on recent years' data. For some reason, the managers love to throw out older data...

Anyway, we know that ocean conditions and subsequent returns are cyclic. Which means you always play catch-up. When the conditions improve, you are using the down years to forecast and vice-versa.

Lastly, and I may have beaten this horse before, I have seen a beautiful model that well represents Oregon coho returns. Uses four ocean variables that are temporally sequential. The problem is that any one can switch the impact. Three bads followed by a good give you a good run; three goods followed by a bad and it sucks. Their conclusion was that management by actual in-season update works best, but that precludes raping and pillaging the ocean.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/21 09:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
My bet is we will blow it in '22. With lots of "harvestable" there will be pressure to kill them all rather than put in a buffer. Last year's really hot spell will come back to bite us in the *ss.

If we're talking coho, the heat wave this past summer would have killed smolts destined for outmigration in the spring of 2022, and returning as adults in the fall of 2023. That's the year to be worried.

Jack returns in 2022 will be very telling as it regards freshwater survival in 2021.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/21 09:49 PM

3/5 penalty box will mean the big run of 2022 will go by "under-harvested" and easily make e-goal.

A failed 2017 escapement falls off the 5 yr schedule, so from 2018 thru 2022, we are once again out of the penalty box for the 2023 season planning.

The million dollar question at that time will be if the 2023 run-size will even be deemed large enough to be harvestable. That's when the heatwave of 2021 will come back to bite us. If 2023 proves to be another down year, back to the penalty box for 2024 season planning.

In summary... penalty box for 2022, unharvestable run for 2023, penalty box for 2024. Yep, gonna be some mighty lean harvest years ahead for Chehalis coho.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/10/21 01:07 PM

The final QIN numbers for 2020 are posted on the WDFW website. Coho came in at 9814 modeled 8772, Chinook 1679 modeled at 1631 and Chum 1191 modeled at 6292. So looking at the initial spawning numbers provided by staff so we might hurt with Chinook. Coho fit the over performing bit but the Chum? They got up with the rain is my thought but that is what my mind had settled on with Chinook until we were provided a preliminary escapement estimate. Have to wait some to see how we did in the end.

New rule number 1 " do not blow Coho escapement " ! I do not know if I agree with Doc's assessment as to the heat wave as it was not prolonged enough to whack the juvies that hard but if I had to pick three probable outcomes it would be one of the three. It had to have some effect but the Chehalis is rain driven and low / warm water are normal. I guess it is a question of to what degree it added to the summer woes.

Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/10/21 03:07 PM

The thing that concerns me with discussion of the 3/5 box is "Mighty lean harvest" as the place to start. In my simple mind, you rebuild the runs to above the goals and when that happens you harvest. For too long the game has been (and I was a very involved player) to catch as many fish as the paper says are available and hope the escapement results are good. I would like to see the priorities switched.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/10/21 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The thing that concerns me with discussion of the 3/5 box is "Mighty lean harvest" as the place to start. In my simple mind, you rebuild the runs to above the goals and when that happens you harvest. For too long the game has been (and I was a very involved player) to catch as many fish as the paper says are available and hope the escapement results are good. I would like to see the priorities switched.

As a former employee and apologist for the wdfw I am not surprised at your position.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/11/21 07:16 AM

Without fish, and the ecosystem that processes them, you don't have fishing. A chicken or the egg thing.
Posted by: dwatkins

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/14/21 01:09 AM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The thing that concerns me with discussion of the 3/5 box is "Mighty lean harvest" as the place to start. In my simple mind, you rebuild the runs to above the goals and when that happens you harvest. For too long the game has been (and I was a very involved player) to catch as many fish as the paper says are available and hope the escapement results are good. I would like to see the priorities switched.

As a former employee and apologist for the wdfw I am not surprised at your position.



I truly feel bad for Melanie. You’re a petulant old fool, Bobrr. I wish nothing but the worst for you.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/14/21 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: dwatkins
Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The thing that concerns me with discussion of the 3/5 box is "Mighty lean harvest" as the place to start. In my simple mind, you rebuild the runs to above the goals and when that happens you harvest. For too long the game has been (and I was a very involved player) to catch as many fish as the paper says are available and hope the escapement results are good. I would like to see the priorities switched.

As a former employee and apologist for the wdfw I am not surprised at your position.



I truly feel bad for Melanie. You’re a petulant old fool, Bobrr. I wish nothing but the worst for you.

I am not surprised at that last bit,, the dark side being wiped must have really bothered you, most of your posts were there, that shows me who you are. All I did was tell someone that I thought that they sucked up to the state being a former employee. Personally I'd be embarrassed to being part of the shuck and jive game the state has been feeding us all these years. Funny about lack of responsibility for Willapa Bay not being discussed in this context. Or Puget Sound anglers being screwed over in favor of tribal interests. Anyone who believes the state has concern for either the rec. fisherman or the status of the fish runs is the fool. The def. of petulant includes "bad tempered". Anyone who isn't bad tempered about the state's position on tribal rights, litigation, or conservation is a fool. Notice I haven't called anyone in particular a "petulant old fool", if I wanted to call people names or display homophobic, racist, misogynistic tendencies I would post them on the "dark side". Oh, that's right, folks like you got that shut down, And rightfully so.

Melanie here: you can feel bad for me but please feel bad in the proper way, feel bad since the State Of Washington doesn't care about rec fishers, me included. Feel bad because the dept of F&W doesn't protect the fish too. Feel glad since they are protecting THEIR interests of litigation, which will save us $.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/14/21 10:27 AM

Me? Suck up to the State/WDFW? You must have really poor eating comprehension to think that. And as some here can note, I was not singing their praises while there...
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/14/21 12:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Me? Suck up to the State/WDFW? You must have really poor eating comprehension to think that. And as some here can note, I was not singing their praises while there...

Actually my reading comprehension is pretty good, not sure about your "Eating comprehension", doesn't say much for your reading comprehension . Did you not proof read your work there either? I just remember folks discussing "making the state your scapegoat". I don't need a scapegoat, everyone is a party to the fishes demise, it's just that the state has screwed it up more then all of us. Does anyone want to talk about the state backing out of the no kill nets on the Columbia deal with Oregon?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/14/21 08:13 PM

Just because "the state" or "WDFW" does something in no way means that the staff support it. maybe they do, maybe they don't. But attacking people, without making a specific reference to a decision they made/implemente help[s to alienate those folks from helping to accomplish your goals.

And, yeah, I hate autocorrect. But, since the modern lingo is that folks "consume" information, maybe they are eating it.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/14/21 09:41 PM

Keep smiling, C-Man. I'm in your corner. You've been a guru, and helped me to understand many things that puzzled me. Since I published my book, "Fishcop", this year, I've talked to quite a few ex-Fisheries folks who bought it and we talked about how things were, and could be again with a differing approach. But nothing will ever be the same again. The leadership didn't do its job, and look where we are now.

My winter life has changed significantly with the peninsula streams closing for steelhead. Maybe on a sunny day in February I'll just go row the Clearwater, just because.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/15/21 07:43 AM

Tug, I'll be sending in an order for the book; saw an ad in the Reel News. Most of my (now retired) friends from there share the same view as you. Of course, I didn't/don't generally hang out with "them".

Because of the Internet I have been able to connect with a lot of technical folks around the world and I am very fearful that we are at a point where our N Pacific resources are about to tank big time. At the same time, the coldwater anadromous fish will move north (and east across the high Arctic. We here in WA need to quickly learn how to fish Stripers and more of tunas.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/15/21 07:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Just because "the state" or "WDFW" does something in no way means that the staff support it. maybe they do, maybe they don't. But attacking people, without making a specific reference to a decision they made/implemente help[s to alienate those folks from helping to accomplish your goals.

And, yeah, I hate autocorrect. But, since the modern lingo is that folks "consume" information, maybe they are eating it.

Other then saying you are an apologist for the state show me where I have "attacked" you. Pretty thin skinned, I'd say. As I have said, the state, particularly the governor and his hand picked lackeys on the wdfw wildlife commission are indeed the enemy of rec fishers as well as the being a major cause (amongst others we cannot control individually) of the demise of the resource itself. Saying that the state is not deserving of LOTS of criticism is ridiculous to say the least. As Melanie is fond of saying," The state is the enemy of rec. fisherfolk". I have attacked lots of dickwads on this forum, most if not all are dark side regulars who just like to fu*k [Bleeeeep!] up. You are not one of them.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/15/21 07:46 AM

I'd add, too, and it is maybe because I am chronologically gifted, that returning to places of my younger days to fish, hunt, just look around brings much joy in the memories, even if the success is not as great.

Go row. Maybe go in the summer during trout season and explore the waters; something will be there even if it isn't an Oregon 20...
Posted by: dwatkins

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/15/21 05:29 PM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: dwatkins
Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The thing that concerns me with discussion of the 3/5 box is "Mighty lean harvest" as the place to start. In my simple mind, you rebuild the runs to above the goals and when that happens you harvest. For too long the game has been (and I was a very involved player) to catch as many fish as the paper says are available and hope the escapement results are good. I would like to see the priorities switched.

As a former employee and apologist for the wdfw I am not surprised at your position.



I truly feel bad for Melanie. You’re a petulant old fool, Bobrr. I wish nothing but the worst for you.

I am not surprised at that last bit,, the dark side being wiped must have really bothered you, most of your posts were there, that shows me who you are. All I did was tell someone that I thought that they sucked up to the state being a former employee. Personally I'd be embarrassed to being part of the shuck and jive game the state has been feeding us all these years. Funny about lack of responsibility for Willapa Bay not being discussed in this context. Or Puget Sound anglers being screwed over in favor of tribal interests. Anyone who believes the state has concern for either the rec. fisherman or the status of the fish runs is the fool. The def. of petulant includes "bad tempered". Anyone who isn't bad tempered about the state's position on tribal rights, litigation, or conservation is a fool. Notice I haven't called anyone in particular a "petulant old fool", if I wanted to call people names or display homophobic, racist, misogynistic tendencies I would post them on the "dark side". Oh, that's right, folks like you got that shut down, And rightfully so.

Melanie here: you can feel bad for me but please feel bad in the proper way, feel bad since the State Of Washington doesn't care about rec fishers, me included. Feel bad because the dept of F&W doesn't protect the fish too. Feel glad since they are protecting THEIR interests of litigation, which will save us $.


TLDR; to be very honest. It’s like climate change or recycling, you can only do so much, grassroots uprising change is important in politics
but won’t equal to more fish at least in the short term. Keep being you, babbrr, even if Melanie is your Eleanor Roosevelt side and put on your high heels while you tie some leaders.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/15/21 10:01 PM

bobr aka Sybil is lashing out because he's stuck with 45 years of boat payments and nowhere to fish.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 07:08 AM

More dickwads from the dark side
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 07:26 AM

By the way, our boat and house are completely paid off, I go out in the ocean in our 20 ft. new duckworth, while the losers from the darkside are paying off their trailer park shithouses and fishing from the banks of rivers with no decent fish left. Who gets the last laugh? Someone who's life consists of posting the kind of shi* you've just posted or me? I'm happy with my wife, my life, and my family and friends. What do you have besides a gutful of hate?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 07:33 AM

Bob have you totally lost your mind ? PP is about fish and this thread has remained true by being only things about fish in the Chehalis. If you morons want to act like a two year old being dragged through a grocery store by its mother screaming kindly do it someplace else. Your last post was so improper that to say it is beyond any reasonable boundaries would be the under statement of the year! You need to seriously chill out.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 07:40 AM

You know, you're right . I shouldn't even respond to the kind of shi* these folks spew. I'll try to not take these a-holes seriously. But I didn't start this [Bleeeeep!], it's been going on for years, if the mods would just ban these mental morons the site would be improved.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 08:34 AM

Bob seems angry.

I'm pissed too.

The thought of another winter of few fish is extremely frustrating.

I miss the glory days of the Baby Doll Hole on the creek.

RIP
Posted by: FISH'N BRASS

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 10:04 AM

RG-thanks-it needed to be said!

bobrr-sadly your post puts you in the "mental morons" group
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 11:10 AM

Doesn't just apply to the Chehalis but last Sunday I was at the Steelhead Trout Club's annual banquet. One of the members has (legally) takes a steelhead from 78 different streams in WA. And I know at least one he missed. That is what we had, a myriad of streams to fish. A question to ask WDFW is will we ever fish for anadromous fish in all the GH rivers? If not, why is that not the goal? That is, actually, a good question for them. What, very specifically, is your vision for GH? What seasons, what limits?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 11:17 AM

Originally Posted By: FISH'N BRASS
RG-thanks-it needed to be said!

bobrr-sadly your post puts you in the "mental morons" group

Yeah, I agree. I should have sent it as a P.M. or maybe just put these folks on ignore. You know, I'll do that right now so I won't see their posts, good or bad. Sorry to derail a thread so many read.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 12:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
A question to ask WDFW is will we ever fish for anadromous fish in all the GH rivers? If not, why is that not the goal? That is, actually, a good question for them. What, very specifically, is your vision for GH? What seasons, what limits?


Good idea BUT try to get WDFW to put anything in writing....or even answer questions they don't want to answer....

Most probably missed the WDFW Tuesday, Dec. 14 - Coastal Washington with Regional Director Larry Phillips, 6 - 7 p m Zoom meeting...

Remember meeting was set to be a "question from public meeting", ya right!!!! Time was mostly spent by WDFW asking for budget help, patting themselves on the back for the great job that is being done.

4 questions from call in, you could type in questions to be answered.... I sent 4 in, did a screen shot with my IPhone of mine, they won't allow you to see questions.. someone ask about when can we starting killing wolfs, another was on bear hunting, another was about getting white tail deer started in Western WA.

Only 1 of mine, was even mentioned.....then it was WDFW partial answer....

No fishing for me, lots of computer time, like email over talk on phone, PDR can help on Wynoochee Mitigation, other question had to do with FISH, wild steelhead and 1300+ Coho placed above Wynoochee Dam...didn't want to answer those...grrrrrrrr
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 12:31 PM

I also liked how James sidestepped the question on whether or not the Steelhead Harvest Management Plan had been signed yet or not...

But they were quick on the response that they will have the PREVIOUS years agreements up toot sweet. I was able to find last years, maybe I'm missing something?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 01:24 PM

I agree with Drifter that WDFW, and probably any manager, does not like to be pinned down. But we have to. They want us to lobby the Leg for more money, or increases in fess, or whatever. The quid pro quo is that they commit to a management structure and work towards it.

I think it is past time where we allow our leaders (not just in natural resources) to make decisions with no consequences. You want to remove culverts? Fine. How many more spawners will we see in that stream? You want to keep boats away from SRKWs? Fine. How many more SRKWs will we have in 4 years?
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 06:44 PM

Glad the dark side closed down. Divert your energy elsewhere. For the better I hope.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/21 08:58 PM

I'll never forget the day when the Babydoll floated down stream and got caught in a log jam. We brought it back up a placed it close to where it originally was. Unfortunately after the next high water it was gone forever. Every year after that pressure doubled until that stretch of river became the new Blue Creek.
So sad you can't escape the people on the rivers anymore. So sad the fish are gone.
The commercialization of the resource ruined the fisheries we all loved.
Guides, magazines, advertising, mens egos, and the internet were just the tools.
I hope those that tried to make money on our fish runs are happy with their end game.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/21 07:26 AM

We actually do have (Rivrguy has a copy) a mosel for both GH and WB that would allow the collective "us" to build the runs out from the individual stream escapement through fisheries out to the ocean. Including rec, commercial, and tribal fisheries. Every "wish" can be included. At that point, we would have an estimate of how many fish would need to escape the ocean.

We would have an idea if all our inside wants are even doable production-wise. We would have an idea of whether or not the ocean fisheries were possible and at what level.

Knowlege. Maybe imperfect as it would just be a model, but ....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/21 09:04 AM

Every year I request the preseason forecast models for salmon and Steelhead and staff provides as quickly as possible. I then send them to over 250 folks on my list and let everyone else know the best I can they are available. Staff for the Chehalis in R-6 have been very good at trying to get information out to folks the best they can. With all that info I and others were totally focused on the the total escapement and just plain blew it as we did not look into the numbers for individual streams, our bad!

Frankly other than staff spoon feed us information I do not know what more could have been done to make us understand just how dire the situation has become. This is a tide water / bay harvest issue and frankly must be addressed as such. What should not happen is the upper basin community be punished for the continuing over harvest of Coho by tide water and bay fisheries be it QIN, NT Commercial. or Rec.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/21 10:28 AM

I agree RG, but for as long as I have known them, the WDF/WDFW salmon folks have been tied to marine harvest. I remember trying to get a fishery in the river for Dungeness Pinks and it was hard because the push was for marine areas. That, and the agency wanted to leave the freshwater salmon alone so they could spawn in peace.

As many have noted, there simply are not enough fish for everybody to get every fish they want. Somebody gets cut off.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/21 10:30 AM

[quote=Rivrguy
Frankly other than staff spoon feed us information I do not know what more could have been done to make us understand just how dire the situation has become. This is a tide water / bay harvest issue and frankly must be addressed as such. What should not happen is the upper basin community be punished for the continuing over harvest of Coho by tide water and bay fisheries be it QIN, NT Commercial. or Rec. [/quote]
It's really easy to go after the low hanging fruit on the tree, bay and tidal fishers whether they be tribal, NT comm. or rec, when the reality is most of the fish (60 to 80% are the current number, I believe) are taken by Alaska and B.C. Not to mention the fact that all of "our fish" are taken by rec fishers from Alaska to Grey's Harbor and beyond. To state that we are the problem locally and shutting us down is going to make the decline go away is absurd. That solution is ridiculous when you consider that the Nisqually steelhead have NEVER returned to significant numbers in spite a a total shut down of the fishery to both tribal and rec. fishing for 20 to 30 years or more.
Unless comm. harvest is curtailed (which is NEVER going to happen while any meaningful amount of fish are there) the fish are doomed. But shutting locals down is the easiest thing to do, just ask the state. Curtailing seasons with minimal harvest this year and last year did not make numbers magically rise as a result. Most fisherfolk we spoke to and saw last year and this year did poorly as a general rule. We should be the LAST people to be shut down after all other interests are shut down, other than tribal. Unfortunately they (tribal) would be the only comm. harvesters left. That's what had to happen with game animals and that's the way it should be. But that's not going to happen in our lifetimes so we have boats that will take us wherever and whatever type of fish are still available to catch and will advocate for our right to do so.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/21 11:05 AM

Yup Bob Chinook numbers are driven by the AK BC intercept marine fisheries. Coastal marine some yes but nothing compared to the northern intercept. The dragger fisheries are also a big component for Chinook and halibut but never discussed much. Even with the Grays Harbor Policy terminal wise our three fisheries (QIN/NT Commercial/Rec) limiting us we have little to do with the current situation as to Chinook. Little opinion here, that sucks!

Coho and Chum it is terminal harvest that does the major harvest and frankly the streams most affected are tide water tribs. Now that is the problem but how you solve I do not know. What I do know is that it has to be addressed in both the short term and long term but how is the $100 question.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/21 11:31 AM

Actual, the "problem" for coho and chum is relatively easy to solve, or at least develop a solution that protects fish and offers sustainable fisheries. You start inside with the individual stream escapement (goal for pre-season) and then sequentially add catch by all users in that stream. Then keep building out to the Bar. You stop adding fisheries when one stream's harvest is taken.

Problem is, putting the fish first will affect the Bay and ocean the most and that is not allowable.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/10/22 10:00 AM

Some of us have been tracking the Late Coho at Bingham. Jan. 7 2021 they had 500 returning adults and this year 2022 same date 750. While everyone has been in a bit of a tizzy over the Steelhead shut down from my perspective it was not needed just for Steelhead but also wild late Coho which are in worse shape. As the hatchery releases have the same it is a good to see what the difference the shut down is having. So if the pattern remains that normal timed Coho had holds true then this is good news. The Wynoochee trap is also up so I think it will. By removing harvest and you get a 50% increase should indicate to the most fervent denier that we have a harvest problem across the board in the Chehalis Basin. For the tidewater tribs which are failing miserably to make salmon and Steelhead escapement this is very good news!
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/10/22 01:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Some of us have been tracking the Late Coho at Bingham. Jan. 7 2021 they had 500 returning adults and this year 2022 same date 750. While everyone has been in a bit of a tizzy over the Steelhead shut down from my perspective it was not needed just for Steelhead but also wild late Coho which are in worse shape. As the hatchery releases have the same it is a good to see what the difference the shut down is having. So if the pattern remains that normal timed Coho had holds true then this is good news. The Wynoochee trap is also up so I think it will. By removing harvest and you get a 50% increase should indicate to the most fervent denier that we have a harvest problem across the board in the Chehalis Basin. For the tidewater tribs which are failing miserably to make salmon and Steelhead escapement this is very good news!


Hadn’t got around to looking at these coho numbers but am very much looking forward to seeing the winter steelhead escapement numbers come May/June compared to last year.

Nice having some potentially good news.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 07:49 AM

Still tracking the late Coho at Bingham and guys this is getting interesting. Same week 2021 the rack report was 1290 H and 35 W and for 2022 same week it is 2750 H and 115W. Keeping in mind that the normal timed Coho over performed last fall one would expect similar with late Coho. That said look at those numbers and it is clear just how much of an impact harvest has and just how much the natural and hatchery escapement increase when harvest is removed. These numbers are simply amazing from my seat in the bleachers.

For Steelhead this has to be good news but one has to wait for the redd counts later on. I have to say that I do believe that the Steelhead spawners are going to be above expectations now how much is the golden question. My hope is that they will mirror the Coho returns and wouldn't that be a great thing to have happen!
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 09:21 AM

Well put. Along with the ocean conditions that apparently improved in 2021, hopefully a few seasons of no winter fisheries on Grays/Chehalis tribs will provide opportunity in the future. I know I’d be willing to forgo a handful of seasons if there is a significant increase in redds and escapement.

Can’t imagine we’ll have a season next year, but this certainly gives some hope for the future.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 09:30 AM

The challenge will be how to restrain the harvest managers to NOT immediately return to the old ways of harvest the minute we see improvement. Harvest impacts on Steelhead should never again take place on a natural stock that is not making escapement, period.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 09:47 AM

Kind of a sidebar, but does anyone know how many studies have been done to determine exactly where there is such a dropoff in steelhead/salmon survival? I know of one in the hood canal that’s definitively shown that roughly 50% don’t make it past the floating bridge. I’d imagine in most places, the first part of their lives is the most dangerous, between large rain events, birds, predatory fish, seals, but is there one life period in general across the board that seems to really bite into the survival rates? I am curious what happens out in the oceans as well, whether it’s a slow starvation caused mortality or what?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 11:49 AM

They have been doing the acoustic tags since about the turn of the century. They have identified places where mortality occurs (HC Bridge) and identifies losses but what is totally lacking is a historical perspective. For example, on the stream I worked on we marked 100% of the smolts (steelhead, coho, CT) and actually measured survival to adult return. For steelhead, marking 100% of the smolts from about 85% of the anadromous zone resulted in about 1/3 of the returning adults being marked.

It is my belief, based on all the data sets I can find, that it is very rare for steelhead to have an R/S of 1, when measured to first return. We have to have the repeats. Also, the data from WA and BC says that R/S increases as smolt age decreases (more nutrients). The couple streams I have calculated where R/S=1 is mean smolt age of 1.5.

There is a lot going on in the marine waters. Certainly predation is taking a big chunk. There is also a lot off correlations which suggest a paucity of food, at least in the areas frequented by the Pacific Salmon.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 12:36 PM

Not familiar with the term R/S, sorry.

Really hoping to hear about efforts to alter the Hood Canal bridge. Watched some presentations on it, and it seems like they’ve got several options in hand, just need to get to it.

Hood Canal streams would be such a good case study of before and after the bridge alterations. Many streams/rivers with little to no development, with little to no hatchery influence, and little to no fishing pressure.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 01:12 PM

Recruit per Spawner. If it less than 1, the run declines. At 1, it is stable but no harvest. Above 1.0 there is some harvestable.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 01:17 PM

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. So this would be where repeat spawners are extremely beneficial? Higher egg carrying capacity and deeper redds?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 02:10 PM

That's part of it, but you simple need the eggs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/13/22 03:39 PM

DW on his drive about took a look see at the South Monte boat launch and seeing damage alerted Larry Philips and this is his reply. Oh almost forgot Larry is Region 6 Director.

Our initial assessment (though water is still high) is that extensive damage was done to this and a few other access sites. We are working with CAMP on a list of needs but South Monty may be one of worst impacted. As of today we have closed the access and will be conducting additional assessments as soon as possible. Other sites impacted are White Bridge on the Wynoochee and Porter Creek on the Chehalis. Damage at these locations isn’t as extensive and should be functional again soon. Thanks again for the heads up. Keep us posted is you or others see additional impacts. Larry
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/14/22 09:29 AM

I know I’d be willing to forgo a handful of seasons if there is a significant increase in redds and escapement.


seabeckrasied.. not everyone has the time to forgo seasons anymore.. dont know your age but alot of fishers dont have yrs to go!!
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/15/22 08:49 PM

Originally Posted By: steely slammer
I know I’d be willing to forgo a handful of seasons if there is a significant increase in redds and escapement.


seabeckrasied.. not everyone has the time to forgo seasons anymore.. dont know your age but alot of fishers dont have yrs to go!!


30s… I understand, but at what level of escapement should fishing be shut down? 50%? 25%? 10%

Definitely hard to draw a line somewhere but it needs to be done. To be clear, I DON’T believe sport fishing pressure got us into this situation. Unfortunate that we often seem to take the brunt. But at what point do escapement numbers have a higher importance than the golden years of a fisherman’s life? Especially when there are other options to the south and north this year.

Tough situation all around.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/16/22 05:09 AM

I think that sport fishing played a roll in the decline of Steelhead be it not as the same magnitude tribal commercial fisheries. No free rides here! Now that said the unbelievably anal manner the agencies past and present hatcheries were used is mind boggling. There are ways to use hatcheries and ways not to use them. The purest want no hatcheries and others plant fish all over, both are part of the problem if not the problem for fishers. The conflict between the two philosophies has been about like hand to hand combat in the agency for years. Truth is a native Steelhead run should be heavily protected, where they are toast utilize that stream for harvest and look to opportunities where H&W conflicts are not present. Summerrun in Grays Harbor being an excellent example no interbreeding or wild genetic conflicts winter Steelhead just the opposite.

Steelhead or native salmon cannot be saved in every stream and every place as we as a people do not have the will. Until folks get there arms rapped around that fact and chart a different path nothing changes.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/16/22 08:49 AM

Well said.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/16/22 02:10 PM

100% agree. IMO, fisheries like summer steelhead on Chehalis tribs are perfect in that they have no impact on remaining wild stock. Having sacrificial rivers is the way to go. Protect Sol Duc and Hoh type rivers, allowing a season when escapement allows. Otherwise, planting the hell out of other rivers that have no viable native run at present.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/16/22 05:25 PM

Remember that the fish will still need to be shared although I think steelhead are lumped into one pot summer/winter/hatchery/wild.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/16/22 06:24 PM

If I recall for tribes Steelhead are Steelhead so in the Chehalis that is something one would have to work out. The other side is if no hatchery winter Steelhead then not much to harvest as to winter Steelhead. There would be issues to work around such as Springers Porter up and certainly Newaukum and Skookumchuck were they mainly spawn. Lower tribs no issues and if thought out the upper basin is doable just have to think things through and no willy nilly crap.

I imagine the tribes would want there share but that is doable. Looking at the escapement numbers if we did everything right and nature cooperated it would take the better of 10 generations to maybe get the Chehalis Winter Steelhead healthy. Late Native Coho which are tangled up with Steelhead longer. For those that think the Steelhead crisis will be over in a few years you would be wrong.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/16/22 07:16 PM

It might take some horse trading such as you get summers we get winters (at least to a 50:50). Might be an opportunity to work with the tribes on a long-range actual recovery program for all the stocks. Maybe, with the right folks involved, one could trade this for that and get larger easements and resulting runs.

Rather than always putting patches on a sinking ship, why not build a whole new one?
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/16/22 08:53 PM

Closed winters with an increase plant on summers? Sign me up.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 08:19 AM

Sounds like some momentum building on a shift to Summer's at least in GH. How can we turn that momentum into action? I'm getting ready to retire and want to finally start to get involved. Or, as I hear all the time, is it a waste of time/effort?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 09:13 AM

The conversation has been around for years but never went far as the agency pulled by commercial and tribal interest have to much clout. In fact there was the time when Mr. Peck was Deputy Director that staff and locals tried to chart a new direction. To accomplish such a thing would not happen over night that is for sure but numbers wise it is possible. With Winter Steelhead in the dumpster and not likely to recover any time soon to continue to produce even the mitigation fish is going drive harmful harvest. Now I am not advocating relieving WDFW of there responsibility but rather redirect harvest. So Steelhead Nooch mitigation, Nooch Summerrun program, Steelhead Skookumchuck Mitigation, drop Late Coho at Bingham as wild Late Coho are just hurting like hell and with out looking up the numbers would put us at about 400k.

Skookumchuck Coho Mitigation is another 300K late timed that frankly it is doubtful anyone will have access to. If normal timed Coho were done instead it would be of little use to either tribal or non tribal fishers. So right there your at 700K with no monies needed that are not already being utilized. Other options are available but one could get to close to a million with some normal timed Coho changes.

Additionally a low cost change that would benefit tribal and bay fishers is Aberdeen Lake Hatchery move to Chinook production and I think they could do about 2.5 million release. Some Wynoochee Chinook follow the Van Winkle water as the industrial pipeline from the nooch flows into the lake which gives you a zero loss brood. Years back TU and others purchased equipment for the hatchery and they got to 400k release in short order, the hatchery manager Robert Paulsen received an award for a WDG hatchery doing Chinook, and the WDFW harvest managers creamed their collective shorts and that was ended.

Hatcheries can be used to produce fish for harvest and not destroy native or wild runs, it just takes a different mind set. Different mind set being key words as if WDFW was the Titanic they would 500 ft under still telling the passengers don't panic that they got it under control!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 09:26 AM

About the mind set thing. Those who follow the Chehalis will recall I cleared the moon when Regional Director Larry Philips advocated and pressed for changes to Wynoochee Coho mitigation. Not no but hell no was where I was after damn near 30 years of WDFW failure to meet its obligation. Well after some time and looking at things in a different way I realized I was wrong. The nooch wild Coho could not take the additional pressure and doing the required yearly numbers on the nooch with the make production for years not done on the Satsop is just about the only way to get it done. You see it is the mind set thing we are all guilty of it!
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 11:35 AM

Summer run are better eating and far more fun.
Sign me up.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 01:16 PM

I guess my question would be, how do we get the ball rolling of at least vocalizing our opinions to Region 6? I understand these wishes would be going against commercial and tribal net fisheries, but it’d be good to know that the department is aware of the interest in such an endeavor.

Simple as calling the Region 6 offices?
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 04:46 PM

Seabeck,
I usually email Larry Phillips or one of the bios at the Region 6 office. I have talked to Phillips and Curt Holt a couple of times on the phone. You can get their phone #s and email addresses off the WDFW website. In fact I just emailed Phillips today with some steelhead questions.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 05:13 PM

Awesome thank you. Good to know they are receptive to communication, even if it’s barking up a tree.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 05:31 PM

Thank you and I will follow up also. I think a shift from winter to summer Steelhead production could be a real shot in the arm for the recs state wide and would be so much fun! Why would the tribes object? Start with systems without tribal influence. Cowlitz, Toutle, Elochoman, Kalama, Washougal, some might have EIS restrictions? Give the tribes there winter allocation, which participation lacks anyway, and give them summer also. Oh, wait netting success for summers is a different game altogether. I like the ideas of trading. Rob Peter to pay Paul.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 05:37 PM

My suggestion would be for a group that is truly knowledgable about the watershed and stocks and issues to get together and begin to draft a comprehensive plan that includes Rec, Commercial, and Tribal. Ensure that the rec side looks at the whole river. Also, have some folks whose goal is to actually see fish on the grounds rather than in the bottom of any boat.

Get a plan together to where it makes some sense but don't worry about perfection. Then go to WDFW with a plan with numbers and have them tell you why that won't work.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 06:32 PM

The argument will be that much stronger if escapement numbers are much higher this year without tribal and rec fishing pressure. Definitely gonna be following them closely. Not a favorable comparison vs last year so far but it’s still very early.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 07:38 PM

When looking at escapement since 07 Steelhead have made escapement twice 2013 & 2016. The difference between Chehalis Basin Salmon and Steelhead is the upper Chehalis Steelhead are really hurting and the years we make or get close to escapement it is because the Chehalis tidewater tribs over perform and it is just the opposite with salmon. So even if the numbers improve one year you still have everything above tidewater in the dumpster long term. Also just because you see and increase in redds by no means does that automatically smolt out migration will do likewise. If anyone wants the escapement spread sheet let me know and I will get it to you. For some reason the Skookumchuck and Newaukum returns are grouped together and the Newaukum is the most productive. Even then since 1996 they have only made escapement twice.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 07:50 PM

Seabeck and RnG, I emailed Larry Phillips this morning with some Grays Harbor steelhead questions. He wrote back to me this evening wanting to talk and discuss the questions either by phone or in person in the next couple of days. He even offered me coffee if I met him down there at the region 6 office. I told him I would talk to him on the phone maybe tomorrow or the next day. He sounded like he was very receptive to the recs thoughts and feedback.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 08:32 PM

Rvrguy… yeah, I’d love any info you can provide. In my thirties now, and feel like I’m constantly making up for lost time/experience/knowledge when it comes to this stuff. Only got into volunteering and getting involved recently.

Lifter.. awesome. I’ll have to shoot him an email too. So good to hear they’re open to dialogue. If nothing else, to know where a portion of rec fishers stand on things.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/17/22 10:43 PM

Seabeck, he said he wants to hear from any recs. See if it does any good.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/22 05:11 AM

Quote:
Rvrguy… yeah, I’d love any info you can provide.


email address?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/22 05:38 AM

What you would need to do this or something.? Someone in the agency that has clout and is a forward thinker. When the team I was part off went at it we had Deputy Director Peck who was one of the most forward thinking individuals I have known. He brought in others like Hal Michaels, Jim Scott & Paul Seidel and lets not leave out our fave Sara.

So Mr. Philips appears to be willing to do something in the basin but this, he is regional Director and staff in the divisions report to the Olympia blockhouse. If he does want to try a different path it is a start.

What to watch out for? The infamous lets get all the stake holders together and meet several times a year which is a dead end which it is intended to be. Do not meet with anyone with out a written record that both parties agree is accurate or it is best minutes of the meeting. Stay away from phone calls as they are the best way to create confusion so use e mail so all see the same thing. This is important as our first meeting Mr. Peck stood up and said " we are here so everyone hears exactly the same as to what I am saying and no confusion exist among any of you " I think I missed a couple of words but I think you can get the drift.

A key player is the person who does the minutes. The staffer that did ours is known as Carcassman here and frankly he was great to work with! Now some in the agency did not share our thoughts in that way as he had this thing about capturing the full flavor of the meeting which is not the agency way.



Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/22 05:39 AM

PM sent
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/22 07:48 AM

I’ll be reaching out to Larry Phillips today. Will provide update.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/22 08:34 AM

RG, In talking to Phillips, I don't hold out a lot of hope but I still want to hear what he has to say.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/22 09:27 AM

Couple of folks asked just how we got the agency to do things differently? Well it was not out a desire for change on their part but rather in military terms a cease fire. It happened by chance as we had a early high water and the adult weir went under water and a substantial number of Chinook came in out of the river and were stuck mixed with our brood. Past history taught us that you cannot return captured brood to the river that have been held in ideal conditions as for whatever the reason most just end dyeing before spawning and we had no way to determine who was who! So we asked permission of the hatchery ops to go past our authorized egg take and due to the unusual circumstance he authorized one time one time only.

Well weeks later our team finds out the the harvest managers said no and as I recall the hatchery staff were instructed to dump the over permit wild Chinook eggs into the river and called it " planting early". Now I can say the volunteers looked at it somewhat differently and one volunteer's letter to the editor of a local paper called it "murdering our babies ." It is safe to say it went down hill from there to the point it was personal between staff and the volunteers. That is when Mr. Peck got involved and got staff and the volunteers together in one room and frankly chewed everyone's ass up one side and down the other.

Long and short of it the Chehalis volunteers & designated staff met once a month and worked on issues that revolved around volunteer enhancement issues for several years. One caveat was harvest was never discussed, Skookumchuck and Wynoochee mitigation, just a wide range of issue but NO harvest issues. We did a lot of good work I think and to this day I still call Jim Scott boss as he taught / guided us through the world of salmon genetics in our efforts.

That is the level of commitment from both the local community and agency staff that is required to effect real change.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/22 10:33 AM

That was a good process. It does take a commitment by all participants to find workable solutions, not get everything they "want".
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/22 05:18 AM

While talking with others this, things like Skookumchuck Mitigation fish are not likely to ever change. Just to many diverse interest that don't mesh that well. It is WDFW monies that they have the choice on what happens. I think maybe even Nooch mitigation is something to look at.

Summerrun Steelhead are a viable opportunity to do things differently just as using Aberdeen Lake Hatchery to do substantial Chinook production. By altering our harvest interest we can do things that benefit fishers both tribal and non tribal. Just as importantly reduce pressures on the chronically under escaped salmon in Chehalis tributaries in the tide water reach and Steelhead. Things like Chinook at Aberdeen Lake Hatchery are low hanging fruit with not much added cost but huge benefit. Additionally Summerrun Steelhead done properly would in the 400k smolt range would provide huge opportunities.

This thing were we have driven Late Coho, Lower Basin Coho, and Winter Steelhead right into the dumpster with harvest has to stop.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/22 08:27 AM

Given the mindset of QIN (all Chinook are the same) and a push for summer runs how possible would it be to basically have a strong hatchery program for Chinook with goal of having a bay/river net fishery as the primary goal and a hatchery summer run rec fishery as the primary rec goal? The other stocks would be subject to "artisanal" fisheries (low impact, low harvest, "value-added" as they rebuild with harvest spread through the basin.

The NI Chinook, primarily, would be in the ocean. The Tribes would get their steelhead as incidentals/winters. I have no idea how it would pencil out but there are too many competing factors, it seems, to go all out fishing on all of them.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/22 03:31 PM

Well the Nation has for the most part with salmon managed their fisheries to the escapement goal. The exception would Humptulips Coho but then only the state separates the Hump from GH. All GH fisheries are managed to the aggregate not trib by trib and have been managed for the wild escapement for Chehalis / GH.

To say as with anything fish that issues would need to be sorted out is absolutely true. The other side of the coin is how is the present enlightened manner of doing business working out for ya?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/22 07:19 PM

As they said at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark "We have our best people working on it".
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/22 09:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
It is WDFW monies that they have the choice on what happens. I think maybe even Nooch mitigation is something to look at.

Summerrun Steelhead are a viable opportunity to do things differently just as using Aberdeen Lake Hatchery to do substantial Chinook production.
By altering our harvest interest we can do things that benefit fishers both tribal and non tribal.
Additionally Summerrun Steelhead done properly would in the 400k smolt range would provide huge opportunities.


400k summers!!! That would be bigger than huge! I remember back in 2009 the Nooch got an excess summer run plant of 142k. Normal = 50-60k. The summer of 2011 was lights out! Limits every trip! Sport harvest over 2100 almost triple the norm.
Another example of excessive summer plants was out of the Skamania Hatchery in 1987. IHN broke out in the hatchery so they kept and released all 300k in the Washougal. 1989 and 1990 returns off that set records. In 1990, 8000+ returned to the hatchery, 5600 harvested. I got in on that for 2 yrs worth and it was double digit hookups every float from the park to the bowling ally. A short float.
I think you could split that Nooch 400k and put half in the Hump. God that would be fun!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/22 11:26 AM

I may have mentioned this before but, especially with steelhead, it seems that large (in excess of 100K) plants are necessary to get good returns. Some of this may be that a plant of 10-20K may represent 5 or fewer females so inbreeding can be a problem.

Consequently, I would be more inclined to support single large plants versus scattering them around to a lot of streams. Pick a few rivers with, besides a hatchery that can raise them, great access to boat and foot anglers and good collection facilities. lastly, one must be willing to write off the wild stock in that river.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/22 01:30 PM

GH has no wild Summerrun Steelhead only Late Winters and they do not cross breed. One would want to do multiple sites where conditioning ponds could be utilized high up in a stream. Example would be some at East Fork Satsop but also West and Middle fork. Many miles of stream and no wild summers or Springers. Other places in the Chehalis such as mainstem Porter to Skook / Newaukum and those two tribs themselves would have to dodge Springers. This would limit months and stream reaches one could fish which is pretty much what exist now. High up river not so much and that is a lot of river miles.

It is a different mindset on how to approach the utilization of hatcheries for opportunity. CM is right in my mind that a substantial program would result not just adults but a vastly larger gene pool for the brood. Small programs have few adults in the brood which is simply not a good thing.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/22 03:25 PM

I remember when we were first showing a concern about genetics. Hatchery fish were, of course, evil, inbred, they source of all evil while wild fish were perfect. Yet, many of our wild runs, especially of Chinook, numbered in the hundreds in a whole river while the hatchery runs were in the thousands to tens of thousands and they're inbred????
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/22 04:36 PM

We were talking small eggtake from releases such as 80K Summers or 150k late Coho and simply the number spawned to get those small releases. If one was to take say 250K eggs through the spawning time then utilize only 80k with a portions of the take spread out through the entire return of the run it works better.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/22 06:26 PM

If you spread it over the whole run, that might work. But, if you took those 250K and then sipped the fry as the hatched for grow-out (as WDG used too do with steelhead) then the receiving site gets eggs from only a few pairs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/22 07:23 PM

When HS explained it the concept was to get as much genetic variation as possible. Your way past minimum eggtake with the tray rack full and after picking you take so many from each tray until you get your number. Now that means you dispose of the eggs not needed but the number of females & males utilized goes way up because you only take a % of many vs few which is the idea. Widen the gene pool not narrow it. Not much more in actual cost either.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/22 08:06 PM

Yeah, that is a good way to get good genetics off of a "small" release. Or, like they used to do at Hoodsport, take 5-60 million eggs and release the lot of them. I mean howmmuch genetically diverse is that stock than one poking along at 200 spawners?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/22 08:37 PM

No idea but it certainly in short term some but long term much more was HS thoughts. It certainly is not a silver bullet but rather a long term approach to give a hatchery fish a greater diversity in its genetic pool. It is not an answer for all the ills in past hatchery practices but a low cost tool to improve a segregated hatchery stock.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/22 02:59 PM

So we are still tracking Late Coho at Bingham and this is getting more than interesting! Posted up previously a couple of weeks back the 2021 the rack report was 1290 H and 35 W and for 2022 same week it is 2750 H and 115W.

January 20 2022 report is 5300H 345W and same in week 2021 is 1310H 35W. I mean like crap this shows the effect on Late Coho that harvest has had. Keep in mind that 2021 was not a good year at all and numbers are 2020 for Normal timed as Coho come back after the Dec 1 start date for Coho report year. 320% increase on the wild is awesome as is 400% and change for the hatchery Coho. The wild fish have been pounded into the ground for years and it is one of those things that the QIN have to shoulder most of the blame as they harvest Steelhead in Dec & Jan when very few Steelhead are present and take Late Coho as incidental. Recs have also had impact but not to the same degree.

Skookumchuck numbers are even more of an eye opener. Same week thing as Bingham Skookumchuck is 2022 937H 21W and 2021 was 113H 1W.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/22 03:27 PM

That December net fishery for "steelhead" has always been about those late coho...not sure why anyone would pretend otherwise, and your numbers really bear it out right now.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/22 04:19 PM

It was probably because WDF ended coho management 11/30 (standard end in PS) and gave over management to WDG for steelhead. Part of the reasoning may be (at least this holds in PS) that NI fisheries net fisheries are mandated to end 11/30 unless there is an emergency. So, WDF turned a blind eye to coho taken in the steelhead fishery because the main coho catch was earlier and these were management and accounting outliers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/22 04:32 PM

I almost forgot Chehalis Tribal Fisheries effect the Skookumchuck Late Coho also. Bit of a double whammy on the upper basin Late Coho and the numbers show that.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/22 07:15 PM

The thing is, those late fish are fairly easy to plan for. Reserve harvest, don't take it all during directed management.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/22 11:28 AM

Very eye opening. As much as I wanted a Winter Steelhead season, it’s hard ignoring this continuously mounting evidence that this closure may be just what the doctor ordered, both for Steelhead AND late Coho.

Definitely will be worth tracking Steelhead numbers as well as the season goes on.

I also have some hope that the major rain events this winter won’t be as detrimental as I first had expected. Summer chum outmigration surveys over the past few weeks have resulted in above expected numbers thus far. Granted, this is on Hood Canal rivers/creeks that drain much less water than say the Satsop or other Chehalis tribs, but still a reason for hope. Let’s hope some of these fall eggs made it through alright.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/22 11:37 AM

While I know that gill nets are viewed as the Devil's Tools around here, it is possible to GN either the SH or late Coho and fish them reasonably separately IF there is a decent size difference. For example, on the Skagit they (I and NI) fished for chum with a larger mesh and avoided the smaller coho. It was when they switched to small steelhead mesh that Skagit coho got slammed. So, again, if there is enough size difference they can be gill netted. Or, they can be fished using traps/rec gear with mandatory release.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/22 12:01 PM

The Satsop has a bit of an insurance policy for Chum as the volunteers maintain a broodstock program for Chum & Chinook. Egg take for Chum was 467,500 and 260K & change for Chinook. While not a perfect scenario even if the gravel got trashed the broodstocked prodigy will keep the runs out of the dumpster.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/22 01:07 PM

Hoping Coho and Steelhead redds do well. I’m sure there’ll be a few more soakers between February and May. Would be interesting to float some of the upper rivers just to see the redds without pressure from fisheries.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/22 02:12 PM

The higher flows will allow the coho to get way up into the headwaters of mainstems and tribs. That should protect the eggs some in and of itself plus it will give the fry the maximum amount of watershed to seed into. Still too early to affect primary steelhead spawning but higher flows will get them further upstream too.
Posted by: Get Bent

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 06:58 AM

[quote=Rivrguy]So we are still tracking Late Coho at Bingham and this is getting more than interesting! Posted up previously a couple of weeks back the 2021 the rack report was 1290 H and 35 W and for 2022 same week it is 2750 H and 115W.

January 20 2022 report is 5300H 345W and same in week 2021 is 1310H 35W. I mean like crap this shows the effect on Late Coho that harvest has had. Keep in mind that 2021 was not a good year at all and numbers are 2020 for Normal timed as Coho come back after the Dec 1 start date for Coho report year. 320% increase on the wild is awesome as is 400% and change for the hatchery Coho. The wild fish have been pounded into the ground for years and it is one of those things that the QIN have to shoulder most of the blame as they harvest Steelhead in Dec & Jan when very few Steelhead are present and take Late Coho as incidental. Recs have also had impact but not to the same degree.

Skookumchuck numbers are even more of an eye opener. Same week thing as Bingham Skookumchuck is 2022 937H 21W and 2021 was 113H 1W.

I’m sure that shutting down the Chehalis trips had substantial effect on the tribs there this year, let’s not forget that the models for this last fall into the winter were waaaay off. Kings, silvers, and now hatchery steelhead we’re all “eye opening”for sure. Willipa and tribs had volumes of silvers not seen in years, not because of no retention. It was just modeling faux pas due to a strong unforcasted return. Using these return numbers to substantiate your argument makes about as much sense as closing all steelhead hatchery production in the state because the Nooksack can’t get fish back.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 07:31 AM

The fact that more Late Coho retained this year (so far) only means that more returned; it says nothing about the effect of fisheries. The data has to be built from escapement outwards, including all catches. This year's run may have been larger, hence more on the grounds. Or, the closures protected the returns and put more on the grounds.

It is probably the effect of closures but until all the information is put together it is premature (in my mind) to say that. Especially since WDFW does not to regular updates and certainly not stock -specific ones for coho.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 08:10 AM

Comparing the numbers for this years returns to last years are a bit of apples to oranges to be sure. That is why I caution folks not to take it as an absolute because you have many variables besides harvest. That said 300% to 400% increases on the same number of smolt released are not a preseason forecast misstep. If that was so the normal timed Coho return would have been in the 186k to 248k range which is not in the realm of real.

Preseason forecast are simply data driven best guesses and always wrong to some degree. Years back I asked the harvest manager RWS how accurate his forecast numbers were? His response " plus or minus 100% " which is a rather straight forward response.

Little edit: I have sent the 2021 preseason forecast model, the 2021 harvest model, and the historical escapement spread sheet to everyone who has asked for them. Staff provides them each year and the preseason forecast model has the historical data to compare. It also breaks out past NT Rec, NT Commercial and QIN harvest down to the tributary level right along with escapement. Frankly they are really helpful to get a feel for what is what. So again if anyone wants them just PM me and I will send them right over.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 08:45 AM

I have a bad feeling this seasons jump in GH numbers with no one fishing will be ammo to keep everything closed in future years. Especially if the tribes say so. Not that it is a bad thing, just more steelhead pressure elsewhere. Really a good time to boost summer steelhead production in all of GH and abandon hatchery winter steelhead altogether. Maybe with this the wild steelhead numbers will jump and provide at least a C&R fishery with strict regs in the future.
A question: Are we able to have a steelhead C&R fishery on any tribal river without tribal commercial activity at the same time? Are trades available in the negotiating game to have such a fishery without nets participating?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 09:01 AM

Quote:
Are we able to have a steelhead C&R fishery on any tribal river without tribal commercial activity at the same time? Are trades available in the negotiating game to have such a fishery without nets participating?


RG I do not know exactly what you mean by a tribal river. We have a Summerrun Steelhead season and the QIN do not. Could we have a trib fishery such as the Wynoochee on marked mitigation Winter Steelhead with C&R on wild when numbers of wild do not allow a mixed stock fishery on the Chehalis? My initial thought is yes but I do believe that the comanagers would need to agree and I could be completely wrong.

You know that is a really good question though. Just to grab a year in 2020 the Wynoochee had a Winter Steelhead escapement of 748 and the escapement goal is 1260. Is 59% of wild escapement enough to allow a C&R ? I think in the future many fisheries will be faced with that question.

I would 100% agree with switching whenever possible to Summerrun as we have no natural spawner conflicts and this wild Steelhead thing is not going to go away. It makes no sense to produce a hatchery fish that you cannot harvest and looking forward has the high likelihood of getting worse before it gets better, if it ever does get better!
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 09:25 AM

To provide an update, I still haven’t heard back from Larry Phillips regarding thoughts on switching efforts to Summer Steelhead. In a day or two I’ll email James Losee, as I’ve heard he’s fairly responsive.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 12:55 PM

The Tribes have a right to 50% of the harvestable fish. Period. I believe that steelhead are combined (H&W, W&S) for allocation purposes. Release mortality counts. So, if a C&R fishery is modeled to kill 100 fish, the Tribes (and this is all the tribes that might encounter them) get 100 fish to put in the boat.

That said, the State and Tribes can negotiate whatever they want, as shown by the PS allocations where the Tribes are generally ahead. I am reminded of a Phil Anderson comment when asked why the NI recs could not C&R in the Hoh when they had allocations left. He said "We got the fishery we wanted" so I suspect that a lot of trading goes on. I suspect that State prefers open days on the water to dead fish in the boat.

In GH, given that the NI share of salmon (except chum) is weighted to the ocean I suspect that allocating most of a Summer Steelhead return to rec and most of the Winter Steelhead to the Tribe (for incidental in salmon net fisheries) might be workable.

But, it would take a very transparent process with offered trades clearly elucidated.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 02:12 PM

I think the lack of transparency is part of the problem. With C&R Recs take less wild winter Steelhead than the nation by a mile but with the Wynoochee Summerrun program the Rec jumps way out in front. You cannot be selective with a gillnet and the wild returns govern harvest regardless of how many hatchery fish are available.

Now on the other hand with such a huge AK & BC harvest in the marine waters on Chinook it leaves few Chinook impacts. The Recs are limited by the GH Policy sometimes and then the fact that a thousand or less fish does not allow a fishery as we would burn that in rather short order limiting Coho fishing. So from the cheap seats the nation appears to take it not as foregone opportunity but harvest available.

A friend of mine is convinced that a unofficial trade Steelhead for Chinook has been going on for sometime! I do not know and frankly since the meeting years back that the damn gillnetters interrupted the harvest negotiations rather than observe as they were supposed to so none of us know. Oh, that is the reason the QIN said no public from then on and I imagine in the years since that WDFW is perfectly comfortable with the public locked out also.

Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 02:38 PM

I agree Rivrguy, I think there are a whole series of trades designed to support the marine sized stock fisheries. I suspect that there are also trades on various shellfish species. This may spill over into salmon. I would suspect that both sides want to be able to schedule fisheries and go on auto-pilot. And these fisheries satisfy "most", or the "loudest".
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/22 04:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Quote:
Are we able to have a steelhead C&R fishery on any tribal river without tribal commercial activity at the same time? Are trades available in the negotiating game to have such a fishery without nets participating?


RG I do not know exactly what you mean by a tribal river.


I was referring to Boldt case rivers in which tribal rights are exercised.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/28/22 07:13 AM

I believe the Chehalis is in the Boldt Case Area.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/22 06:54 AM

I used to think I wanted more summer hatchery fish vs. Winters, but now I'm not so sure. The summer runs we have around now (granted, in pretty low numbers) are getting harder and harder to catch as the rivers trend lower and warmer. On the Nooch, they all pile into deep, slow corner holes that don't fish worth a hoot, and the spooky fish bite worse than the water fishes. Kind of the same for the Kalama anymore. The Cowlitz is a different story; I never understood why they cut back the summer plants there, because that WAS a pretty good summer fishery before then....

The other reason I came to appreciate the winter fishery is that fishing for winter steelhead was about the only thing that got my fat arse off the couch in the winter months, and now that I don't have it, I'm sitting around at home, drinking too much, and getting fatter.

Without hatchery winter steelhead (as we clearly see this year), our rivers will all be closed every December-May (that's half the year!) moving forward. That may just be the reality now, and it sucks... a lot.

Time for a new hobby that gets me motivated to get out. Any ideas?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/22 07:08 AM

We could bring in wild pigs and have a 12 month season on them. I see a couple of Texas counties are paying bounties on them.
Year-around fishing for the non-boater is likely gone.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/22 08:20 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
I used to think I wanted more summer hatchery fish vs. Winters, but now I'm not so sure. The summer runs we have around now (granted, in pretty low numbers) are getting harder and harder to catch as the rivers trend lower and warmer. On the Nooch, they all pile into deep, slow corner holes that don't fish worth a hoot, and the spooky fish bite worse than the water fishes. Kind of the same for the Kalama anymore. The Cowlitz is a different story; I never understood why they cut back the summer plants there, because that WAS a pretty good summer fishery before then....

Time for a new hobby that gets me motivated to get out. Any ideas?


Good point but that's part of the fun/challenge. They still are a better fight and table fare. One thing I have noticed that most summer steelhead returns, return timing has changed? Used to catch lots more end of May into June when water flows were higher. Especially on the Kalama. I think the Skamania strain comes in early and the Kalama changed it's program away from them, to nurture original wild summers. Figures, they mostly wreck a good thing by changing what is working. Now, few start showing until the end of July into August when flows are low and fishing is tough? Some wait clear into Sept. when kings start showing and regulations change.
The Cowlitz just needs to put more numbers in. I'm talkin 1mil. TP to cheap to raise them anymore.
Not fishing for winters this season has given me time to tie more trout flys. I have been getting into the spring trout stillwater fisheries on the E. side flyfishing the last few years. Chironomids and balanced leeches are the ticket. Some big trout are around and a gas on a 3 or 5wt and they plant good numbers. Looking to get into trout stream flyfishing next. Bummer is it's all in ID and MT and mostly a summer/ fall fishery.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/22 03:56 PM


As the late Coho wind down last weeks 2022 rack report was Bingham H5481 W241 and Skookumchuck was H1242 W27. Same week last year was Bingham H1310 W35 and Skookumchuck H113 and W27. Since the Dec shutdown for fishing the jump in numbers we have been seeing with out harvest is holding up. It is an interesting pattern to be sure.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/22 07:28 PM

Interesting. Can’t say it’s all that surprising. Looking forward to seeing the Steelhead numbers come May. Would be extra ammunition for the argument of switching more effort to a Summer Steelhead fishery, IF the Winter fish follow suit.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/01/22 07:43 PM

Don't expect a change in summer and winter steelhead plants any time soon.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 08:38 AM

Yeah, I’m not. Have to start the conversation somewhere. I’ll be emailing James Losee soon as I still haven’t heard back from Larry Phillips. If anything, I’m just trying to notify them of the fair level of support for this idea.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 08:48 AM

02/02/2022

Rivrguy and myself have had MANY discussions on summer run steelhead. Wynoochee River has had summer run steelhead since about 1979. The general public really didn't take part, until the 90's. As a public school teacher, living just 7 miles away, this fishery was perfect for me.

Early years, eggs, prawns, sand shrimp, spinners and a very small group of fly fishers. No bobber and jigs until the 90's, they completely changed this fishery.

Early years also had land owners that allowed access to prime waters, that included the large timber companies.

The 90's to present day, jigs and bait divers, took the largest percentage of caught SR fish.

The fishery was from late May, into September......then my fishing for SR went to the Chehalis and silver jacks, adult salmon.

Like many rivers, I5 population found Grays Harbor and the OP, more guides, drift boats, jet boats, and bank fishers.......trash, cut trees, led to many areas shut down to bank fishers.

Summer run steelhead DO EAT BETTER than winter run.....

In the more than 40 years since the introduction of the summer run steelhead there must be almost no effective spawning, un marked fish are few, on the Wynoochee River.

Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 12:03 PM

Absolutely right on them tasting better.

I’ve heard of ONE unmarked summer fish among my circle. Apparently it had a wild-type dorsal fin to match. Whether it was a stray, progeny of hatchery fish, or otherwise would be interesting to know. Have doubts there’d be enough wild fish to sustain even a SMALL wild population in that river.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 12:08 PM

I caught one unmarked summer out of the Nooch about 6 years ago. it was about 5 lbs.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 01:27 PM

Just to throw a wrench into the SR/WR discussion. Down on some Oregon river where they trapped upstream migrants 365 days a year they had winter steelhead returning in all 12 months. Maybe only 1 or 2 in late summer/fall. I think Smalma mentioned that some Skagit Winters spawn in July and maybe even early August so just because it was a wild fish in the summer doesn't make it a summer.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 02:41 PM

True. I guess that’s definitely possible. Only way to tell would be to find out if it’s got that adaption gene, correct? The one they share with spring chinook?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 02:53 PM

Don't know for sure. Another possibility is a recovering kelt. While trapping a couple creeks we routinely got rather chrome bright female kelts who were gorging on Carpenter Ants. They were recovering condition fast. In fact, the one I remember best had a belly that almost felt like a male; it was already tight. We saw kelts in the creeks in August so that becomes another possibility if there was a lot of food around. And they would be aggressively feeding.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 06:08 PM

A summer that is not clipped could just be a hatchery that wasn't clipped .
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 07:03 PM

Also known as a "drop" but there should be some erosional evidence on the fins.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/02/22 10:34 PM

Yes CM, I remember the days when we had the little plastic card to measure the height of the dorsal to determine if the steelie was a hatchery or a wild fish. I think I still have one of those cards around the house . Maybe a collector's item.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/03/22 08:15 AM

On the traps I worked on we examined every steelhead closely. Fortunately, we had scales to confirm H/W. This was before ad-clipping so you had to look at the fins. Most, raised in concrete, were obvious. We had a few, though, raised in dirt ponds, that maybe had one or two broken rays in the dorsal. You had to feel for the break. What was impressive to us was that the visual quality of the dirt-pond fish.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/22 09:31 AM

Anyone know where to find the current or historic Hatchery Escapement Reports for Skookumchuck Winter Steelhead. All I am able to find are smolt plant and harvest numbers. Do they only collect Salmon and not collect Steelhead from that hatchery? Thanks.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/22 09:39 AM

This is the hatchery and you can pull up by years.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/hatcheries/escapement

Also I can send you a spread sheet that has wild Steelhead escapement by trib for GH. Just PM a e mail address.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/22 09:54 AM

Hatchery escapement of "winter-late" steelhead to the Skookumchuck is reported in these escapement reports in this link. In 2021, the first report for Skookumchuck was on Feb 10. Apparently they haven't started trapping yet this year but should show in the next couple weekly reports.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/22 10:41 AM

02/05/2022

Wynoochee Mitigation Fund, money total question answered, finally!!!!!!!

I sent a email to Region 6 Director, got the following:


Hi Larry,

The current balance of the account is: $2,759,318.13

Travis

So now we know a couple of things:

1. Tacoma City Light has the fund

2. The money is still there.

30+ years since this fund was established, Coho and winter run Steelhead were to be raised and put in the Wynoochee......still have not been done.....grrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/05/22 11:53 AM

TCL does not have the funds but they are in an account set aside that they do not control expenditures, that is WDFW.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/22 10:16 AM

Several of us have been comparing notes ( rumors ) on what the 2022 salmon seasons are going to be and we have no idea at this minute. I have seen ocean abundance for Coho at 1.5 million and higher, maybe much higher. This time 2021 the Columbian was reporting that it was 1.7 million for 2021. I will post up that article later. Keep in mind the coastal streams that have been struggling with wild Coho escapement are likely going to limit marine fisheries at different locations / times as in recent years but marine fisheries are likely to be far more liberal for Recs than terminal fisheries by a mile.

So what about Grays Harbor? We know that Region 6 manager Mike Scharpf shared with everyone that he thought the the Coho forecast would be "robust". That is good news now the bad comes right along with it. We will be limited by a provision in the Grays Harbor Policy that if we fail to make escapement 3 out of 5 years non treaty harvest is limited to an impact of 5% of the returning run. ( known as the Penalty Box ) To make matters worse the tide water tributary streams have been way below escapement with the upper basin streams over performing thus supporting the aggregate for the entire Chehalis.

Next we have the fact that our Chinook and Coho are present at the same time so Chinook can limit our Coho fisheries. With the massive Alaska and British Columbia marine fisheries there are seldom enough returning adults to support a Chinook fishery but what if ? With an Chinook escapement goal of 9753 I think we would need a Chehalis forecast for Chinook in the range 14000 giving tribal and non tribal 4247 harvestable resulting in 2123 harvestable Chinook for each of their fisheries. I am not holding my breath but one can hope.

Back to Coho, the hatchery abundance for the Chehalis should be up but how much is hard to say. Hatchery releases are normally governed by the ocean conditions and in 2021 Bingham / Satsop Springs had a combined return of 11955 normal timed Coho. So all things being equal if ocean abundance was 150% of last years return it would be near 18000 normal timed Coho and the bigger the increase in marine survival the bigger the Coho returns increase. The brood year for 2022 normal WILD Coho was just a bit under escapement so if we had a descant fresh water survival ( which I think we did ) then it will all be about just how much and increase the marine survival gives us. So as one can see a whole bunch of factors are in play. What is not in doubt is that we are in the Grays Harbor Policy 3/5 Penalty Box limited to 5% of the Coho run forecast.

So bottom line? No idea on Chinook and one can only hope. Coho seasons I think it will be similar to last year with hopefully and increase. 2021 harvestable NT share was W5904 / H10187 so lets say the run is doubled up our Coho impact number would still be 5% of the return be it 1000 or 100000. What it would do is provide a bit better maneuvering room to allow for more opportunity but as Mike Scharpf told us all in an e mail posted previously 2022 NOF will be interesting!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/22 10:21 AM


This is an article from the Columbian on the 2021 ocean forecast with zip changes so don't let the formatting get to ya! It is relevant to many because of how a big number is sliced and diced by harvest.

Numbers won’t be as big in river as in ocean
By Terry Otto, for The Columbian
Published: February 17, 2021, 5:10pm
Share:

4 PhotosKaren Trandum of Sandy, Ore., fights an ocean coho during one of the last really good years. Returns have suffered recently, but this year&#039;s ocean return of coho to the Oregon and Washington coast is expected to be an astounding 1.7 million adults.
Karen Trandum of Sandy, Ore., fights an ocean coho during one of the last really good years. Returns have suffered recently, but this year's ocean return of coho to the Oregon and Washington coast is expected to be an astounding 1.7 million adults. (Terry Otto/for The Columbian) Photo Gallery

There’s a big number being floated around on websites and among local fishermen’s circles, and that number is 1.7 million. That figure is the ocean abundance projection for this year’s adult coho salmon return to the Washington-Oregon coast in 2021. That big number is causing excitement, but it is deceiving in some ways.

John North, the Columbia River fisheries manager for the ODFW, recently expressed concern that many in the angler community may be mistaking that huge number for the Columbia River return.

“What this is pointing to is ocean abundance,” said North. “I would call it a predicted abundance prior to harvest in the ocean, but people often confuse it as a Columbia River mouth forecast.”

He is quick to point out that the river mouth forecast will be a substantial number, just not 1.7 million.

“Ocean harvest can be substantial, but either way it’s going to relate to a rather large forecast to the mouth of the Columbia, but people tend to tend to forget that is a starting point.”


Before the states can figure out how many coho are going to make it back to the river, managers will have to work in the amount of harvest allowed on the fish in the ocean. That won’t be hammered out until the North of Falcon Process is complete in April. That process decides how many fish the tribes, commercial fishermen and sport anglers can harvest.

And, all those stakeholders will want their cut of this big pie.

“As for the ocean harvest, they will all try to maximize that as much as they can,” said Buzz Ramsey, the iconic Northwest angler and founding member of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association (NSIA). “We won’t know what that is until the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) does their thing.”

“After North of Falcon process, we’ll figure out exactly what the ocean fisheries are expected to remove, then break it out by stock, and then (we’ll) be able to figure out an actual Columbia River forecast,” said North.

“It will be large, but it might not look quite the same as that number.”

North also wants to make note that these are projections only, and even after figuring out ocean harvest, there will be other factors involved that may affect the actual number of returning fish. For instance, the projections in 2019 for coho ocean abundance were about 1 million, but after ocean harvest only 600,000 were predicted to make it to the river mouth. The actual return was much smaller, slightly over a third of the river projection.

The Columbian is becoming a rare example of a news organization with local, family ownership. Subscribe today to support local journalism and help us to build a stronger community.
Ocean conditions are certainly better than they were just a few years ago, but still can’t be categorized as “good”. That means some of those fish may not survive to return.

Another factor is that many of these fish, perhaps as many as 100,000, will be returning to coastal rivers, not the Columbia.

The high projection is driven by last fall’s jack counts, which are returns of precocious males that return a year early. That gives managers an indicator as to how many juvenile coho were able to survive.

“It was a tremendous number of jacks,” said North.

The projection does bode well for coastal anglers and charter boats. The ocean season looks bright if all the fish show.

The mark rate of the coho is expected to be about 80% according to official estimates. Mark rate refers to the number of fish that are of hatchery origin, and are adipose-fin clipped. Those fish can be kept, but unmarked wild coho can’t be retained and must be released.


Ramsey isn’t sure about that mark rate. He fished the river last year for coho and had a difficult time finding any that he could keep.

“I did not get a single keeper coho last year at Buoy Ten,” he said. “It was dismal.”

The main takeaway from this is that anglers are possibly looking at a really good fall run of coho. But, with the ocean projection bouncing around, many anglers may think it’s going to be even better than it will be. Still, after so many poor years, this is news worth celebrating. That is, if the fish actually show.

Spring Chinook numbers will allow lower Columbia fishery
Another piece of good news for anglers is that the spring Chinook projections, which are not high, will still be good enough to allow anglers a chance to fish for springers in the lower Columbia, after being locked out for the last two years.

“The Cowlitz spring Chinook return will be strong enough to support an opening throughout the lower river,” said North. “We will have a surplus if don’t have a fishery in the Cowlitz itself.”


For the last two years returns to the Cowlitz River were too low to allow fishing on those stocks in the lower Columbia. But, other than a possible fishing closure bubble at the mouth of the Cowlitz, as well as the closure of the Cowlitz itself, the lower Columbia will stay open.

That is especially good news for bank anglers that fish off the lower river beaches. While boat anglers had the option of hauling their boats upriver to fish, there simply isn’t enough beach access in the upper sections of the Columbia to accommodate all the lower river bank anglers. Those anglers were pretty much shut out of the action for the last two years.

Southwest Washington Fishing Report: Terry Otto’s fishing update and forecast can be found as part of Bob Rees’ “The Guides Forecast” at: https://www.theguidesforecast.com/
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/10/22 11:12 AM

By way of comparison, in the mid-80s South Puget Sound ALONE had over a million coho returning to the mouth of the Straits AFTER ocean and all recreational harvest had been accounted for.

We are now giddy over crumbs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/22 02:10 AM

The first NOF ZOOM meeting for Grays Harbor was last night so what do we know? Well 2021 we made Coho and Chum escapement but wild Chinook did not. 2022 the wild Coho forecast is 107,000 and with hatchery adding up to 150,994. Chinook W 12810 and H 2147. Grays Harbor Chum are 34999. The presentation materials are available at https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calenda...-public-meeting .

With the GH Policy limiting Coho harvest for failing to make escapement 3 out of 5 years I guarantee pressure will build to do something that violates the policy. The other side of the coin is the GH Policy was about conservation and equitable sharing of harvest in the Chehalis Basin. One could make the case that this year is an outlier that should be addressed that way, so the big show is on the road.

Now this, in the Steelhead ZOOM two friends of mine said they hit the raised hand button to speak but were not called with time left. So I pushed a little last night to see what would happen. Well the second time I did the hand request I was not recognized, and they still had 15 minutes left. So my thought right now is the days where you could propose an option and staff would work with citizens and put it in the model are gone. Several of us were texting back and forth on our cell phones during the meeting and one made the comment that this was a dog and pony show. Frankly I think that is a bit harsh at this time but I must admit one could draw that conclusion.

So these ZOOM meetings are going to be scripted if you press hard they will lock you out. They do not show all participants but do tell them who has the question of the moment. Who are the participants and who is doing the lock outs I have no idea? It is WDFW's process to be sure but if they are going to screen out folks they should say that is the process. So be forewarned these meetings are not a solid discussion of the issue but a rather tightly controlled distribution of information and absolutely nothing else. If you have been locked out of a ZOOM discussion let me know will ya as I have a friend who wants to track this thing.

Little edit: I do believe the question's were typed in, my bad but they chose not answer.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/22 11:09 AM

This is another's response.

I got on yesterday and was laying it on hard about “ Chinook recreational priority” in Willapa not being honored. I was the only one cut off fm Willapa. They loved destroying bay rec fishing, are now shrinking fresh water fishing. Toward end I got on again, was less assertive but same message and did not get cut off. Last year I got in a discussion with Baltzel and when he could not come up with good response, HE cut me off. There is no question that we are being censored, and while they allow begging, Facts are why our Advisor Groups were cancelled. They seem to enjoy public begging, they will not tolerate valid criticism. I have fished in Alaska once, and they do honest in season management. They meter fish into streams, start and stop fishing, with natural spawners goals getting priority. It works. Here our desk biologists refuse to do that. Not just biologists fault, management wants it this way. They made it clear again yesterday, it is just more complicated than our little minds can understand.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/22 12:39 PM

There are many here who would disagree that AK is doing a very good job with Chinook. Kenai has kinda crapped out, along with most of the other Chinook runs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/06/22 10:35 AM

In the short time since the ZOOM NOF Grays Harbor I and others have been in a rather substantial debate via email. It has always been my preference that these conversations remain private but a couple of the guys disagreed so I agreed to post up some of their thoughts.

WDFW does not have Grays Harbor Advisers which simply means and actual in-depth discussion of a harvest issue is not possible. You should think of public input as like submitting comments in APA process. Your thoughts are on the record but little else. How one could have a real discussion of a season proposal several of us are not sure. You could email staff directly and try that as Mike Scharpf at Mike.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov has always tried to communicate and be accessible.

I personally do not feel that we are returning to the days that the agency set the seasons with APA (setting a WAC) before the public even had input or really had any idea what is going on. I do think it is going to look like we are back in the days when groups or individuals with connections lobbied for their seasons out of public view. The ZOOM process being used is scripted and controlled to put forth the view the agency wants and it is definitely not intended for a real discussion of any part of the NOF process.

The issue of Mr. Losee being upset about a participant calling staff lazy for not doing something had some bolt upright in their chairs! So guys this, Mr. Losee is not Steve Thiesfeld who could go toe to toe with anyone, not blink, he listened and required that we also listen to what he had to say! Steve was one of the best WDFW staffers GH ever had and we lost a good friend and our best manager ever with his passing. Mr. Losee is new and will develop his own style and processes but he is not Steve so as I put it to the guys “get over it.“

This comment I am not sure about as the individual is an agency employee but I was asked to let fly so here goes. At present WDFW as a whole is operating in a bunker mentality mode. It is reacting to issues and processes in a defensive manner not proactive manner. The virus has restricted interaction in a one-to-one manner and had the unintentional effect of reinforcing the tendency of WDFW to isolate itself from the public. To add to the public’s misery staff does not even realize just how far down the isolation slope they have gone or if they do have little desire to reverse the process. I have been around WDFW in one form or another for over 40 years and I find that statement from an employee so very sad.

I will put some more of the guys thoughts up later but I think this is enough for now.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/06/22 11:11 AM

Email fire time! No I do not know why the GH Advisers and the public access to the meetings were cancelled. Last I looked at the WDFW website it said GH still had Advisers but had not been updated for sometime and to my knowledge the Advisers or public were not given an reason for the Director's actions.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/ghsag
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/22 09:57 AM

I seem to remember that some shellfish (crab?) advisory groups were disbanded and possibly reformed with acceptable members. The GH Advisors simply weren't compliant enough, asked all the wrong questions, and ao on.

Not sure, given the many problems with many resources, that they want advisors who ask questions.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/22 10:50 AM

I think they already have advisors and strictly follow their guidance. No need for a second group.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/22 03:34 PM

I don't think that group is "advisors" as much as "in charge".
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/10/22 07:58 PM

03/10/2022

I watched the GH advisors, both on the sports and NT side, for many years.

I'm thinking that it was just easier for WDFW to put the "advisors on a shelf", than to have to put up with that knowledgeable group of individuals in 2022 during the "dog and pony show", called NOF.

Thanks GH advisors for the many years and LOTS of hours fighting for a share of the returning Chinook, Coho, Chum and yes even the lowly jack salmon.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/22 06:14 AM

Melanie and I miss those meetings, thanks to all advisors trying to make the state run a level playing field all those years.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/22 10:06 AM

Since it is NOF season, any idea where Larry Phillips moved off to? And, for R6, who you will now get to replace him.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/22 08:12 AM

He's moving to the American Sportfishing Association .
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/22 05:12 PM


I happened to get Larry's new e mail address and sent him a note wishing well and this was his response.

I have accepted a position as the Fisheries Policy Dir. for the American Sport Fishing Association. Lots to learn but excited to join the team. I am not leaving the issues just wearing a different hat. Lots of work to do.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/22 10:54 AM

Best wishes to Larry in his new endeavor.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/22 11:02 AM

Glad he is now in a job where he doesn't have to hand us a line of shi*
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/22 07:00 AM


Every year I request the four preseason forecast models and did so this year and received them from Kim yesterday. For those who would like the models and are not on my mailing list just e mail me and I will get them to ya. The preseason models have a lot of information and data but do not confuse them with the 2022 harvest model which Mike is working on.

I also inquired about the new R6 regional Director position and you can read the response below.

From Kim:

Attached are the Grays Harbor salmon forecasts for 2022. Mike is actively working on the planning model with this year’s forecast and last year’s fisheries. He will try and get a draft out to you this week.
Currently the department will be advertising for the Region 6 manager position soon.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the forecasts.

Have a great week,

Kim Figlar-Barnes
WDFW – Fish Management
Grays Harbor Area F & W Biologist
360-249-4628 Ext. 235
Region 6 Office
48 Devonshire, Rd. Montesano, WA 98563
Kim.Figlar-Barnes@dfw.wa.gov
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/22 08:57 AM

Still developing an understanding of this process, so forgive me if there is an obvious answer. Going over the spreadsheet and looking at escapement goal versus actual escapement, is it safe to assume we’ll have similar seasons to last, given that we haven’t met escapement in at least 3 of the last 5 years?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/22 11:54 AM

Yes / No The GH Policy has us restricted to 5% by 3/5 but our 2022 forecast is much larger than 2021 so the 2022 5% is not the same impact number but larger. As to bag limits and time on the water that cannot be determined until staff work out the numbers.

What I have been told is the pressure to not follow the GHP is rather substantial all the way up to our favorite two mow em down Commissioners. Lacking direct knowledge one should not take that as gospel but you would be amazed how any Recs that I have contact with are prepared to push to drop 3/5 for an expanded season.

Conservation is like environmentalism, everybody is one as long as someone else foots the bill.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/22 01:31 PM

I know nothing about this process, but I am trying to understand what the impact of this statement is >>>>>> We will be limited by a provision in the Grays Harbor Policy that if we fail to make escapement 3 out of 5 years non treaty harvest is limited to an impact of 5% of the returning run. ( known as the Penalty Box )>>>>

Is this limited to non-treaty harvest and if so, what provisions are in place to guarantee that if the run comes in strong the tribes will not take the extra.
Let's just say that the run comes in and there is 20% impact that could be taken. Does the tribe get the entire 15% with no penalty while we are restricted to 5%. Or do they get 50% of the impact regardless. From what I have seen about tribal harvest, they can take a huge number of fish given the right conditions. So if a big run comes in and they have a scheduled fishery for so many days, which is supposed to equal a 50%, what is to stop them from taking most or all of the extra fish before they tally their numbers.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/22 02:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Krijack
I know nothing about this process, but I am trying to understand what the impact of this statement is >>>>>> We will be limited by a provision in the Grays Harbor Policy that if we fail to make escapement 3 out of 5 years non treaty harvest is limited to an impact of 5% of the returning run. ( known as the Penalty Box )>>>>

Is this limited to non-treaty harvest and if so, what provisions are in place to guarantee that if the run comes in strong the tribes will not take the extra.
Let's just say that the run comes in and there is 20% impact that could be taken. Does the tribe get the entire 15% with no penalty while we are restricted to 5%. Or do they get 50% of the impact regardless. From what I have seen about tribal harvest, they can take a huge number of fish given the right conditions. So if a big run comes in and they have a scheduled fishery for so many days, which is supposed to equal a 50%, what is to stop them from taking most or all of the extra fish before they tally their numbers.


Great questions, I'd like to know this also.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/22 03:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Krijack
I know nothing about this process, but I am trying to understand what the impact of this statement is >>>>>> We will be limited by a provision in the Grays Harbor Policy that if we fail to make escapement 3 out of 5 years non treaty harvest is limited to an impact of 5% of the returning run. ( known as the Penalty Box )>>>>

From what I have seen about tribal harvest, they can take a huge number of fish given the right conditions. So if a big run comes in and they have a scheduled fishery for so many days, which is supposed to equal a 50%, what is to stop them from taking most or all of the extra fish before they tally their numbers.


Bingo...I have a "fair understanding of the process" but I also question the "slow reporting process by the QIN". There are times when it might be as much as 2 - 3 weeks before the QIN numbers get to WDFW, then finally posted to the WDFW web site.

Accountability should be a higher requirement than is required on the commercial side. I'd like to see, during the reporting process, hatchery and wild numbers. Is that important, it sure is on the "sport side". Try not marking H/W on your punch card see what happens....if Enforcement asks, maybe shame on you or if you send your card in, not marked you might get a "follow-up" from WDFW punch card tally persons.

John's River, 28th Street, Cosie, South Monty, Fuller and maybe Porter, need to be monitored. WDFW wants $2.6 million for paying additional persons to do this knid of work........how about during the peak movement of fish, have WDFW Region 6 monitor, 1 day a week???? Regular job 4 days, in field work 1 day....nothing better than "be and see", what's what.......save taxpayers $$$$$$$
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/22 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
Originally Posted By: Krijack
I know nothing about this process, but I am trying to understand what the impact of this statement is >>>>>> We will be limited by a provision in the Grays Harbor Policy that if we fail to make escapement 3 out of 5 years non treaty harvest is limited to an impact of 5% of the returning run. ( known as the Penalty Box )>>>>

From what I have seen about tribal harvest, they can take a huge number of fish given the right conditions. So if a big run comes in and they have a scheduled fishery for so many days, which is supposed to equal a 50%, what is to stop them from taking most or all of the extra fish before they tally their numbers.


Bingo...I have a "fair understanding of the process" but I also question the "slow reporting process by the QIN". There are times when it might be as much as 2 - 3 weeks before the QIN numbers get to WDFW, then finally posted to the WDFW web site.

Accountability should be a higher requirement than is required on the commercial side. I'd like to see, during the reporting process, hatchery and wild numbers. Is that important, it sure is on the "sport side". Try not marking H/W on your punch card see what happens....if Enforcement asks, maybe shame on you or if you send your card in, not marked you might get a "follow-up" from WDFW punch card tally persons.

John's River, 28th Street, Cosie, South Monty, Fuller and maybe Porter, need to be monitored. WDFW wants $2.6 million for paying additional persons to do this knid of work........how about during the peak movement of fish, have WDFW Region 6 monitor, 1 day a week???? Regular job 4 days, in field work 1 day....nothing better than "be and see", what's what.......save taxpayers $$$$$$$


Saving taxpayers money is not SOP for our state, not utilizing

existing resources rather then spending an inflated amount of money

on new personnel is. Have to have an excuse for more taxes.

On another note, does anyone know when the state plans on fixing

the flood damage to the Monte launch? It looks really bad, SOP for

WA. state would disrupt the jack or fall season with construction.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/22 06:00 PM

03/15/2022

Montesano Boat Launch "might be a no go". I know that people would be pissed if that happened.

Because of where I live, I go for "lookie lou" drives just about every day. I watched as the Chehalis got higher and higher, then went over the East side of the parking lot, more rain, next day the trees on the East side of the parking lot.....slid into the river, some went on a scenic down river. Next day river cut in behind the trees that had slide into the river. Where the river went around the corner, just above launch, more trees went and corner started getting chewed away.

Water was way over the parking lot, handcapped area had trees from "up river" all around it......the large boulders that were along the river bank, from above the shitter were long gone or moved.

I'm not an engineer but with the "major cut thru 150-200 yards up river, unless the whole bank, below the mill, is done correctly........mother nature is going to add the WDFW South Montesano launch to the "it was here, now its gone".....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/22 05:07 PM


This was sent to me and I thought it was a relevant point of view.


BEING FRANK: MARINE MAMMAL PREDATION ON SALMON IS OUT OF CONTROL
Mar 10, 2022 | Being Frank, Lead Story

Being Frank: Marine Mammal Predation on Salmon is Out of Control
Being Frank is a column written by Chairman Ed Johnstone of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. As a statement from the NWIFC chairman, the column represents the natural resources management concerns of the treaty Indian tribes in western Washington.

Our tribal fishermen are being out-fished by marine mammals.

When I was growing up in the 1950s and ’60s, it was rare to see a sea lion at the mouth of the Quinault or Hoh rivers. But now in Grays Harbor, you can’t even walk down on the docks because sea lions are everywhere.

I remember standing with Billy Frank Jr. at Frank’s Landing in 2010 when we saw about 13 sea lions lying on the sand bar. “These sea lions have never been here like this before,” Billy said. “This is not their home ground.” They’ve migrated here to eat our salmon and steelhead.

Harbor seals also have been traveling way up the Nisqually and Puyallup rivers to feed. Our fishermen are sitting on the banks while the pinnipeds are fishing.

The explosive growth of marine mammal populations has created an imbalance in the natural world, and we need to act now to get it under control.

This is happening against a backdrop of habitat loss that will take years to recover. While our recovery plans work to restore habitat, the most immediate thing we can do to protect salmon is reduce the impact of predation and account for the loss of the resource.

When tribes in western Washington signed treaties with the U.S. government, we reserved the right to continue hunting and fishing as we always have. Salmon are a treaty-protected resource, and that means we have a treaty right to manage the populations of marine mammals that threaten the health of the ecosystem.

Seals and sea lions take six times more salmon in the Puget Sound and Olympic coast than tribal and nontribal fisheries combined. Studies found that they eat about 1.4 million pounds annually of threatened chinook in Puget Sound alone.

Not only are seals and sea lions out-fishing us, but they also are intercepting the hatchery chinook we’ve produced to benefit southern resident orcas.

Between 1975 and 2015, harbor seal populations in the Salish Sea grew from about 8,500 to nearly 78,000. On the outer Washington coast, the number grew from fewer than 7,000 in 1980 to more than 20,000, according to aerial studies by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

While harbor seals may have reached their carrying capacity, the number of California sea lions along the west coast of the United States has risen as high as 300,000. The combined impact on our fisheries is out of control.

These pinnipeds have been protected under the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which was meant to protect fur seals, dolphins and whales in response to significant population declines caused by human activities.

No marine mammal species has gone extinct in U.S. waters since the MMPA was enacted. But sea lions and harbor seals were never in danger of extinction, and because of MMPA protections, they have become invasive species.

The MMPA has an important role to play, but it didn’t address carrying capacity or maximum sustainable yield, so now we have too many pinnipeds and not enough prey. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service has a responsibility to work with us to restore the balance in our ecosystem.

A new marine mammal strategy is needed to control predation in rivers throughout western Washington to protect out-migrating smolts and returning adult salmon and steelhead.

The state Legislature already has directed the Washington Academy of Science to learn more about the marine mammal problem, identify knowledge gaps and evaluate the effectiveness of potential management solutions.

Some of the short-term methods that have been tried with limited success include hazing with projectiles or boats, targeted acoustic startle technology, mechanical barriers and relocation. To solve the problem in the long term, we have to evaluate how many seals and sea lions the habitat can support and control their populations.

The tribes and others have invested billions of dollars and countless hours to try to recover salmon populations. We have reduced our fisheries by 80 to 90 percent over the past 40 years. Our federal trustee is obligated to support our efforts to manage marine mammals and fix the imbalance caused by the MMPA.

We have much work to do.

Sea lions haul out at the Westport Harbor Marina. Photo: Kaynor Community Education, via Wikimedia Commons.



SHARE:
Posted by: thaxor

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/22 10:48 AM

make pinniped hunting great again
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/22 11:21 AM

A part I seem to have missed in this pinniped discussion is that the Tribes used to hunt them. The Makah, despite the MMPA, went after whales. It almost looks like the Tribes want somebody else to do their "dirty work" of culling. Since Boldt II held that the Treaty Right meant dead fish in the boat it would seem that the State and Feds have responsibility (see Culvert Decision) to fix this. Let loose the lawyers.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/22 12:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
A part I seem to have missed in this pinniped discussion is that the Tribes used to hunt them. The Makah, despite the MMPA, went after whales. It almost looks like the Tribes want somebody else to do their "dirty work" of culling. Since Boldt II held that the Treaty Right meant dead fish in the boat it would seem that the State and Feds have responsibility (see Culvert Decision) to fix this. Let loose the lawyers.


The "dirty work" of culling should be ALL stakeholders responsibility.

I find it "funny " that a former wdfw employee should say "let loose

the lawyers" when their former bosses lack the cajones to sue the

tribes over relevant issues.


As far as the Makah they have a treaty to go after whales which is

paramount. Or don't you believe that we should honor treaties we

sign?
Posted by: dwatkins

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/22 04:08 PM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
A part I seem to have missed in this pinniped discussion is that the Tribes used to hunt them. The Makah, despite the MMPA, went after whales. It almost looks like the Tribes want somebody else to do their "dirty work" of culling. Since Boldt II held that the Treaty Right meant dead fish in the boat it would seem that the State and Feds have responsibility (see Culvert Decision) to fix this. Let loose the lawyers.


The "dirty work" of culling should be ALL stakeholders responsibility.

I find it "funny " that a former wdfw employee should say "let loose

the lawyers" when their former bosses lack the cajones to sue the

tribes over relevant issues.


As far as the Makah they have a treaty to go after whales which is

paramount. Or don't you believe that we should honor treaties we

sign?


Why do you type the way you do?

It’s not middle school where you have to double

space to get 3-5 pages. Stop it bobber it’s hard to read.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/22 04:37 PM

Oh, I love the Ignore feature!!! It's so much nicer then wasting good insults on them.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/22 08:36 PM

For some reason Bob you seem to think that if someone worked at WDFW that they agree point for point on all they do. When I was in management we regularly took the Tribes to Court. And won. Leadership rolled over. There a number of folks on the Board who know did march in lockstep with leadership and I resent being painted as such.

Where do you get the idea that I don't support the Makah whaling? My point was that the Treaties trump MMPA.

While culling could be done by all, the Tribes have Treaty Law to support them more than the rest of us have laws to support the culling.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/22 11:39 PM

While it is somewhat covered in secrecy, the implications I got regarding the Makah's and their right to whaling is that it all gets down to money and power. The Tribe has the right to whale and can do it any time the want. The problem is that key players (non tribal) appear to have leaned on the tribe and told them that if they do it on their own, they can forget about a having friends at the BIA or when it comes time for Congress to hand out funds. I was on the reservation a few years back for a what is known as Makah Days. Senator Maria Cantwell came riding by in a car during their parade. The tribe has around 2500 members, so I can guarantee she did not make the trip to garner votes. In fact, I was with a tribal member and had been telling him that the tribes own the State. I don't think he believed me until she drove by. He was laughing about it because I think I was about the only person around who even recognized her. The tribes have some powerful friends and want to keep them. In addition, with the Casino's bringing in Millions, they want to stay under the radar as much as possible. This is, I believe, the reason why we have also not seen wide scale culling by any of the tribes.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 01:02 AM

Pretty much agree with those observations.
Posted by: cohoangler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 07:51 AM

A few observations.

It’s an oversimplification to say the Treaties trump the MMPA (or the ESA). The Federal agencies responsible for implementing the MMPA/ESA also need to uphold the Treaties. So they need to do both. It may be difficult, but it can be done.

There may be a situation where the MMPA/ESA and the Treaties are in conflict, and become completely intractable. In that case, it’s possible a judge would be asked to decide which takes precedence. But all sides of this debate would go to great lengths to avoid that question. Nobody wants to risk getting an answer they don’t like. So it would likely get settled before getting to court. The last issue that went to the SCOTUS (the Culvert Case) regarding Treaty rights gave the Tribes a real scare so it’s likely they will be very cautious before going down that road again.

(Recall the Culvert decision was 4-4 split, with Justice Kennedy recusing himself. So the case was never really decided, except that the 9th Circuit Court decision stands, but is only applicable in Puget Sound. If the SCOTUS had made a decision (e.g., 5-4), the result would have applied nationwide. For better or for worse.)

Also, yes the Makah Tribe’s treaty includes the right to take whales. But ‘whaling’ and ‘sealing’ might be considered different activities. Whaling is an obvious treaty right while sealing may or may not be considered consistent with whaling (as the Tribes would have understood it). So taking seals is not as clear as the right to take whales.

My sense is that if the Makah Tribe wanted to kill a bunch of seals under their Treaty, they probably can. They might not get dragged into a legal fight, but the public relations pushback would be severe, just like it was when they killed a grey whale 20 years ago. They’re probably not anxious for that to happen again, particularly since seals are probably not high on their list of favorite foods.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 07:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
For some reason Bob you seem to think that if someone worked at WDFW that they agree point for point on all they do. When I was in management we regularly took the Tribes to Court. And won. Leadership rolled over. There a number of folks on the Board who know did march in lockstep with leadership and I resent being painted as such.

Where do you get the idea that I don't support the Makah whaling? My point was that the Treaties trump MMPA.

While culling could be done by all, the Tribes have Treaty Law to support them more than the rest of us have laws to support the culling.


I don't really care if you resent ANYTHING I have to say about your posts, this is an internet forum where all players should expect to have their feelings hurt over divisive topics sometimes.

As far as resenting you stating that all rec fishermen are in favor of culling ALL predators that compete for "their fish" I laugh at your broad brush accusations. You aren't worth getting that upset over. You are just a cog in a wheel in a flawed agency.

And you are the one that stated, "It almost looks like the tribes want someone else to do their "dirty work" of culling." If anyone should be offended by statements like this it's the tribes.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: cohoangler






My sense is that if the Makah Tribe wanted to kill a bunch of seals under their Treaty, they probably can. They might not get dragged into a legal fight, but the public relations pushback would be severe, just like it was when they killed a humpback 20 years ago. They’re probably not anxious for that to happen again, particularly since seals are probably not high on their list of favorite foods.


The Makah killed a grey whale, not a humpback. As a wildlife photographer I was expected by animal rights groups I had worked with to oppose the taking of whales by the Makah but treaty rights were paramount in my point of view. They (and other tribes) have basically quietly ignored the MMPA when dealing with problem seals and sea lions. Of course this is downplayed as the Feds are a lot less willing to deal with the problem then the tribes.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 08:14 AM

A hothead trying to school level headed people on "internet forums where players should expect to have their feelings hurt over divisive topics" is laughable. bobrr joined this particular "internet forum" about 15 years too late. We would rather hear from Melanie. She makes more sense when she posts, and always made more sense in the NOF meetings.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 08:40 AM

Another a-hole refugee from the darkside I have on ignore. They have nowhere to go now so just post when they want to trash someone they know already has their number and that's why they are on ignore. Folks don't like what I have to say? Use the ignore feature.
Posted by: cohoangler

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 10:46 AM

Thanks. I fixed it......
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 11:09 AM


On a more pleasant note staff ( Kim ) sent the first 2022 Harvest model out. It is based on last years seasons this years forecast and it allows one to look at just where we are compared to last year on paper. If your not on my mailing list and want it PM me. For those that hate models all harvesters combined ( last years schedule this years forecasted runs ) leave 80,878 expected escapement and the NT share at 4.93% which is below last years which was around 4.99%.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 11:34 AM

So I suspect we will have the same seasons in the bay and river as last year ? I'd like to see the hatchery only restriction lifted above the bridge so the up river fishers don't get screwed again. The opening of Oct. 1st in the bay should go back to last week in Sept. again.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 03:26 PM

aren't we in the penalty box again this year?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/22 07:43 PM


Yes we are.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/22 07:25 AM

Just hit something interesting. I tried to forward the e mail below and it is nearly impossible. So be aware even ZOOM is involved in trying to limit public involvement.


This is ZOOM email regarding the March 21st GH NOF meeting and outlines how to sign in.

Soooo to some questions: Yup they will censor you if they do not like your question or how you ask it. Best way to deal with that is do a conference text with several folks at the same time. In other words pool your resources that way if they mute one of you another can come right back at them.

Why are these guys hiding in the bunker? Well as I have said before they are not a Steve Thiesfeld (damn I miss that guy) or Jim Scott but as a friend of mine says “WDFW Lifers “. So my advice is to direct your questions to Mike or Kim as any other staffer is just going to run out the company line and little else. It is my mind that they feel comfortable in a structure that direct interface with the public is not required. I doubt that many in WDFW even recognize that they are just fueling the well of distrust and doubts of integrity / honesty.

I urge you all to tune and see what is happening.

Dave



This is a reminder that "Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion" will begin in 1 day on:
Date Time: Mar 21, 2022 06:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Click Here to Join
Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you.
Add to Calendar Add to Google Calendar Add to Yahoo Calendar

Or join by phone:

US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 821 6183 7062
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcVvs6PRO


Or Skype for Business (Lync):
https://us02web.zoom.us/skype/82161837062



You can cancel your registration at any time.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/22 10:25 AM

Geez, it used to be different. Near the end of my sentence, I was asked, by my boss, to direct a question to the Director that was intended as an eye poke to a lifer. We got the answer we wante, too. My, how it has disintegrated.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/22 11:01 AM

One of the Commissioners once said that WDFW had the worst case of battered wife syndrome she had ever seen. Took a bit for me to get past the female designation to get my arms around it was the behavior she was talking about. I thought she summed it up rather well.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/22 11:33 AM

Kinda makes sense. There was a very high value placed on going along. Some of the batterers could not understand resistance to them.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/21/22 12:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
One of the Commissioners once said that WDFW had the worst case of battered wife syndrome she had ever seen. Took a bit for me to get past the female designation to get my arms around it was the behavior she was talking about. I thought she summed it up rather well.


Aren't you talking about Miranda Wecker? One of the best leaders of the wildlife commission ever?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/22 04:00 AM



https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calenda...-public-meeting

Last nights NOF Grays Harbor is done and the link above is to the materials and presentations. It was mostly Recs I think but I did hear the number 47 for participants and guides were well represented as one would expect. Commercials on the other hand not much but as staff does not tell you who the participants are one does not really know. Besides most years commercials prefer to work behind the scenes or at the Commission level.

I did not receive the meeting information until 2:48 PM for a 6:00 PM meeting which is not really what one call expectable, as several days in advance is the norm. Also models were not provided which quite frankly are needed to make heads or tails out of impacts.

Things that are likely to happen are standing down 3/5 and increased harvest for all NT fisheries. That is the one thing that stood as all I heard was folks wanting to kill fish and hardly a thought about conservation and that was from the Recs as the NT Commercials were pretty much not speaking if present at all.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/22 07:17 AM

I like to think that the state recognized that the runs last year were larger then the seasons allowed and that they are setting seasons more in line with increased run projection. Rains are coming in earlier and with that the runs are coming up river earlier.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/22 07:49 AM

The seasons, especially since the harvests are shared, are always based on the most recent projection. The problem is that the managers no longer do in-season updating which in the past allowed for in-season correction based on better information.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/22 09:10 AM

With Coho we make escapement in years that we are on the up side of the cycles and do not on the down side of the cycle. If one looked at the runs over time they are never static. Almost always a up cycle for a period of time, peak and then down. As I said upside of the cycle the run is under forecasted and down side over forecasted. The number of years in a complete cycle can and does vary but not the natural cycle.

Nothing new here been that way for a very long time. As to the patterns of how the fish enter the bay and rivers it is about rain inland, time of year for bay. Keep in mind the data showing when Coho enter the system is based upon harvest not much else. They will stage up someplace in the basin until flows are such they can spawn. With the current management of the state and QIN we are very dependent on the blow out rains in the first part of Nov when nobody fishes to make escapements.

This results in years like this, OK but not great. This is because 60% of the basin (lower tribs) did NOT make much more than 50% of escapement for this brood year. If the runs had not been over harvested our returns this year would have much larger. The only way this changes if the up cycle changes with a several year peak or flatter curve both upside and down OR the comanagers show some sanity and reduce the overall Chehalis Basin harvest rate. Rather simple really but few will see past "I want to kill a fish!"

So what we have had the last 10 years is likely what the foreseeable future looks like. Mediocre runs driven by continuous over harvest ! Like I said it is simple enough as this is not rocket science just simple cause and effect.



Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/22 10:06 AM

There is some interesting data out of AK dealing with pinks and coho. AK fishes wild coho at 60% and it seems, over a decade or two, to be "sustainable". Their pinks fluctuate. When the crik had no pinks, the coho harvest was 1,000. When they had 2 kg of pinks per square metre the harvest was 5-8000. We, down here in WA, have simply decided to keep our runs at the low end of production by limiting escapement.

In a similar vein, modeling fo AK coho showed that a 40% HR gave more harvest than 60% because of the fertilizer effect of the added spawners.

The information is out there, but would require short term reductions for long term gain.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/22 08:56 AM

The tidal area fisherfolk have had the lowest harvest numbers out of all user groups in the last 3 years due to the Oct. 1st openers. With the hatchery only rule above the Monte bridge last year those folks got pooched as well. Effort last year was really low in this area, amount (or lack of) of cars in the lots spoke volumes.

The numbers caught that we observed were really low, most folks gave up after Oct. 7th. Glad to see a reasonable season again (if it happens), if we don't fish early the tribe takes our fish. And laughs.

Hopefully the state will figure out where to get the money to fix the launch, otherwise the money spent on upgrades to the launch will have been wasted. This is a WDFW budget fix as DOT won't contribute unless the bridge is threatened. What about pursuing grant money form the feds or state since this was an emergency flood deal? NOW is the time to figure this out, otherwise the other launches will be a shi* show in Sept.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/22 10:01 AM

03/23/2022

Montesano launch, whew, major problem. When the river cut through, 3-4 years back, the full flow was directed at the lower end of the mill and office building. As the water turned left it began to "peel away" the bank above the boat launch parking lot.

Last winter, in just a few days the river started cutting into the East side of the parking lot. In 1 day, the banking went away enough that the trees and LARGE boulders that lined the upper end of the parking lot slid into the river, many stayed and created more of a problem because it allowed the river to chew into the banking going around the corner toward the launch itself.

The river got high enough the water ripped across the whole lot, the handicapped area and area around the shitter.

I've launched there since 1974, there have been problems with the lower end of the planks being under cut which made a "a minus tide launch" VERY BAD".

Friends Landing, Fuller Hill and Cosie boat launches are not that big to handle the full demands of a major September - November fishery. Long lines, if using Friends Landing....single launch, low water can be tough.

BIG DOLLAR fix that NEEDS to be done but??????????
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/23/22 04:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Since it is NOF season, any idea where Larry Phillips moved off to? And, for R6, who you will now get to replace him.


https://asafishing.org/advocacy/sportfis...olicy-director/

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 05:03 AM

Somewhat new to the process, and wishing that the Fisheries Meetings were in person again so I could put some names to faces, but in the past, has the WDFW seemed to value our input as sport fishermen?

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to comment on the last virtual town hall for Grays Harbor, but was able to watch the whole thing on YouTube. Valid points about limiting impacts this year, similar to last year, in order to allow this surplus of fish this year to reach the gravel. Also agree that if we WERE to have a limited December fishery, a 1 fish bag, mark selective, would be ideal.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 07:03 AM


Recs have had input depending on circumstance but not so for many years. For a long time the APA season process was almost set when the GH NOF started thus the designation of Dog & Pony Show. With the adoption of the GH Policy it has been much better and staff has provided information. Since the virus, Advisers fired, and ZOOM used, harder. This year with the jump in run size it appears that lot of behind the scenes gyrations and the information flow not so hot. Getting the presentation at 2:48 for a 6:00 meeting says a lot especially without a model to understand the numbers.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 07:28 AM

Hopefully next year the meetings are in person. I’ll try to remember to bring it up next meeting, but any idea how many more years the Nooch hatchery fish will be unclipped? Would be nice to utilize those hatchery fish and spread out some of the pressure on other rivers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 07:47 AM

What hatchery fish on the Nooch? That has not come to pass as far as I know and pretty much a bone of contention with WDFW.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 08:09 AM

https://www.ifiberone.com/south_sound/ne...1c742fffdc.html

Did this never get put it into action? When I first remember reading about it, I was pretty excited about those numbers. Or are these the dam mitigation fish that the WDFW keeps dragging their feet on?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 08:53 AM

The Coho are Mit for the power generation function at the dam not the Wynoochee Dam itself and yes these are the Coho smolt they have failed to produce for the better part of 30 years. So the article is Sept 4 2019 and it is now March 2022 heading for 3 years and same o same o. One should not hold their breath on this one as you will expire before it moves a lick.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 09:12 AM

Okay I’m seeing the trend myself now. Definitely will be bringing this up in the future.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 09:43 AM

03/24/2022

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
https://www.ifiberone.com/south_sound/ne...1c742fffdc.html

Did this never get put it into action? When I first remember reading about it, I was pretty excited about those numbers. Or are these the dam mitigation fish that the WDFW keeps dragging their feet on?


The 2 persons mentioned in the article, Ron Warren and Larry Phillips, are no longer employed with WDFW.

Person in Region 6 that should take the lead on this is James Losee, IMO.

I'm in a email battle with Losee, over 4 items, Wynoochee Mitigation is one of the 4. Yesterday email had NO COMMENT, from Losee, on the Wynoochee Mitigation---the 30+ years of foot dragging continues. Still no steelhead or Coho being raised, anywhere, for Wyn. Mitigation......grrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 10:08 AM

I'll put him on my list and start my own exchange with him although I doubt if I'll have anymore luck then you.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 10:25 AM

Might have better luck working with Larry in his new job. Working with the insiders just may not be too successful.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 10:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Might have better luck working with Larry in his new job. Working with the insiders just may not be too successful.


Sometimes it is but mostly it's not.

I remember talking with Billy Frank when he was the head of the Northwest Tribal Fisheries Council about the Quinault fishing sturgeon in the Chehalis under the guise of fishing for spring chinook, they were getting a dollar a lb. for salmon and 8 dollars a lb. for juvenile sturgeon. He said, "You know what they tell us? They tell us to go fuc* ourselves".

Wasn't much he could do about it. And that was in the days when co-managers actually worked as co-managers.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 10:52 AM

The Tribes won't take on the Tribes. The intertribal "wars" were worse that state/tribal.

And, Larry is on the outside and they may be able to organize lawsuits and other political pressure that the State can't/won't.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/22 10:55 AM

I know Larry is an avid fisherman, spoke to him many times about locations to fish. Hopefully he can actually advocate for fish and fisherfolk instead of advocating for the state.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/30/22 06:49 AM

Region 6 staff sent out this reminder for the next NOF Grays Harbor Zoom meeting. Staff also sent out the model that has this years proposals. The problem is they do not work. Chum fail to make escapement and Chinook look OK but the QIN have not provided their 2022 proposal as far as I know. Boiled down where we are is Chum are going to limit commercial fisheries or cause them to change dates. NT are going to use tangle nets to reduce Chinook impacts allowing them to fish earlier but frankly it really goes to pieces quick as the QIN are going to be doing the same thing.

On the REC side from my perspective the two fish bag on runs that have been at 50% of escapement is nuts. Conservation left the building with Elvis as everyone wants to kill fish. So down the road we go!


FROM R6:

Just a reminder for the next Grays Harbor fishery discussion meeting. If you have not registered for this meeting please do so by clicking on the “Join Zoom webinar” link below:


• WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6
Grays Harbor fisheries discussion
Additional discussion of management objectives and preliminary Grays Harbor fishing opportunities for 2022.
Join a public meeting:
6-8 p.m.
Join Zoom webinar
Visit our calendar event listing for additional details.

The link did not copy so here is the WDFW link to register
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/30/22 07:12 AM

I could have lived with one fish per, the opening in OCT. rather then mid-Sept. was what my problem was. Made it difficult to catch ONE fish with early rains.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 07:14 AM

100% agree. Too many people want to kill 2 fish. I’ll be making a comment on the next town hall recommending keeping it at one fish. Can’t decide for myself if it’s better on the fish to keep the first one we catch or potentially release 10-15 wilds to find one hatchery.

If it were up to me, it’d be a 1 fish bag, non-selective from October 1-November 30th. 1 fish bag, hatchery only, December 1-15th
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 07:44 AM

Seabeck,
I agree with most of what you propose. However, I doubt that WDFW will go along with the Dec.1-Dec 15 hatchery only fishery. I don't think the State will allow a Dec fishery since they closed the the rivers last year on Dec 1 to protect wild steelhead. That is something we will have to live with for the foreseeable future. Also, the probability of hooking mortality of wild late run coho might be a limiting factor for a Dec fishery also.
I am guessing we will get the the Oct.1-Nov.30 fishery. Like you, we should be able to keep the first one we catch (one fish limit) regardless if hatchery or wild to again lessen the hooking mortality on wild coho.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 07:44 AM

why should the sporties only get (1) one fish??? when there is (3) three gillnet user groups who take all they can get no matter what it is!!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 08:04 AM

When catches are divided up, the number of dead fish are what is counted. For arguments sake, let's say that there are 1,000 coho for the Tribes and 1,000 for the NI. The NI side is divided 500 to the GN and 500 to the sporties. Each side gets all their allocation.

The 10 Tribal netters average 100, the 10 NI netters average 50, and the thousand sporties average half a fish. It's a numbers game in that WDFW tries to find a way to achieve the numbers and (for recs) allow the most time on the water to do it.

You could raise the limit, move the fishery to more peak times, etc, but the effect will be to offer significantly fewer days.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 08:05 AM

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
100% agree. Too many people want to kill 2 fish. I’ll be making a comment on the next town hall recommending keeping it at one fish. Can’t decide for myself if it’s better on the fish to keep the first one we catch or potentially release 10-15 wilds to find one hatchery.

If it were up to me, it’d be a 1 fish bag, non-selective from October 1-November 30th. 1 fish bag, hatchery only, December 1-15th


You don't agree with me 100%, you obviously missed the most important part of what I said. Early rains push the fish up river well before Oct. 1st, Oct. 1st is a no go because up-river fishermen get most of the fish then.

Tidal water fisherfolk have gotten the shaft for 3 years now, that is BULL*HIT! Now I am back to advocating for two fish and Sept. 15th(lol).
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 08:11 AM

On another note I have been in a discussion with the entity who WDFW has taking responsibility for getting the launch repair going, I strongly suggest that all people participating in the upcoming zoom meeting ask what is being done to get funding in line for the repair of the launch in a timely manner. You know, have a plan and keep us in the loop to avoid lack of transparency.

If this isn't done soon the work won't happen until we are well into the summer as lack of funding will be the excuse. We need to hold their feet to the fire on this one. Just explain it reasonably.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 08:30 AM

Frankly the South Monte boat launch could be made useable by cleaning things up and new barriers up river side of parking lot. That is short term but long term that is something different. The river is most likely to get the road leading to the launch well before the launch itself but eventually it will get to the bridge pilings. DOT's problems are just starting as the changes in the river has caused the South side of the river bank to erode near the pilings.

Bottom line, the South monte launch is headed for its demise it is only a matter of when not if. You would have to rip rap the bank all the way upstream to the mill and that would be expensive and then I am not sure it would last.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 08:43 AM

The state evidently has land above the property just above the launch and is trying to get the land just upstream from the launch, you know, the one that the ramshackle house had to be removed before it fell in the river a few months ago.

Corrugated steel combined with rip rap was what one former engineer for the state (and avid Chehalis fisherman) told me recently was what was needed. The money the state spent on original costs of the launch and upgrades recently made as well the importance of this site make this a priority and the state needs to get the ball rolling on funding sooner then later. No one is suggesting that they should start digging without a plan but get the funding in place sooner then later.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 09:45 AM

Originally Posted By: steely slammer
why should the sporties only get (1) one fish??? when there is (3) three gillnet user groups who take all they can get no matter what it is!!!


That’s a separate issue. Just because they may be getting away with murder, it shouldn’t allow us as sport fishermen to over-harvest the resource as well.

I’d LOVE a 2, 3, or 4 fish limit. But I don’t need it, and the wild fish certainly don’t either.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 09:48 AM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
100% agree. Too many people want to kill 2 fish. I’ll be making a comment on the next town hall recommending keeping it at one fish. Can’t decide for myself if it’s better on the fish to keep the first one we catch or potentially release 10-15 wilds to find one hatchery.

If it were up to me, it’d be a 1 fish bag, non-selective from October 1-November 30th. 1 fish bag, hatchery only, December 1-15th


You don't agree with me 100%, you obviously missed the most important part of what I said. Early rains push the fish up river well before Oct. 1st, Oct. 1st is a no go because up-river fishermen get most of the fish then.

Tidal water fisherfolk have gotten the shaft for 3 years now, that is BULL*HIT! Now I am back to advocating for two fish and Sept. 15th(lol).


Forgive me, I wasn’t meaning I 100% agree with your post, I meant to quote and reply to another comment saying “everyone wants to kill a fish”
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/22 08:47 PM

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
100% agree. Too many people want to kill 2 fish. I’ll be making a comment on the next town hall recommending keeping it at one fish. Can’t decide for myself if it’s better on the fish to keep the first one we catch or potentially release 10-15 wilds to find one hatchery.

If it were up to me, it’d be a 1 fish bag, non-selective from October 1-November 30th. 1 fish bag, hatchery only, December 1-15th


You don't agree with me 100%, you obviously missed the most important part of what I said. Early rains push the fish up river well before Oct. 1st, Oct. 1st is a no go because up-river fishermen get most of the fish then.

Tidal water fisherfolk have gotten the shaft for 3 years now, that is BULL*HIT! Now I am back to advocating for two fish and Sept. 15th(lol).


Forgive me, I wasn’t meaning I 100% agree with your post, I meant to quote and reply to another comment saying “everyone wants to kill a fish”


And just whose comment did you mean to quote or answer? I've searched back 5 pages and I don't see anyone posting even remotely that "everyone wants to kill a fish" or that anyone implied that everyone wants to kill a fish. Seems like a pointless post. There are lots of people here that harvest fish, if you are in it just to catch and release fish , as I was told by native folks, "don't play with food". Why chance killing fish if you are all Kent Brockman about it?
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 05:07 AM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
100% agree. Too many people want to kill 2 fish. I’ll be making a comment on the next town hall recommending keeping it at one fish. Can’t decide for myself if it’s better on the fish to keep the first one we catch or potentially release 10-15 wilds to find one hatchery.

If it were up to me, it’d be a 1 fish bag, non-selective from October 1-November 30th. 1 fish bag, hatchery only, December 1-15th


You don't agree with me 100%, you obviously missed the most important part of what I said. Early rains push the fish up river well before Oct. 1st, Oct. 1st is a no go because up-river fishermen get most of the fish then.

Tidal water fisherfolk have gotten the shaft for 3 years now, that is BULL*HIT! Now I am back to advocating for two fish and Sept. 15th(lol).


Forgive me, I wasn’t meaning I 100% agree with your post, I meant to quote and reply to another comment saying “everyone wants to kill a fish”


And just whose comment did you mean to quote or answer? I've searched back 5 pages and I don't see anyone posting even remotely that "everyone wants to kill a fish" or that anyone implied that everyone wants to kill a fish. Seems like a pointless post. There are lots of people here that harvest fish, if you are in it just to catch and release fish , as I was told by native folks, "don't play with food". Why chance killing fish if you are all Kent Brockman about it?



Apparently you didn’t look hard enough. It’s in the comment IMMEDIATELY BEFORE YOURS. Try harder next time. My comment was also a response to the last Grays Harbor North of Falcon Meeting. Did you tune in to that or were you not paying attention to that as well?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 07:17 AM

Thge comment before mine was Carcassman ,I still don't see anyone saying "Everyone wants to kill a fish" maybe you are just paraphrasing someone, if you do that don't quote them. As far as the last meeting my wife and I attended and commented and although I listened to the whole meeting no one made the statement that "everyone wants to kill a fish". Maybe you should proof read your posts instead of quoting the wrong person or using quote marks uselessly.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 07:25 AM

Jesus Christ, man. Here’s the quote from Rivrguy...”Conservation left the building with Elvis as everyone wants to kill fish. So down the road we go!”

That’s the line I agree with.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 07:28 AM

The point I’m attempting to make is that a one fish bag I’d preferable for ME. Many of these rivers are struggling to consistently make escapement. Not saying it doesn’t happen, and that there aren’t good years, but why not err on the side of conservation until these rivers can regularly exceed escapement?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 07:58 AM

You are right, I stand corrected, I missed that comment after the "Elvis has left the building" line. I have also stated that I could live with the one fish limit although the Oct. 1st opening is way out of line
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 08:08 AM

Appreciate it. But yes, I agree with your point on the lower end of of the river and bay. I’m not familiar with those areas as I’m usually fishing the tributaries but your point makes sense to me. Especially to provide opportunity for those that aren’t physically able to row a tributary or bank fish
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 11:08 AM

I am submitting my suggestions for 2022 Rec Seasons and NT Commercial need to wait for the QIN proposal. My suggestions are based up the failure to make Coho escapement many years in the tidewater tributaries. 2022 should be a 3/5 Coho restricted year but the substantial Coho forecast makes 2022 an outlier year allowing harvest but considering the massive failures to make wild Coho escapement in recent years I urge a cautious approach.

The bay and inriver fisheries should reflect the division of harvest outlined in the Grays Harbor Policy.

All tribs below Fuller Hill are failing to make escapement with the Wishkah at around 20% of escapement. Satsop around 50% is best of the bunch. Now they do make numbers but only on up ( large run ) years and then barely.

The recent years seasons on Coho are about allowable impacts. In other word restricted catch to allow as long season as possible. This has been the feed back for years and that is what Mike has done his best to model Coho and seasons.

The 2022 seasons outlined so far are NOT WDFW's choices but rather input from users and they are going to change. Problems like Chum not making escapement in the modeled seasons and the QIN dates are a best guess. In other words the commercial seasons are not set at all. The Rec locations and the bag limits are a disaster in the models. Hoquiam and Wynoochee should not have a retain Coho period. Wishkah should be mark selective as Mayr's releases marked smolts and the Satsop is iffy as to wild.

In my crystal ball it says one adult Coho bag limit with the tribs outlined protected with season open for Coho Jacks August 1. I think you could do retain adult Coho August 15 to Dec 15. Below Porter Dec 15th to Jan 31 should be release unmarked Coho but only on mainstem Chehalis, Satsop. The Upper Basin should have its normal seasons.

We do not have enough Chinook after the massive marine overharvest and Chum are shaky to say the least. My two bits.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 11:49 AM

isn't that why we only got one coho last yr?? than they closed it in Dec anyways!!!
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 01:40 PM

I believe so. Right, due to Steelhead. I’d be curious to know what percentage of steelhead are wild in December. Only steelhead I’ve seen on Chehalis tribs in December have been hatchery. Not to say the wilds aren’t there, but with hook and line fisheries, I feel the impact is minute, especially from the 1st to 15th of December.

Maybe someone can fill me in, but am I correct in thinking that if we as sport fishers get to fish December, then the tribes would be allowed to net as well?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 02:06 PM

i think they used the steelhead as an excuse.. they wanted the late /wild coho to make it to the gravel ..
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 02:11 PM

I can get onboard with that, especially if they include that in their reasoning. I just wish the department would be up front about that being part of it.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 03:12 PM

yes i agree
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/22 07:27 PM

04/01/2022

Originally Posted By: bobrr
I could have lived with one fish per, the opening in OCT. rather then mid-Sept. was what my problem was. Made it difficult to catch ONE fish with early rains.


Early rains????? Not to get in a pissin match, but as a 50+ year fisher of the Chehalis River, there are not many "brown out" days until late October, November and beyond.

As I get told, quite often, if you don't like the hatchery only regulation....move your fishing down river, to South Montesano to the bay. Nope, trolling, not my thing, so I'll stay above, fish jacks, try to catch 5 then do the cull bit, maybe get a hatchery Coho. Some mud or colored water, helps Mother Nature protect fish on their spawning run.

High brown water.... ruins boat launches and that is a grrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/22 07:51 AM

I kinda feel the same way, Drifter, For a variety of reasons ranging from boredom to seasickness to a general lack of success I don't boat fish. Walk and wade, shore-based, etc. I grew up learning to fish and fishing small creeks and ponds. Maybe I am going through a forty-third childhood, but that's the fishing I want.

That said, one of the problems of resource management, both when I was there and now, is that there is too much demand and too much fishing power to give everybody what they want. It was rough enough when all we considered was dividing up between the I and NI, or US/Canada, or US/Canada/AK. The Canadians used to set allocations to fisheries. That is, the WCVI troll got 16.34% of the sockeye, the A20 seines got 22.31% and the A29GN got 31.39%. We have, here in GH, the outside sporties, bay sporties, lower river sporties, upper river sporties, and trib sporties that all want their share along with QIN, Chehalis, and the NIGN. And then we add in the SRKWs and pinnipeds who "get" a share. And, as Rivrguy will point out, no manager seems to give a rat's hiney for achieving escapement.

Long way of saying that, so long as demand exceeds supply, that a person must be able to manage against their own preferences to achieve the goals. As I said, I prefer upper river fishing for salmon but of there aren't any left to harvest then I can't argue for that fishery unless I can take them from somebody else who is willing to give them up.

All too often we manage based on the stakeholder's "needs". In my view, we should first meet the needs of the ecosystem. Then identify where surplus fish are and who gets them. This, of course, means that harvest gets planned from the river out instead of the ocean in, which will never fly. Hell, it probably won't even be allowed to stand upright.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/22 08:46 AM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
04/01/2022

Originally Posted By: bobrr
I could have lived with one fish per, the opening in OCT. rather then mid-Sept. was what my problem was. Made it difficult to catch ONE fish with early rains.


Early rains????? Not to get in a pissin match, but as a 50+ year fisher of the Chehalis River, there are not many "brown out" days until late October, November and beyond.

As I get told, quite often, if you don't like the hatchery only regulation....move your fishing down river, to South Montesano to the bay. Nope, trolling, not my thing, so I'll stay above, fish jacks, try to catch 5 then do the cull bit, maybe get a hatchery Coho. Some mud or colored water, helps Mother Nature protect fish on their spawning run.

High brown water.... ruins boat launches and that is a grrrrrrrrrr


Sorry, Bill. That statement about "brown outs" not happening 'till late Oct. may be right (more or less) but the rains have been coming in earlier and earlier in the last 5 years due to "climate effect".

Heavy rains in mid Sept. have been the norm lately and the fish due indeed push upstream before the Oct. 1st openings. Since trolling isn't your thing maybe you haven't noticed the lack of effort in the last two or three years. Less then a dozen rigs in the parking lot at Monte on any given day and most people did not have success even when limited to 1 fish.

Lots of my elderly neighbors have expressed their disgust with the Oct. 1st openings, and they also have fished the Chehalis for the last 40 or 50 years. So you are not alone in history. Either shut the whole fu*king thing down so everyone is treated equally or keep it fair by sticking to "reasonable " seasons.

Since "everyone" seems to think that the ocean seasons are the real issue and that they'll never change it that must mean the fish are doomed eventually and that the tribes will fish it to the end capitalizing on "foregone opportunity".

I plan on advocating for our fair share and fishing until I'm told by the state that I can't. i don't plan on not fishing while other stakeholders do.

The reason the state wants to limit fishing until Oct. 1st is that they know the fish push upstream after the 1st heavy rains and if you think that's not happening in Sept. you are not paying attention. The river doesn't have to have a "brown out" to have most of an early run blow through in the last week of Sept.

It's pretty typical to advocate for a limited fishery when it doesn't effect where or how you fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/22 09:24 AM

Rains early has two different meanings. In August through first two weeks of Oct it is about a rain event that has enough volume to move the fish inland to stage up. For years the Coho hung out around South Monte but with the Sept rains they have been much farther inland. This is not unusual as we have always had dry or wet summers thus the old saying you do not cut hay before the 4th of July. In the 70's there were years that the woods were locked down to nearly Nov due to the low fuel moisture ( dry conditions ). Dry years the fish hang out low in the watershed and bay and sometimes don't come across the bar to way late. Wet years 100% the opposite and it almost always rains enough to blow out the river in the first week or so of November and that puts and end to bay and tidewater fisheries because of muddy water. The upper basin fisheries do not kick in until the Nov rains which is why the Coho returns differ substantially to the tide water tribs run timing below Fuller Hill. In the 90's dry years it did not rain until late and there was one year that the Normal Timed Coho did not make it past Schafer Park until the third week of Nov. Great fishing tide water and it totally sucked inland. We were broodstocking the Chehalis and the numbers of fish moving was one / two Coho some Chinook maybe a Chum. It started raining and I got the call to get up to the site and it was mayhem. The tribal fishers had pulled the tangle nets, grabbed a pole and 3 to a boat were C&R fish. I mean it was a stampede as we went from a few fish to fish everywhere in about 4 hours on the rise at Porter. The Chehalis is a rain driven watershed and fish, game, birds just everything revolves around when and how much it rains. Oh the kicker, the rain is NEVER the same and always screws some of us and benefits others.

Weather is never static but goes in cycles and can be as long as 15000 years for Sahara rains driven by the planets orbit of the sun and the planets tilt on it's axis to just a few years for Pacific Coast conditions which are driven by the ocean conditions. Just do a search " when did the last ice age end " and you will find it hasn't yet and we are still in a warming cycle.

The difference now than the 50's, 60's or 70's is where and how we fish and the number of fishers. More Recs less Non treaty commercial more tribal.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/02/22 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Rains early has two different meanings. In August through first two weeks of Oct it is about a rain event that has enough volume to move the fish inland to stage up. For years the Coho hung out around South Monte but with the Sept rains they have been much farther inland. This is not unusual as we have always had dry or wet summers thus the old saying you do not cut hay before the 4th of July. In the 70's there were years that the woods were locked down to nearly Nov due to the low fuel moisture ( dry conditions ). Dry years the fish hang out low in the watershed and bay and sometimes don't come across the bar to way late. Wet years 100% the opposite and it almost always rains enough to blow out the river in the first week or so of November and that puts and end to bay and tidewater fisheries because of muddy water. The upper basin fisheries do not kick in until the Nov rains which is why the Coho returns differ substantially to the tide water tribs run timing below Fuller Hill.

Weather is never static but goes in cycles and can be as long as 15000 years for Sahara rains to just a few years for Pacific Coast conditions which are driven by the ocean conditions. Just do a search " when did the last ice age end " and you will find it hasn't yet and we are still in a warming cycle.

The difference now than the 50's, 60's or 70's is where and how we fish and the number of fishers. More Recs less Non treaty commercial more tribal.


Informative post.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/22 12:22 PM

04/3/2022

Early rains and moving fish "up river", what most Bay and fishers from 101 Bridge to Fuller Bridge forget is there is the Chehalis tribe and 30+ miles of river are also entailed to fish.

Rivrguy was a guy who pushed "many things" but one of his main planks was that upriver fishers for many years, had only limited fishing until the "brown outs" happened.

1960's, 70's. 80's, even in the 90's....fishing pressure in GH was spread out, matter of fact the "Bay" fishery was almost nil until WDFW split the Humptulips and Chehalis into 2 river systems. The waters below 101 Bridge was pretty much left to the NT fishers, enter WDFW, the change started....Chinook fishery, John's River to 101 Bridge, became a NT/Sports battle ground, during NOF.

The 2000 - 2021 years a couple of things happened:

1. More small boat fishing from Cosie Launch, yea some trolling but lot's of anchored boats doing the cast spinners and plug bit for Coho. The "Mall" bank fishing got started, a non-boat person had a place to cast from shore AND CATCH A FISH, right off the bank in Aberdeen.

2. Guide boats, not many at 1st then more and more...4-6 clients per boat, most put in at Fuller Hill BUT many did the Johns River or 28th launches.

Hatchery reform, Wild vs. Hatchery, many tribs. NOT making escapement, mmmm, what to do.....scary thoughts, ...... Steelhead past 2 years, all kinds of rules tried to complete closures, I've on Losee ass to get the WDFW "written plans" in the long run, for native steelhead......nothing yet BUT that battle is just starting.

Would be a bitch to have Fuller Bridge to Johns River, reduced or closed, until Hoquiam, Wishkah, Wynoochee, and Satsop start making escapement.......

What then???? Guess I'd learn to fish above Fuller.......then pray the Cowlitz comes back and the guides head that way again.....
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/03/22 02:59 PM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
04/3/2022



What then???? Guess I'd learn to fish above Fuller.......then pray the Cowlitz comes back and the guides head that way again.....


This is what I would expect from someone who only fishes above Fuller. Yeah, I should get run off the river by guys with more horsepower then brains in our canoe? Fish crowds on an already overcrowded fishery?Been there, done that.(Not like we got run off the river, just got a bigger boat! lol ) Sell my boat to get a shallow river boat? I don't think so. I'll just advocate for the fish I can fish for. Ocean, tidal, whatever. Just like EVERYONE ELSE on this forum.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 07:22 AM


Last call and here is the WDFW link to GH NOF and at this moment no information has been posted. So before my screen melts I DO NOT KNOW WHY INFORMATION IS NOT PROVIDED WELL IN ADVANCE !

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings

Just a reminder for the next Grays Harbor fishery discussion meeting. If you have not registered for this meeting please do so by clicking on the “Join Zoom webinar” link below:


• WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6
Grays Harbor fisheries discussion
Additional discussion of management objectives and preliminary Grays Harbor fishing opportunities for 2022.

Join a public meeting:
6-8 p.m.

Join Zoom webinar

Visit our calendar event listing for additional details.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 09:05 AM

It's been a while since I witnessed a good, old-fashioned dog and pony show, and I am available tonight, so I registered. For those looking for the link, click the link in Rivrguy's post to the NOF page on WDFW's website, then scroll down to the April 6 meeting in the list of events to find the Zoom link.

Anybody have any thoughts at least most of us can get behind, so we can raise them frequently enough to at least annoy the presenters? I personally like the idea of a one-fish (coho) bag, starting Sept. 16 and going until we get shut down to protect the winter run steelhead that aren't there in December.

I'm basically looking for the longest season possible (harvest is about 4th on my list of reasons to go salmon fishing, so one fish is plenty for me). I think we're done fishing Grays Harbor drainages during December, probably for good, because there's no sane reason to expect either the wild steelhead or the late coho to rebound. Also, given the choice between the last 2 weeks of September and the entire month of December, I'm taking September every time, because those 2 weeks are reliably fishable and represent the best weather we get round here all year. In a typical December, we only get a handful of fishable days, and the weather's generally much less nice....

Obviously, I'll gladly accept more, but.... Anybody else have suggestions we would like to have WDFW staff hear and likely ignore?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 09:29 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
It's been a while since I witnessed a good, old-fashioned dog and pony show, and I am available tonight, so I registered. For those looking for the link, click the link in Rivrguy's post to the NOF page on WDFW's website, then scroll down to the April 6 meeting in the list of events to find the Zoom link.

Anybody have any thoughts at least most of us can get behind, so we can raise them frequently enough to at least annoy the presenters? I personally like the idea of a one-fish (coho) bag, starting Sept. 16 and going until we get shut down to protect the winter run steelhead that aren't there in December.

I'm basically looking for the longest season possible (harvest is about 4th on my list of reasons to go salmon fishing, so one fish is plenty for me). I think we're done fishing Grays Harbor drainages during December, probably for good, because there's no sane reason to expect either the wild steelhead or the late coho to rebound. Also, given the choice between the last 2 weeks of September and the entire month of December, I'm taking September every time, because those 2 weeks are reliably fishable and represent the best weather we get round here all year. In a typical December, we only get a handful of fishable days, and the weather's generally much less nice....

Obviously, I'll gladly accept more, but.... Anybody else have suggestions we would like to have WDFW staff hear and likely ignore?


Yes, I do. I agree totally with the Sept. opening, but let's not let them off the hook about funding for the Montesano launch repair. They should be lining up all the various ways of providing funding and keeping us informed as to where that is going. I don't expect work to begin tomorrow but i want to know how getting the funding is going 'cause it's going to be expensive and we can't afford to lose both the launch and the money already put into improvements.The person I have talked to is Brian Calkins, that is who the WDFW pointed me to to speak to this issue of transparency about current attempts to line up money. I asked him to attend tonight's meeting, I'll call again today to remind him.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 10:07 AM

screw the sport fishers over.. and let three gillnet user groups have at it!!!!!!

if they got rid of the cowboys they would make escapement !!!!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 10:14 AM

The state constitution states that opportunity is to be made for both recs and commies, I don't see how one group of stakeholders can be legally shut out of fishing. I agree that the state has failed miserably when it comes to managing the fisheries we have (short of razor clamming and trout planting in lakes) but shutting out folks that feed their families by fishing is not the answer.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 10:30 AM

04/06/2022

NOF is about fish!!!!! Well, only SALMON, No steelhead, no sturgeon!!!!!

I tuned in to the Willapa NOF, last night, same members of the public and NT speaking. SOS as most meetings related to this process since I started going in about 2012.

There were 5 or 6 proposals, from the general public or NT. NOF, in Willapa, has been a battle ground every since I can remember. WDFW was asked if they had any comments on the models or IF THEY HAD A PROPOSAL, WDFW pretended to act like they weren't ready with comments one way or the other AND they weren't prepared with any State model. Let's see if GH is any different.

Oh, meeting lasted from 6 - 7:30, when no more hands were raised....WDFW "zoomed right out". Early in the meeting, one of the NT, made a comment about needing to get back to public meetings........wow, that fell on deaf ears !!!!!

Boat launch....while it is a important issue, it is not a NOF item....should be put on back burner, until NOF process is completed.....IMO
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 10:36 AM

Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
04/06/2022

NOF is about fish!!!!! Well, only SALMON, No steelhead, no sturgeon!!!!!

I tuned in to the Willapa NOF, last night, same members of the public and NT speaking. SOS as most meetings related to this process since I started going in about 2012.

There were 5 or 6 proposals, from the general public or NT. NOF, in Willapa, has been a battle ground every since I can remember. WDFW was asked if they had any comments on the models or IF THEY HAD A PROPOSAL, WDFW pretended to act like they weren't ready with comments one way or the other AND they weren't prepared with any State model. Let's see if GH is any different.

Oh, meeting lasted from 6 - 7:30, when no more hands were raised....WDFW "zoomed right out". Early in the meeting, one of the NT, made a comment about needing to get back to public meetings........wow, that fell on deaf ears !!!!!

Boat launch....while it is a important issue, it is not a NOF item....should be put on back burner, until NOF process is completed.....IMO


Well, I have to disagree with the last bit, if we don't keep their feet to the fire on funding they will let this slide as long as possible and then actual work will not happen anytime soon. NOF will happen regardless. Maybe they CAN walk and chew gum at the same time, let's find out!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 10:39 AM

The boat launches are not part of harvest management but another division. Also it was a young man who does not work for WDFW ( or did not ) that got the grant for the improvements back a bit not R 6 staff. Also it is rather simple to get the launch functioning short term, long term I doubt it survives.

Just guessing looking at numbers one could go August 1 jacks / release Chinook and adult Coho, August 15 add retain adult Coho release Chinook through Dec 15 and shut down. The Hoquiam, Wishkah, and Wynoochee need to be protected and limited impacts for failing to even get close to escapement for many years.

As to after Dec 15 the combination of fishing pressures have damn near destroyed the wild Late Coho and nobody should be fishing below Fuller Hill after Dec 15. Sure the QIN impacts have been a major reason with the phony Steelhead season in Dec but remember it was the state under old WDG that created this mess and WDFW in its wisdom made it even worse with hatchery changes.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 12:12 PM

04/06/2022

WDFW is well aware of the Monty launch..... It is usable now, not like it was before that last high water, but it would sure work for the many persons that fish out of Westport and stop on way home to flush the motors out.

In the "old days", people parked to the West side of the bridge and even under the bridge itself, but then people parking all the way to the hi way, when fishing derbies were a yearly thing.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
The boat launches are not part of harvest management but another division. Also it was a young man who does not work for WDFW ( or did not ) that got the grant for the improvements back a bit not R 6 staff. Also it is rather simple to get the launch functioning short term, long term I doubt it survives.

Just guessing looking at numbers one could go August 1 jacks / release Chinook and adult Coho, August 15 add retain adult Coho release Chinook through Dec 15 and shut down. The Hoquiam, Wishkah, and Wynoochee need to be protected and limited impacts for failing to even get close to escapement for many years.

As to after Dec 15 the combination of fishing pressures have damn near destroyed the wild Late Coho and nobody should be fishing below Fuller Hill after Dec 15. Sure the QIN impacts have been a major reason with the phony Steelhead season in Dec but remember it was the state under old WDG that created this mess and WDFW in its wisdom made it even worse with hatchery changes.


Actually the "young man" who wrote the grant application for the Monte launch WAS an employee of WDFW, he retired last year and I got that fact from his boss.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 05:58 PM

No idea Bob as I only talked to the guy once but it was in the paper and several folks locally supported the grant app in writing.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/06/22 07:38 PM

I'm not surprised it was publicly supported, it was a win for the community.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/22 07:13 AM

Well, I went and got sick last night and forgot all about the meeting. What did I miss?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/22 07:30 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Well, I went and got sick last night and forgot all about the meeting. What did I miss?


The state recorded it, I'd suggest looking that up rather then get someone's personal condensation and perspective on what was said.
Posted by: dwatkins

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/22 12:44 PM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Well, I went and got sick last night and forgot all about the meeting. What did I miss?


The state recorded it, I'd suggest looking that up rather then get someone's personal condensation and perspective on what was said.


Condensation? Better check your vocabulary.

But glad you attend the meetings I guess.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/07/22 12:54 PM

Another comment from someone I truly love ignoring. What? No dark side has you bored again? Go back under the rock you crawled out of.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/08/22 07:36 AM

Originally Posted By: bobrr
Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Well, I went and got sick last night and forgot all about the meeting. What did I miss?


The state recorded it, I'd suggest looking that up rather then get someone's personal condensation and perspective on what was said.
I have no interest in anyone's personal condensation issues. I recommend a good anti-perspirant for that.

I guess I was hoping for discussion; you know, the kind we have on FORUMS..... I see there's another thread on NOF. Maybe there's no grumpy, old troll guarding that thread and people are permitted to have discourse.....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/08/22 08:02 AM

The materials used for the zoom meeting are posted and here is the link.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calenda...ublic-meeting-0


This is a link to the Region 6 presentation to the Commission on 2022 proposals.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/...02022_Final.pdf
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/08/22 08:07 AM

What about the discussion above where you actually had some good points and I quoted you and commented. I said NOTHING negative about you and actually agreed with you. Are you so brain dead that you forgot it already? You contribute more then the dickwads I have on ignore, why play the darkside game of posting outright lies (unless of course that's all you have to offer)?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/08/22 08:27 AM

Hey guys why don't you all chill out a bit as your personal differences are yours and just PM your insults back and forth. I doubt that anyone cares to read a pissing match between grown adults acting like four year old kids.

The links I posted up have all the information one needs and is pretty straight forward.
Posted by: GoPro Hero

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/08/22 04:38 PM

The back and forth squabbling is not productive bro. We fishermen need to be unified if we want to make a difference. Look how the commercials and the tribes always get what they want. Some of you need to chill a bit and get out fishing. We got so many good fishing opportunities so get out there and fish!
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/08/22 06:27 PM

Not sure how I feel about tinkering with the penalty box restrictions. One one hand I definitely like a more liberal season, but if history repeats itself then not sticking to it will mean that it's now ok to not follow the agreement. We all have seen the abuse of seasons crafted around "100 paper kings" in the bay.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/22 05:25 AM

Originally Posted By: bobbr
Not sure how I feel about tinkering with the penalty box restrictions. One one hand I definitely like a more liberal season, but if history repeats itself then not sticking to it will mean that it's now ok to not follow the agreement. We all have seen the abuse of seasons crafted around "100 paper kings" in the bay.


Agreed. Spending tens of millions on habitat projects to increase available spawning habitat doesn't seem to square with reducing escapement goals to allow for more harvest.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/22 06:03 AM

Since my name on this forum has been hijacked by a person harassing me on this site that I have on ignore (see 2nd post above) , by bobbr, to avoid confusion I won't be posting anymore until Parker (the moderator) deals with this P.O.S. If it's not taken care of I won't be posting again, a relief for some, I guess, until it happens to them. Bob
Posted by: Flatbrim Pescador

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/22 09:41 AM

JTFC bobberino if that is all it takes to get rid of your whining, he should have done it long ago.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 08:54 AM

With the rumor mill alive and well regarding just exactly what came out of the Commission meeting discussion concerning Grays Harbor I e-mailed staff and they provided the following information. Also I previously posted links to the staff presentation to the Commission and that is all I know at the present.

To the question of lack of protection for the tidewater tribs performing well below escapement in recent years the D model shows two fish Rec Coho. Have to wait and see if some sanity arrives but I am not holding my breath as it appears most are in the "I want to kill a fish mode" at the present. Link to information. https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/...02022_Final.pdf

FROM STAFF:

Morning ,

We are still in negotiation with the co-managers concerning GH commercial seasons, so no updated models at this time. The sport season in the model you attached is most likely the season moving forward.

We didn’t actually present a model to the Fish Committee, we presented and talked about the range of impacts from the original model runs, A-C. I hadn’t developed model D yet when we originally started preparation for the presentation. So, the Commission granted us permission to develop a package that basically doesn’t exceed 20%, I think that was the impact on Chehalis Coho from model A. When we finalize agreement with QIN, we will make sure to get it distributed as soon as possible.


MODEL D REC SEASONS:


Model 2 - NT Comm 2A/D 3-Wk 44, 2-Wk 45, 2C 4-Wk 43, 2-44; FW 1 fish Chehalis (FRAM 2124a)
Fishery Description
Sport
Marine 2.2 Dates Bag Limit
Area 2D only Sept 16-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: release Chinook (east of 2B only)
Area 2C only Aug 1-Sept 15 1 Adult bag: release wild Coho

Chehalis River Mouth to Hwy 6 No spring Chinook fishery
Chehalis River Mouth to South Elma Bridge Aug 1-Sept 15 : Release adult salmon
Chehalis river mouth to Fuller Bridge Sept 16-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Chehalis river mouth to Fuller Bridge Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Chehalis river mouth to Fuller Bridge Dec 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook and adult wild coho
Chehalis River Fuller Bridge up to High Bridge Oct 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Chehalis River Fuller Bridge up to High Bridge Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Chehalis River Fuller Bridge up to High Bridge Dec 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook and adult wild coho

Hoquiam Oct 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Wishkah Oct 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook

Wynoochee Oct 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Satsop Oct 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook

Black River Oct 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Skookumchuck Oct 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook

Newaukum Oct 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Elk and Johns Oct. 1-Dec 31 2 Adult bag: Release Chinook
1 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Humptulips River FW Sept. 1-Sept 30 2 Adult bag: release wild Coho
Oct. 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: 1 may be Chinook, release wild Chinook and wild Coho
Nov 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release adult Chinook and wild Coho



Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 10:34 AM

110,000 paper Coho. Gonna be some FAT cutthroats on some of those tribs. Hoping the run materializes to somewhat justify keeping two fish, although I really agree with you regarding the lower tribs. I’m of the opinion that we should let these fish get to the gravel and hopefully see the results 3-4 years from now. Why manage to the minimum? Never know if there’s gonna be major flood events in January and February that destroy the redds and smother the eggs.

Keeping my fingers crossed for one fish bag, but only on the tribs that can handle it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 11:19 AM

The Rec season outlined above is Model D which is what staff was referring to.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 11:36 AM

As one looks at management and numbers it must be remembered that the agreed-to structure since Boldt is that a single fish above the escapement goal is wastage. Two would be catastrophic.

Fisheries have been opened to take less than 10 harvestable fish. There was one time when it was identified that the NI side had less than 100 Chinook left. It was suggested to the local tribes that these fish just be passed through to escapement. Their response was that they would catch them. Basically, there was (and probably still isn't) the will to leave a buffer above the identified goal.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 11:39 AM

(Responding to Rivrguy)

Right. It still surprises me that they are willing to overlook the low spawning numbers on the Nooch and other lower river tributaries, to allow a retention fishery. From my personal experience, I last fished the Nooch for Coho in 2020, and while I caught fish, it certainly wasn't red hot fishing like the Satsop or Hump. The department must know this. Why push these populations even closer to the brink when there are other rivers with large numbers of hatchery fish or healthier wild populations? Honest question. Does it have something to do with "opportunity"?
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 11:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
As one looks at management and numbers it must be remembered that the agreed-to structure since Boldt is that a single fish above the escapement goal is wastage. Two would be catastrophic.

Fisheries have been opened to take less than 10 harvestable fish. There was one time when it was identified that the NI side had less than 100 Chinook left. It was suggested to the local tribes that these fish just be passed through to escapement. Their response was that they would catch them. Basically, there was (and probably still isn't) the will to leave a buffer above the identified goal.


Jesus... managing to the minimum... Playing devil's advocate, is there any potential justification for this? i.e. too many juveniles over-consuming what the river can support?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 12:20 PM

Well now story time. Once years back Ron Warren says we got XXX chum left and Doc and Recs said let them go to the gravel but Allen says we will take them . NT Commercials did just that. So it is the escapement goal that is the floor and in the Commission presentation by staff is a look at forecast / harvest / escapement for 5 years. ( I think with out looking ) Take a look and explain how any damn body can say that we do not have a harvest problem. It is really ugly in the marine when the forecast is wrong as they harvest and extend harvest time until they reach the all powerful mystical harvest quota.

Nothing in the entire NOF or post Boldt fisheries is about the fish and conservation! I mean look at this year with streams on the ropes for years and a OK forecast but not great and the many who shouted out conservation for many years now look like starving dogs and a 2 lb roast.

The only and honest answer on how to fix it is simple. The harvest rate applied to the Chehalis Basin by BOTH of the co-managers is to high. That simple / complex and the harvest rate must be reduced or the decline will continue.

How do I know you ask? Just look at Late Coho and Steelhead and both WDFW and Tribes saw that disaster coming did noting until they damn near destroyed the wild Steelhead runs. This not brain surgery but simple observation. Fisheries management is one of the few things where failure to make objectives is an acceptable outcome.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 12:44 PM

Gotcha. Makes sense with the escapement goal being the problem. You'd think policy-makers would've learned through many other examples that endless consumption might not be the best way to do things. Timber, oil, fisheries, hunting. I don't understand how populations of other animals can be managed to improve numbers, yet fish can't. Deer, ducks, many other animals have made gigantic comebacks over the last century, yet we're failing with fish. I understand we can only control the ocean so much, but fishing up to and through goals by commercial and rec fleets doesn't seem smart.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 04:50 PM

Im sure we won't be fishing after Nov 30th..
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 05:35 PM

That’s my assumption as well.
Posted by: Misguided

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 05:38 PM

Here's another model that will surely be filled in the trash can, close the entire Chehalis basin for 4 years, tribes too.
Fix the problem, not stringing it out until ESA or extinction.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/22 06:34 PM

Sad, because there’s honestly more support for that than they want to believe. Problem is, that would need to include Alaskan and BC fisheries too. Always have wanted to know how many of our fish get caught up there. If only each state or each major system had their own identifying mark. Missing adipose, left pectoral, right pectoral, left or right ventral could each identify Washington fish, Oregon fish, puget sound fish, Olympia fish, etc. would be interesting to see.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/22 11:36 AM


Does anyone know exactly how these two items are going to be accomplished ? I know what the words say but not the process. My first reaction is what tools?


FROM WDFW PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION:

WDFW and Quinault Nation have developed an in-season monitoring tool used to evaluate the abundance of the current year’s coho return. Evaluating the catch per effort during the Quinault Nation fishery has shown a close relationship to final escapement for coho in the Chehalis basin. WDFW will utilize this tool in 2022 to monitor the progress of the Chehalis coho return and adjust fisheries, as needed, if the return does not look like it will achieve preseason objectives.

WDFW will implement a fishery monitoring plan to evaluate effort and catch during WDFW sport fisheries. This is a new tool available to Grays Harbor fisheries this fall and will provide information needed to implement adaptive management actions if needed, as provided in the Adaptive Management section of the policy.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/22 12:09 PM

The fact that they’re looking hard at in-season monitoring makes it seem like a two fish bag is assured. That way they can reduce if needed. Hard to picture the department utilizing in-season monitoring to increase limits.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/22 01:49 PM

Yup got that...............so exactly what are the new tools? Different colored ink?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/22 02:31 PM

I talked with some of the managers from way back and the used to do in-season updates all the time, just like in Puget Sound. New tool? Nah, just nobody reads history.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/22 03:34 PM

Creel based or commercial reports?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/22 04:30 PM

The updates used for salmon are generally based on commercial fish ticket data; required of all sales from fisherman to dealer.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/22 05:26 PM

The tribal catch thing I get and we used it with the model to get a feel for things be it a bit late due to tribal catch reports lagging. Monitoring Rec has been done with creel census for years it is the new tool referenced that I find puzzling.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/22 05:51 PM

I’ve heard sonar floated quite a bit recently for Steelhead. MAYBE?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/22 07:01 PM

Problem with sonar is that it counts everything that passes; doesn't ID fish. We rarely have a 100% clean passage.

Again, way back when, dealers were required to report sales rapidly. WDF had samplers who examined and summarized tickets daily. We had 95 (goal) to 99% of a day's catch within 3 days of the fishery. Co-management has allowed that to slip to where I saw some fisheries unreported months after they occurred.

But, managing by auto-pilot is cheaper, requires fewer changes, etc.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/22 04:44 AM

Only other thing I could think of is maybe a reporting system for guides but that would only work once the bulk of the fish are in the tributaries. Would require all guides to be honest as well. Not gonna happen.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/22 06:43 AM

Any reporting syestem requires honesty. And in my experience, but this back a few decades, let's just say that if every fisher person (rec, commercial I, NI, BC, AK, illegals) made an accurate report of when, where, and how many of each species was killed we would be amazed at the total number.

Thinks of that when you complain about how poorly the managers manage. They can only use the information provided by the people who actually catch the fish. The old garbage-in garbage out applies.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/22 07:26 AM

Agreed. I’m not at all complaining about how it’s managed relating to data.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/22 08:44 AM

Rivrguy,

From what you posted above, it looks like the "new" tool is QIN coho CPUE during specific statistical weeks. Call me skeptical, but there is generally too much variability in small fisheries - and all of GH combined is small these days - for any correlation to be very accurate or consistently accurate. We used to do this all the time on the larger Skagit and get R-squared values like 0.5, 0.6, when any value less than 0.9 is statistically weak. WDFW can use this tool, and they will get a number, but that doesn't mean the number will even be close to accurate.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/22 09:15 AM

THX SG that helps and if your correct then I don't know comes to mind. GH is rain driven and depending on flows fall salmon can start moving in numbers as early as august (high flows) or as late as mid Nov (dry or drought years). I can see how the QIN numbers can be helpful but the major movements can be before or after the tribal seasons and are many years. I remember a couple of years early 90's that the movement was not until 3rd week of Nov and it was about half colored fish and half right out of the ocean. Took me by surprise we went from a couple hundred Coho on hand to nearly 10k in one night before we closed the trap! Bloody near rolled the herd when the DO nearly bottomed out.

I e-mailed staff requesting clarification and I will post it up when I get a response.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/22 10:17 AM

04/13/2022

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Problem with sonar is that it counts everything that passes; doesn't ID fish. We rarely have a 100% clean passage.

Again, way back when, dealers were required to report sales rapidly. WDF had samplers who examined and summarized tickets daily. We had 95 (goal) to 99% of a day's catch within 3 days of the fishery. Co-management has allowed that to slip to where I saw some fisheries unreported months after they occurred.

But, managing by auto-pilot is cheaper, requires fewer changes, etc.


Rivrguy and I go "round and round" on this. If you want a "quick idea of fish movement", then sonar seems to be the way to go.

If you want species of fish, hatchery/wild, fresh/colored up, then as they are going to the fish buyer or in the fish house would be the best way to go. We are know that with technology the way it is today, WDFW could have a complete, current, trend on what is happening when a active netting schedule is taking place. Yes, there would have to be "WDFW personnel at the buyer site or in the fish house" but this would be the most accurate way to go.

It would take WDFW and the tribes to buy into, "quick reporting" and for WDFW personnel to work different schedules, to be available when the fish were at the buyer or in fish house. As Co-managers of the resources, the trust factor should be there!!!!

I just got a IPhone 13 Pro, its amazing what is possible to do. From fish buyer or fish house, numbers should be at, lets say, Region 6 Office in Montesano, in minutes. Granted, there would have to be a person in Montesano to tally all the data but could go far in "quick, in season, management"!!!!

Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/22 11:42 AM

I did a lot of those updates and the r-squareds we used were much higher, in the .8s to .9s. But, regardless of the r-squareds, we used the number that, when we looked back after the season, was more accurate. If the forecast was more accurate (closer to the actual run size) we were more confident in it. If the updates were more accurate (in the past) we used that. Accuracy was most important. In looking at about a decade's worth of performance in PS, the last update of the season was almost always way more accurate than the forecast.

The risk of using updates is that they are performed in the terminal areas. Consrvation closures at that point fall heavily on the tribes (the last last really big fishery) and in-river sports. This was the reason for Hoh v. Baldridge as the conservation burden was borne almost entirely by the terminal Tribes.

As Drifter noted, we have the technology to get the catch data into one central spot way faster than we used to do it. It would cost staff time. And, the pessimist in me says, it would open the door to direct in-season management for conservation and even allocation. This would still be unpopular with the Tribes as the "outside" fisheries will always get their fish while the inside guys only get them if they are available (if we update). If we don't update, everybody (except the gravel) gets their fish.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/22 12:24 PM

04/13/2022

I listened to the taped meeting when Grays Harbor was the topic on the "hot seat".

I got the feeling that not all Commission members were up to date on items like 3 out of 5, 5% impact and not really just how many voted which way.

WDFW got some extra $$$$$$$ to spent on a "new tool".....while it might be a new tool for many in WDFW management NOW, I believe it to be the same "tool" used in the late 70's and 80's.

Grays Harbor had personnel at boat launches....when you got to the launch the questions started, catch any fish?, release any fish?, see many caught? Did you lose any fish? and I'm sure there were others.

If you caught fish, then they wanted to "wand" the fish, to see if wire coded....IF IT WAS wired coded, then you were asked if the head could be cut so research could be done off the wire code. At some point you were told that the head would be entered in a drawing......I did allow them to take some of the heads....AND I DID GET a winner, lol, $75.00.

I don't know the ages of all WDFW upper management people but some might not have even been born......so for them it could be the New Tool??????
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/22 12:53 PM

Close, Drifter. Back then, folks started at the bottom (sampler, spawner surveyor, etc.) and worked their way up to leadership. Now, they bring in administrators and upper level bios from outside. Consequently, there is an almost complete lack of institutional memory; nobody remembers what used to be done.

Add to that the local stakeholders who do remember and know what at least used to be possible..........
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/15/22 06:18 AM

Sonar in GH can count fish as done in Alaska and other places the problem is that we flood which really limits any location. Sonar cannot tell you which fish species it is counting as three salmon species can and are likely are present at the same time in GH. While information like 1000 fish went through yesterday is interesting it is particularly useless in GH because of the three species being present at the same time. Add to that is the fact that Nov river conditions would make it nearly impossible keep a sonar operational with mud & debris. It can and should be used where the streams and run timing permit but Grays Harbor isn't it.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/15/22 06:37 AM

That makes sense. That said, I’m really hoping for better fishing conditions this November. October was great for conditions, although it led to a lot of stagnant fish and not a lot of fresh movers in my experience. Only made it out twice in November, and then the early shutdown of course.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/15/22 06:45 AM

An interesting problem that used to occur with sonar is that it counts fish passage but not direction. On the Fraser one year, the sockeye went up and down a lot, resulting in on overestimate of the run by 750,000... Out of about 10,000,000 that wasn't too bad but led to some late season adventures. Like a purse seine fishery that took 750K in 4 hours......
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/15/22 02:37 PM

Let's all be optimistic that the "new tool" is something good. The "old way" doesn't work great so it's not like we're giving up a proven accuracy.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/22 09:16 AM

This came from R6 with a model attached. Long and short the combined seasons have Chinook NOT making escapement and Chum just barely. The Chinook it is the the QIN with over 3,000 that is the driver and Chum both NT & Tribal but models out 238 above escapement. If these go forward we have a good chance not making escapement in two of three the fall salmon runs.

Link: https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calenda...-public-meeting

To Grays Harbor salmon fishery interests:

A friendly reminder of the combined Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay salmon fisheries discussion will be held next week. Please see the information below for the date and time, if you have not registered for the meeting, click the “Join Zoom webinar” link.


TUESDAY, APRIL 19
Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay fisheries discussion
Post NOF review of the outcome of regulations and schedules for the 2022-23 fishing season.
Join a public meeting:
6-8 p.m.
Join Zoom webinar
Visit our calendar event listing for additional details.
Also, for your information, please see the link to the Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay season summaries and agreed fisheries: Season summaries and agreed fisheries | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

The attached excel file is the planning model that was used to develop the salmon fishery package.

Enjoy the weekend and hope you can make next week’s meeting.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/22 03:10 PM

Were I a betting man my money is that none of the 3 species will make goal.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/22 04:57 AM

Wouldn’t be shocked either, carcass. If Coho fail to make it, that’ll provide even more ammunition to the conservation-minded approach to next years NOF talks. The two-fish non-selective still irks me. Never know if we’ll get a major rain event or three in December-February that smother out all the eggs from the “big” Coho run.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/22 08:09 AM


In the presentation to the Commission Region 6 put forth the two items below and frankly kinda confused some, myself included. So I was asked to see if I could get clarification and I asked staff for just that.

From Commission briefing:

WDFW and Quinault Nation have developed an in-season monitoring tool used to evaluate the abundance of the current year’s coho return. Evaluating the catch per effort during the Quinault Nation fishery has shown a close relationship to final escapement for coho in the Chehalis basin. WDFW will utilize this tool in 2022 to monitor the progress of the Chehalis coho return and adjust fisheries, as needed, if the return does not look like it will achieve preseason objectives.

WDFW will implement a fishery monitoring plan to evaluate effort and catch during WDFW sport fisheries. This is a new tool available to Grays Harbor fisheries this fall and will provide information needed to implement adaptive management actions if needed, as provided in the Adaptive Management section of the policy.

Staff Clarification:

Forgot and your email got moved down below my screen. What we are talking about is the moneys we received to monitor freshwater areas in the Chehalis basin that was discussed in the earlier public meetings. These are funds that haven’t been provided for in the past, but we will be able to put up to four freshwater fishery monitoring techs out on the Satsop, Chehalis, and a few other places this fall to collect coded-wire-tags, mark rates, and data needed to evaluate catch per unit effort. We won’t be doing harvest estimates this fall, that would require a bunch more effort and money, and a justification. It’s the same work was we are doing in the Humptulips, collecting enough data we understand the progress of the fishery. We will also use QIN commercial data to monitor the coho run. This is not a new method, we used this in 2015 to evaluate the returns in-season and those data helped to make the decision to close fisheries early that year. The forecasted runsize in 2015 was over 100k, but only 28k returned. These are the things that are within the Commission briefing. If you want to chat more about this, please give me a call.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/22 08:59 AM

So I did call and the explanation previously posted captures things best one can with the information available.

That said I asked why a two fish Coho bag on tributary streams that continuously failing to make escapement. Trying not to screw up a boiled down explanation here we go. The QIN manage to aggregate of Grays Harbor streams and WDFW manages the Humptulips and Chehalis separately but to the aggregate of each separately. WDFW on the Chehalis Basin manages Rec seasons and bag limits that are the same based on the basin aggregate. This was not always the case but Rec users had continuously objected to the seasons in the regulations pamphlet being to difficult to understand so Region 6 simplified the regulations by using a standard bag limit. Run timing and extraordinary circumstance do create variations such as opening dates.

Frankly I do not doubt that this is the case as I have sat through meetings listening the that very thing. I think maybe the current cure may be liked by those main desire is to kill a fish but coming from the fish point of view this approach is just plain nuts. We going to have a two fish bag on the Wynoochee that has been as low as 20% of escapement and the basin escapement has to be around 250% to 300% ABOVE the basin aggregate escapement goal for it to reach escapement numbers which it has done only 3 times in 20 years. It is true with the tributaries below Fuller Hill with the Satsop hanging out at about 50% of escapement. The thing is when you take a stream down to 20% escapement then on good years make escapement you are not going to get a full seeding of the streams reaches as the fish will mostly return to the spawning reaches they came from. Over time full seeding can be achieved for depleted streams if managed to escapement but not with this starve the stream of spawners then flood the stream with spawners. If one gets the feeling of a Yogi Berra moment ("Déjà vu all over again") thinking Steelhead my gut says your right. Intended or not the current process for bag limits ( Rec & Commercial ) are resulting strikingly similar results that happened to Steelhead and native Late Coho. Again this is nuts but enjoy as I will but I am an old guy. You guys younger and much younger enjoy also because into the future as in Steelhead your butts are going to be off the water as this thing cannot go on forever.



Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/22 12:10 PM

This is the last of the NOF meetings I think.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calenda...-public-meeting

Hi Everyone,

Tonight, we have our last North of Falcon meeting prior to filing the proposed fishery packages for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. This meeting is scheduled from 6 p.m. – 8 p.m. via Zoom.

We wanted to share the meeting presentation and a few Grays Harbor documents prior to tonight’s meeting. During the meeting tonight, we will review the proposed modeled fishery packages for both Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor that were the outcome of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) meeting last week relative to our 2022 management objectives for each harbor.

If you are interested in joining the discussion at tonight’s meeting, please use this link to register Webinar Registration - Zoom. You must register in advance to attend this meeting. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information on how to join the meeting. Documents will be posted to our website and can be found at Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Fisheries: North of Falcon Public Meeting | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife.

Thank you and hope to hear from you tonight.


Additional links:&#8239;
If you are interested in providing your comments for any statewide fisheries for the NOF process, please see our website at Public input | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
If there is anyone who is interested in being added to our distribution list for Grays Harbor, please have them email us at graysharbor@dfw.wa.gov.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/22 12:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
So I did call and the explanation previously posted captures things best one can with the information available.

That said I asked why a two fish Coho bag on tributary streams that continuously failing to make escapement. Trying not to screw up a boiled down explanation here we go. The QIN manage to aggregate of Grays Harbor streams and WDFW manages the Humptulips and Chehalis separately but to the aggregate of each separately. WDFW on the Chehalis Basin manages Rec seasons and bag limits that are the same based on the basin aggregate. This was not always the case but Rec users had continuously objected to the seasons in the regulations pamphlet being to difficult to understand so Region 6 simplified the regulations by using a standard bag limit. Run timing and extraordinary circumstance do create variations such as opening dates.

Frankly I do not doubt that this is the case as I have sat through meetings listening the that very thing. I think maybe the current cure may be liked by those main desire is to kill a fish but coming from the fish point of view this approach is just plain nuts. We going to have a two fish bag on the Wynoochee that has been as low as 20% of escapement and the basin escapement has to be around 250% to 300% ABOVE the basin aggregate escapement goal for it to reach escapement numbers which it has done only 3 times in 20 years. It is true with the tributaries below Fuller Hill with the Satsop hanging out at about 50% of escapement. The thing is when you take a stream down to 20% escapement then on good years make escapement you are not going to get a full seeding of the streams reaches as the fish will mostly return to the spawning reaches they came from. Over time full seeding can be achieved for depleted streams if managed to escapement but not with this starve the stream of spawners then flood the stream with spawners. If one gets the feeling of a Yogi Berra moment ("Déjà vu all over again") thinking Steelhead my gut says your right. Intended or not the current process for bag limits ( Rec & Commercial ) are resulting strikingly similar results that happened to Steelhead and native Late Coho. Again this is nuts but enjoy as I will but I am an old guy. You guys younger and much younger enjoy also because into the future as in Steelhead your butts are going to be off the water as this thing cannot go on forever.





Terrible feeling of inevitability to all of this...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/22 12:42 PM

Neil R6 just sent out the information on tonight's meeting. Look to the attachment for the QIN and NT Commercial and you will see that to put in a day for the NT Commercials and you will see in week 43 they will violate the 4/3 clause which is three days net free in a calendar week by shifting one day into week 44. Now you do technically get 3 days in a row net free but one day is in another week. 4/3 was specifically designed to insure that did not happen.

This is what happens when I want to kill a fish takes priority over the GH Policy and conservation is put in a dumpster.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/22 01:29 PM

I didn’t receive that, could you send it to me? Do I just email them to get on the list?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/22 01:30 PM

Yes just email Mike or Kim and they will add you to the mail out list.

Will do on forward and it is off but let me know if you do not get it.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/19/22 02:05 PM

Got it, thanks. Responded by email.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 06:45 AM

Anyone know when the final escapement numbers for GH are released and how we go about getting them?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 06:49 AM

2021 had a return around 60k on Coho but Chinook fell short of escapement and Chum made it I think.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 08:19 AM

Well NOF is done and update time. First up the ZOOM thing stinks up the place as whoever is managing it is still manipulating things to manage participation. This time I even requested time at the end to address a couple of things to Mr. Losee and as the Willapa bit finished up with 40 minutes left zip shut it down. They really don’t want to have any in depth look at things is my thought. Thing is I wanted to compliment Mr. Losee on something but looking back now that might have been a bit premature line of thought.

So why is this important? Well in the model I noticed that the Chinook were modeled to NOT make escapement. The answer to the question is important and Mac & Jim you were right as it does appear that something is going on. As I understand it when the QIN went through the process and got the Chehalis Chinook escapement goal reduced to 9753 there was something else in the document. The manner that wild spawners are counted was also changed to the allow the co-managers to count any fish spawning in the gravel as natural spawners but was not used until this year. This means a hatchery stray or broodstocked spawning in the gravel is counted as part of the wild spawn. So the WDFW model shows 8967 wild escapements but the QIN numbers are 10,418 wild. In other words the QIN and WDFW are counting fish differently. This was not the case until this year is my understanding.

Why is a good question and it is the Coho run size. Just like the Rec & NT Commercials throwing conservation overboard wanting expanded Coho harvest the QIN needed the extra Chinook impacts to get at the Coho. My bet is we miss Chinook and Chum escapement this year but it is dead Coho on everyone’s top ten. I have attached the model for everyone along with a spread sheet the shows the massive failures on escapement for the last ten years. So Mac your worse fears were true this harvest process is a mess.

For Recs it will be a two fish limit release Chinook with a little variation around jacks. To accomplish this the 3/5 5% limiter was stood down as was the three net free days. On the net free days the GHMP requires it be in a calendar week but to shoehorn a NT Commercial day it staff placed one day in another week. I objected but a NT Commercial put forth that the Commission authorized this but have since found out he was …ah miss informed but others use different words to describe putting false information out. So the GHMP was manipulated to allow wide open Coho harvest by us NT fishers and the QIN took advantage of something that few knew was allowed to increase the Coho catch. This whole thing is like watching starving dogs fight over a 2 lb. pot roast and it is not pretty. I am of the opinion that in the wild feeding frenzy I doubt conservation not of Coho but Chinook and Chum was even a thought for second.

Little edit: Last year we failed to make Chinook escapement, Coho were well above as were Chum coming in at 48,458

Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 09:11 AM

The thing that really concerns me is the whole managing the Chehalis as an aggregate. While that’s great for an overall look at the health of the system, the Department’s willingness to do so in order to “simplify”, in their words, the regulations, is total [Bleeeeep!]. If reading the regulations, and seeing ”Hoquiam River: CLOSED to fishing for Salmon. Wynoochee River: CLOSED to fishing for Salmon” is too confusing for you... “You’ve got bigger problems” would be a nice way to put it. We don’t need you on the rivers.

They’re able to manage rivers individually for Chinook, why can’t they for Coho, especially on the lower Chehalis tribs without hatchery supplementation that are annually struggling to make even 50% escapement. Strikes me as a lazy effort by the Department.

We’re annually carried as a basin by the upper tributaries, many of which are closed to fishing for salmon. I’m old enough to know that EVENTUALLY those rivers that are carrying us now will struggle, and it’d be nice to have healthier lower tribs that could carry us WHEN, not if, that happens. We don’t get there by keeping our collective boot on their neck on these “big” returns.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 10:47 AM

If you managed the tribs separately you would end up shutting down the ocean for conservation. See how PS is constrained for Stilly Chinook.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 11:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
If you managed the tribs separately you would end up shutting down the ocean for conservation. See how PS is constrained for Stilly Chinook.


How are they able to do it with Chinook and not Coho? No Chinook retention on Satsop, Nooch, Hoquiam etc due to low escapement.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 11:17 AM

04/20/2022

NOF is done for another year. I expect the vast amount of fishers will think it could be a great year.

I can't even image the amount of boats being in line to launch at Johns River, Hoquiam, 28th Street, Cosie, Friends Landing, Montesano, Fuller, probably Westport. Temperatures have been known to "sky rocket" with persons that can't back a trailer or want to get gear in the boat while on the launch itself. Be prepared for limited parking space at South Montesano.

Wynoochee------ can't make escapement, well who's fault it that????? 2 gill net fisheries, a river bank fishery that has grown in past 20 years, a boat fishery from John's River to Cosie that went from zero to what it is today.

Federal monies available for a hatchery below the Dam, mid 70's, fight between user groups, so Feds took monies back and spent on war effort, how'd that work out?

2nd chance to increase Coho and steelhead, about 1992, known as Wynoochee Mitigation, has that gone ??????? no where, 30+ years still not 1 fish has been placed in the Wynoochee, and then they don't even want to "fin clip" the Coho so even if we did "have a hatchery only Coho fishery", there would be no way to tell a Native from a hatchery, yea I know the fish would be wire coded but well...grrrrrr

Wynoochee problems.....to many user groups fishing on Wynoochee bound fish and then most of the fish are trucked above the dam and expected to spawn in above 4 miles of river AND THEN COMPETE WITH ALL THE STEELHEAD that are also trucked above the dam.

QIN wanted a hatchery...... WDFW, who knows????? Lot's of WDFW higher ups, running around with their heads up their butts, still running even today!!!! Grrrrrr
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 12:43 PM

doubt that we will ever see a chinook fisherie again on the chehalis and tribs.. well not in our life time.

did i see right the nooch is closed for even coho this fall?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 01:06 PM

Just so all know the Nooch does not have marked Coho unless one wanders in off the Chehalis. Just sayin.

Wynoochee Oct 1-Oct 31 2 Adult bag: Release adult Chinook
Nov 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook
Dec 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook and wild coho
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 01:42 PM

thanks Dave for that info
Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 02:57 PM

Between co-managers we model a season expecting to miss escapement goals for Chehalis Chinook, Hump Chinook, and Hump coho.

It is actually worse than shown because the model considers most of the pinniped harvest to be escaped fish! In my view about 25% of the fish that impact a net are harvested by pinnipeds. WDFW will tell you with a straight face that the pinniped harvest is included in the net drop out mortality of 3% for Chinook and 2% for coho. We must be planning to stay in the 3/5 penalty box for ever.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 06:13 PM

Slammer, we will probably never see another winter steelhead fishery on the Chehalis and tribs in out lifetime either.
Posted by: Todd

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 06:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Soft bite
We must be planning to stay in the 3/5 penalty box for ever.


Well, it looks like we are ignoring the penalty box this year for coho. Not sure why we even have it.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 06:47 PM

Looks good on paper. An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 07:34 PM

Amazing. Not that all sport fisherman think the way we do, conservation-wise, but it’s almost like we’re more conscious and willing to make sacrifices than the department.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 07:52 PM

no chinook i can live with.. i dont target them anyways.. but no steelhead that hurts!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 08:13 PM

My fear is that today's managers and administration have a higher responsibility to meeting political rather than resource needs. As long as the donors are happy and the voters keep them in office there really is no need to change.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/20/22 08:53 PM

04/20/2022

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
My fear is that today's managers and administration have a higher responsibility to meeting political rather than resource needs. As long as the donors are happy and the voters keep them in office there really is no need to change.


+1 ------- Some very good butt kissers in many levels of WDFW
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 04:52 AM

Even though the Chehalis is managed as an aggregate, what prevents the Department from closing specific rivers due to chronically low escapement? I’m still confused by this, possibly due to being fairly new to all this. Just doesn’t make sense they can do it with Chinook but not Coho.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 05:54 AM

Nothing stops them it is their choice as to what's closed and what is open.

With good reason the state can remove harvest from any stream they choose not to manage that way to keep the howling screeching public (us) off their backs.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 07:11 AM

That’s what I thought. I’m definitely gonna press harder on that in the future. I’m assuming it’s too late now to push for an amendment to close the Nooch, Hoquiam, ones like that with no hatchery supplementation to buffer the impact?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 07:17 AM

They can close them through emergency regulations. Used to do it all the time when harvest was taken and the escapement was seeing protection.

If they close a stream for conservation then it is necessary to close co-occurring fisheries outside the stream that are catching those fish. So, if the rivers are under escaped then there should be no bay openings.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 07:49 AM

I’m not personally fishing several of these rivers, but if anything, I’d like to see a mark-selective regulation for some of them. While it won’t eliminate the impact, it would greatly reduce it just with people choosing not to fish rivers where their only chance to go home with a fish is a stray.

Who could I email with this suggestion besides James Losee?
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 08:04 AM

Mike maybe as well
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 10:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
My fear is that today's managers and administration have a higher responsibility to meeting political rather than resource needs. As long as the donors are happy and the voters keep them in office there really is no need to change.


A fear perhaps, but a true reality for sure. My concern, is that most Wa state fisher- folks are just coming to that realization. Should have seen this coming, as it has been obvious for quite some time...
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 10:32 AM

the biggest thing here is the all mighty $$$$ .. if u have a great yr fish wise and u only give the sports one fish alot of people wont buy a license..

last yr it was a good fish yr six of the dozen or so guys that fish the same place as i do didnt buy a license because of only one fish bag.. state wants the cash and screw the fish!!
Posted by: Flatbrim Pescador

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 12:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
Slammer, we will probably never see another winter steelhead fishery on the Chehalis and tribs in out lifetime either.

Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/22 08:48 PM

04/21/2022

Enough of "picking on the tribs"..... Where do the non-boat fishers have a chance to fish????


Harvest takes place before the fish even get a chance to get to the tributaries.....think of this, Johns River, Hoquiam, 28th Street, Cosie, Friends Landing, Fuller Bridge, even Westport are all sport boat launches that are attacking the fish before the fish get a chance to get to the tributaries.

This year will be the worse.....2 fish bag in the Chehalis River all the way to the head waters....Here they come, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Renton, Kent, etc. Tow rigs, boats....why go to Fish the ocean, just stop at one of the many Chehalis launches, fish, fish, fish.......get'em BEFORE they get to the tributaries.

Then add to the above, 2 gillnet fisheries....QIN knows when to net, NT while not the best timings, have the better knowledge of the rivers but bottom line....chinook allowed, Coho, and of course the chum..... ALL BEFORE ANY FISH GET TO THE TRIBUTARIES.

The "new way" to monitor sport caught fish........ya we all know the "old" punch card is one way, takes about a year and the returned cards are under 50%.

New way, have WDFW hired persons at the boat launches to record responses to questions, How'd the boat do???? Did you release any fish??? Did you lose any fish??? Did you see others catch any fish?????

Is this a new way in Grays Harbor, I don't think so....maybe to the new WDFW management people but that was done lots, same river system. in the 70's, 80's. They can't get in your boat to check.....would people just choose to not answer???? It happens.....LOTS!!!! Just like the punch cards that don't get sent in.....

You want to "limit" tributaries.........close........nope not going there......
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/22 06:48 AM

I am with you, Drifter. I prefer to fish from land, or wading. But, boat fishing pumps more money into the economy.

WA does actually have some rather good fisheries like marine salmon, rockfish, halibut, albacore, kokanee, lowland lakes, walleye; all of which are primarily boat-based. The landlubber is left out.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/22 08:37 AM

04/22/2022

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
I am with you, Drifter. I prefer to fish from land, or wading. But, boat fishing pumps more money into the economy.

WA does actually have some rather good fisheries like marine salmon, rockfish, halibut, albacore, kokanee, lowland lakes, walleye; all of which are primarily boat-based. The landlubber is left out.


I actually have a jet boat, no more walking river banks for me, serious balance problem and old age. Chehalis above South Monty is 95% of my fishing area, NO TRIB fishing in past 5-6 years, has gotten to be too much of a "zoo" for me.

I really feel for the bank fisher, I did 1,000's of hours bank fishing, before I could afford boats, Kent, Redmond, Region 6 waters have my foot prints on many river/stream banks. Access was so good in many of the Region 6 rivers, into the mid 1990's......not very good any more. Actually many walk in bank fishing areas on local rivers, many times have a drift/jet boat sitting there, HOURS before it gets light enough to fish........grrrrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/22 08:48 AM

and I think DW captures the problem and how do solve the problem? The vast majority of Coho harvest takes place in the last of Sept and Oct and is mainstem Chehalis with the Rec numbers supported by the Satsop fishery also. We fish the aggregate of the entire basin for the entire run but harvest the Oct portion based upon the aggregate of the run and the upper basin fish come back a bit later and it is about Nov rains. Simply put the the harvest rate being applied to the tide water tribs is to high, dangerously to high for the fish.

One could safely say that the Late Coho and tidewater tribs situation is much different than Steelhead and it is. That said the mind set of the harvesters and managers IS NOT. Recs / NT / Commercial tribal all want harvest and continuously argue for regardless of the overall health of the stock. This is exactly how Steelhead were driven to the dire straights the fish are in and you still have many Recs bitching about no season.

Oh we will use C&R to compensate is the thought. Well when a natural run is 40% to 50% of escapement is that enough to support a release mortality? If not just what is the number or standard we should use? C&R originally was about harvesting abundant hatchery fish and releasing less abundant wild fish. What about the QIN Dec / Jan Steelhead fishery when few Steelhead are present Late Coho are present?

Simply put harvesters be it tribal or NT fishers have been unwilling to face the facts that if it continues one fish stock at a time we will fall into crisis and it is not if this happens but when. I want to kill a fish is at all cost a very difficult mindset to remove and frankly seldom happens until the damage is done and sometimes the run ceases to exist.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/22 09:10 AM

That policy of favoring boat owners for the sake of economics will eventually contribute to the future reduction of participation in the sport. How many of you started out as a youngster/teenager owning a boat to fish? In my day it started from the bank/shore then progressed with age and lack of physical agility, to a boat. I started out bobber fishing for trout at our local lakes and ponds as an 8yr old. Progressed to plunking the lower Puyallup as a 10 yr old with my Grandpa. Fished Steelhead hard during Christmas and spring breaks. Set the foundation of my future interest in the sport. Was a bank maggot through my teens until learning to row a drift boat @ age 20. Still loved to root around the bank especially small streams. Soon I purchased my own and was happy for years until the crowds became unbearable. At the same time became a power boat hoar for years, going with friends in their boats. Finally age slowed me down and I purchased my own through today.
We have already witnessed the decline in youngins Steelhead participation related to the river closures and other restrictions. Salmon bank fishing the rivers is the last opportunity to keep the interest going. When or if those numbers disappear I fear, we as recs, will lose what leverage we currently have, which isn't much.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/22 12:21 PM

04/22/2022

Originally Posted By: RUNnGUN
T
We have already witnessed the decline in youngins Steelhead participation related to the river closures and other restrictions. Salmon bank fishing the rivers is the last opportunity to keep the interest going. When or if those numbers disappear I fear, we as recs, will lose what leverage we currently have, which isn't much.


I do agree with this. I tried to get my 2 boys on the river as much as possible, but it was one at a time and I was into trolling......both boys caught many adult salmon that way, if I could have a "do over", I'd have spent more time fishing "jacks". My boys are 53 and 50 now so this would have been more than 40+ years ago...WHEN THE SATSOP HATCHERY WAS PUTTING OUT LOTS OF COHO and I'm sure "jacks were there by the 1000's. Now I've been retired since 1997, and can't wait to fish jacks. In all that time, since 1997, I can count on 2 hands the amount of kids or women that are fishing jacks, where I fish.

Wynoochee River, caught waaaaaaaay more than my share of summer run. If there was a young boy or girl that was where I fished and I hooked a fish....I always asked he they wanted to "play the fish"....some did, some didn't but they had the chance....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/25/22 08:10 AM

My Dad, especially as he got older, loved to troll. I found it to be among the most boring ways to spend time. Any time fishing is fine, but for me, time spent fishing from a boat is not often fun or successful. Occasionally. I took my kids fishing in boats, canoes, from shore, and such. They seemed to enjoy it but were more interested in other things.

I may (and some folks here would dispute the "may") be weird, but a small stream with actively feeding fish is Nirvana. Right now, if I were asked where I wanted to go chase fish the list would include Iceland, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Wyoming, Alaska, and California before we even hit something from here. Even then, there are a few places here.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/25/22 08:20 AM

I will go with Costa Rica CM! Been there three times and it is one beautiful place. Very diverse from Gulf coast to Pacific and just plain good place to live or visit. As a sideline it has a substantial community of foreign nationals who agree with "great place to live" especially US retirees.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/25/22 08:56 AM

There are a number of foreign communities in CR. Interesting that the US is here, Canadians there, Italians somewhere else, nice community of Austrians, and so on.

I know a lot of folks who fished the salt and lowlands. I want to fish the lowlands for some of the spiny rays; they are super beautiful. But, I fish for trout, specifically Redband Rainbow that are some of the prettiest I have ever seen. And abundant. Like 20 6-10"+ fish in each pool. They aren't dumb, but an hour's fishing should bring 5-10 to hand. In a nice warm beautiful spot, pretty birds all around, what's not to like.

I know there are some real toads there as I have seen redds that approach normal steelhead size.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/09/22 09:21 AM

Has anyone went to the WDFW website to down load the 2022 fishing regs ? It appears we have a new and improved method! Thoughts?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/26/22 05:59 PM

I thought some of you might follow the rule process and will find everything in the links.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - Notice of Proposed Rule Making

In an effort to reduce unnecessary printing costs and help protect our environment, we are asking those interested in viewing the CR-102 filings for the proposed WAC changes to access it electronically at the following web site, where it can be viewed or downloaded, Current rule-making activity (Rule-making docket) | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

2022 North of Falcon Proposed Rules –
WSR 22-11-087: Coastal Commercial Salmon Seasons –
Willapa Bay salmon fall fishery, WAC 220-354-250
Grays Harbor salmon fall fishery, WAC 220-354-290

WSR 22-11-085: Recreational Salmon Seasons –
WAC 220-312-020, Freshwater exceptions to statewide rule – Coast
WAC 220-312-030, Freshwater exceptions to statewide rule – Southwest
WAC 220-312-040, Freshwater exceptions to statewide rule – Puget Sound
WAC 220-312-060, Freshwater exceptions to statewide rule – Columbia River
WAC 220-313-060, Puget Sound salmon – Saltwater seasons and daily limits
WAC 220-313-070, Coastal salmon – Saltwater seasons and daily limits

A public hearing will be held in accordance with RCW 34.05.325 on June 22, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. by Zoom webinar. The public may participate in the meeting by visiting the WDFW website at https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZYqf-6oqz4tE9eow9BizCL9_x2fBUIO1-Gx. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information on how to join.

In case you are unable to or do not wish to attend the public hearing, you may submit written comments by June 22, 2022 to:

WDFW Rules Coordinator via Email:
Coastal Commercial Fishery Comments: 2022NoFCoastalCommercialCR102@PublicInput.com
Recreational Fishery Comments: 2022NoFRecreationalCR102@PublicInput.com

OR

WDFW Online Website
Coastal Commercial Fishery Comments: https://publicinput.com/2022NoFCoastalCommercialCR102
Recreational Fishery Comments: https://publicinput.com/2022NoFRecreationalCR102

Assistance for persons with disabilities: Contact Title VI/ADA Compliance Coordinator via phone at 360-902-2349, TTY 360-902-2207, or via email at Title6@dfw.wa.gov. If you would like to request accessibility services, please see https://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/requests-accommodation


If you would like an email copy or need a printed copy of the proposed rules, please send a request
to WDFW Rules Coordinator email listed above.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/26/22 07:00 PM

This question is for Rivrguy. Dave is the Twin Harbors Fish + Wildlife Advocacy still in existence? I know your brother was one of the founders. I used to contribute money to them. But I haven't heard anything about them in a long time. I also remember they had a lawsuit(s) against WDFW. Just wondering. Thanks.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/27/22 05:47 AM

Tim is ill and has been in the take care of himself mode. So he has finally retired from consulting and I do not think he wants to put much time in on things WDFW.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/27/22 05:58 AM

Dave, I am so sorry to hear about Tim. Please give him my best. I hope he gets better.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/02/22 06:48 AM

A good friend asked me how was the river this spring? While it sounds like a strange question it really isn’t. Winter sucked from Dec on as temperatures were below average and the wind was something else. Not wild winds but rather 5 to 10 mph almost everyday and none of the smooth as glass thing. This spring until about 10 days ago everything was just plain stunted but has exploded with finally getting temperatures up. Canary grass is growing like crazy now and finally the birds have returned. I have lived on the river for 17 years now and I can say with certainty that this year the river was just plain weird. Cold, wet, windy is a nasty description but fitting for the last few months. It is getting warmer now and the birds are back and I sure missed those guys!

So yup winter and spring sucked at multiple levels and we look to be below average on temperature for another month. It would be nice to have a good summer but the jury is out on that one for a bit.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/14/22 08:13 AM

I thought some of you would find this news letter that is produced by Dave Graybill interesting. Dave (known as the Fishing Magician ) does this news letter and it is about fishing in Eastern Washington. Lots of good info and just contact him to get on his e mail list.

Dave Graybill fishboy@nwi.net

Otherwise guys we are all waiting for the weather pattern of rain and below average temperatures to pass and maybe summer begins, maybe!


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/30/22 05:18 PM


Some have been wondering who the new region 6 Director would be and here he is.

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia, WA 98501
wdfw.wa.gov


June 30, 2022
Contact: Ben Anderson, 360-902-0045
Chris Conklin named WDFW’s Coastal Region director
OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has named Chris Conklin as the new director of its Coastal Region.
Conklin has worked with WDFW since 2013, most recently as deputy director of the Department’s Habitat Program. He began his career with WDFW as a habitat biologist working out of the Coastal Region office in Montesano, before becoming the assistant regional habitat program manager there.

“I’m very excited about the opportunity to return to Montesano and tackle the many diverse opportunities there as well as enjoy the natural beauty found in the region,” Conklin said. “I’ve spent my career working extensively on forestry, habitat restoration, and fish and wildlife conservation issues, and our Coastal Region deals with those same issues every day.”

Conklin will assume his new role beginning July 1. Reporting directly to WDFW Director Kelly Susewind, Conklin will serve as the lead for regional issues in Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce and Thurston counties.

“Chris has shown himself to be a strong advocate for all of our state’s fish and wildlife species, and especially committed to habitat restoration and species recovery, which are critical issues in this biodiverse region,” said WDFW Director Kelly Susewind. “I’m confident that he’ll be a strong leader and effective communicator with the many invested stakeholders of the region.”

Conklin said he looks forward to getting out whenever possible to connect with tribal partners and people in their own communities, to better understand their needs and learn how WDFW can help. He also notes for those wondering that he is a member of #TeamClamShovel.

Before joining WDFW, Conklin worked as a fishery technician at the Idaho Panhandle National Forest and a fish habitat biologist with the Quinault Indian Nation, as well as a forester for the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Conklin holds a bachelor’s degree in fishery resources from the University of Idaho. In his free time, he enjoys volunteering for search and rescue, working around his property with his son and wife and recreating near the water or in the hills above Naches.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish, wildlife, and recreational and commercial opportunities.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/01/22 06:55 AM


DW and others picked up on the Coho bag limit change in the Chehalis from a two bag limit to one adult in November and Dec. I did not recall it being discussed either so I asked staff for clarification and the response is below. As one who urged caution on the NT seasons it makes sense I think. It is all about the hatchery / wild mix and the difference in upper basin / lower basin run timings. Others may feel differently but I think this works.

R-6 Staff:

I think the reason why things look funny is that it’s one fish Nov and Dec, but in Dec we go to a wild Coho release requirement, so the two months must be on separate lines. This one fish in Nov and Dec was the compromise to be a little more conservative. I remember a lot of discussion about bag limits and this season structure seemed to satisfy most from both sides. I don’t recall conversations about different bag limits in different areas and not sure having that mixed stock lower river area with a higher bag limit than the tribs. I’m in the office today if you want to chat. Do you have the final planning model dated April 22?
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/01/22 12:04 PM

Do you really believe the Chehalis system will be open for coho in December? Will the system be closed again starting Dec. 1 to protect wild steelhead? I will bet the rivers will close to all fishing on Dec. 1 again this year.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/01/22 12:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
Do you really believe the Chehalis system will be open for coho in December? Will the system be closed again starting Dec. 1 to protect wild steelhead? I will bet the rivers will close to all fishing on Dec. 1 again this year.


For some reason, I’ve got higher hopes for December fishing than last year. Just the fact that they’re releasing regulations specific to that month in general is a lot of it. Maybe the argument of lack of wild steelhead in December is finally being heard by the Department.

All that said, I’m very glad they’re reducing the bag limit as the season goes on. Myself and many others had brought this up, both on calls and through email.

If the early Chinook seasons are any indication of overall health of the runs, there may be quite a few Chinook returning to the tribs in a few months. Blew through most of the quota in Marine Area 4. I was only able to make it up once while it was a two fish limit. Had my two Chinook in TEN minutes and it seemed that many others were doing well. LOTS of fish around already. Hopefully Coho follow suit.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/01/22 05:30 PM

Seabeck, I hope you are right about a December fishery for coho in the Chehalis system . I talked to Larry Phillips (who is no longer with WDFW) last year about the lack of wild steelhead in the system in December and that it should be open for late timed hatchery coho during that month. He didn't seem to be very interested in having that fishery.
I hope you are right but I will believe it when I see it.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/01/22 06:34 PM

In November and December, Late coho are harvested 5 days per week in gillnets, they are affectionately referred to by our tribal friends as steelhead.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/02/22 11:50 AM

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
[quote=Lifter99]
If the early Chinook seasons are any indication of overall health of the runs, there may be quite a few Chinook returning to the tribs in a few months. Blew through most of the quota in Marine Area 4. I was only able to make it up once while it was a two fish limit. Had my two Chinook in TEN minutes and it seemed that many others were doing well. LOTS of fish around already. Hopefully Coho follow suit.


I think Summer Steelhead is starting out strong also, which could be another indicator of good ocean survival. From myself and friends catches have been better than the last few years. Could be from better than average available water but think overall things are turning around.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/02/22 12:32 PM

or wdfw actually planted the number of fish there suppose to for a change
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/11/22 07:15 PM

If the late coho show in numbers sufficient to support a Tribal "steelhead" fishery, we will be allowed to fish in December. If they're off the water, so are we. Simple as that. SO, whether it's salmon or steelhead you want to fish for in December, pray for the late coho run to come in strong. Prospects look decent so far....
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 07:50 AM

0/12/2022

James Losee, WDFW, Wild steelhead committee, probably many others have a very good idea about what's going to take place 12/01/2022.

I have emailed Losee, asking for a written plan for Wild/native steelhead/ in Region 6........... no response!!!!!! WDFW has, in general, a "black hole", where emails get filed into........
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 08:03 AM

i called 3 different bio's from Region 6, and emailed the team directly, about the Puy and Carbon BS, zero response...

fvck the WDFW..
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 08:45 AM

Originally Posted By: 5 * General Evo
i called 3 different bio's from Region 6, and emailed the team directly, about the Puy and Carbon BS, zero response...

fvck the WDFW..


The Puyallup and Carbon are in Region 4. You might have better luck contacting the Region 4 office in Mill Creek.
Posted by: Steeldrifter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 09:30 AM

I contacted WDFW and spoke with an employee who gave me the name of the biologist. I called left a very detailed yet respectful message and no response. From what is going on in the sound( area 11) it looks like its all about the 5 year plan for Chinook.

This is the best information I received on the other thread I started.


I remembered my login here... dumb luck.

For the answers on the Puyallup system, see the WDFW link below and expand "What is the difference between the 2022 plan and the 2017 plan?"


https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/puget-sound-management-plan
_________________________
Mike Gilchrist
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 09:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Originally Posted By: 5 * General Evo
i called 3 different bio's from Region 6, and emailed the team directly, about the Puy and Carbon BS, zero response...

fvck the WDFW..


The Puyallup and Carbon are in Region 4. You might have better luck contacting the Region 4 office in Mill Creek.


they are region 6...

Counties served: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, Thurston

i had been in contact with Tara Livingood-Schott, but it seems she is no longer at the WDFW it looks like..

i emailed and called 3 biologist, as well as emailing the entire team at TeamMontesano@dfw.wa.gov, 2 weeks ago, and got zero response...

Stacie Kelsey will no longer be doing what she has been for the last couple decades either..

the WDFW is a joke..
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 10:03 AM

i dont even care about fishing for Chinook in either of those rivers, im talking about Coho fishing in October and November, when there isnt even any Kings around...

they are also expecting a more abundant return this year as well, just like everywhere else in this state...

its not about a "plan", its about the tribes, and the whitey ran boats and all their lobbyist donations... thats why they arent answering me like Tara did.. they easily could have done what they do on the Green, which is release ALL Chinook...

NOPE, they close the entire river right when the hatchery Coho return and screw everyone....

fvck the WDFW..
Posted by: deadly

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 11:48 AM

General Evo. I too emailed them, they did get back to me, their reasoning is the big floods we had on the Puyallup system in 19/20 they expect less that 2000 adult coho.

I think that's [Bleeeeep!], but that's what the told me.
Posted by: Steeldrifter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 02:22 PM

Originally Posted By: deadly
General Evo. I too emailed them, they did get back to me, their reasoning is the big floods we had on the Puyallup system in 19/20 they expect less that 2000 adult coho.

I think that's [Bleeeeep!], but that's what the told me.


IF THATS IS THE CASE THERE SHOULD BE NO NETS IN THE RIVER PAST SEPTEMBER 30!
All about the co managing and conservation right? Doesn't 'Co" mean both party's participate in what's best for the fish?
Posted by: Flatbrim Pescador

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Steeldrifter
All about the co managing and conservation right? Doesn't 'Co" mean both party's participate in what's best for the fish?


No. 'Co' means the same thing as "in common" which means they get to take their share first and then tell us if we even get a fishery. It's not about what's best for the fish but what is best for the tribes and the seafood processing industry.
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 02:49 PM

well they said no Coho were returning in 2019 and closed it then, the entire season, thats when i started emailing Tara first...

then, which i had eluded to in emails, they met escapement, and opened the river mid October, well a major storm came in and blew the river up over 6k CFS, and the whole run came through in about 3 weeks...

Voights gets a decent return of Coho, even the late wild fish, even after the 2009 floods (river was over 50k CFS in the Alderton area), they still came back just like always...

then, in 2020, we had a stellar Chum year, best i have seen it in over 10 years, Coho as well, i was hooking up to 15 a day at one point...

then, in 2021 they did it again, but changed it at the last minute and opend the river until November 30th..

you can go up past the mouth of the Carbon and fish the little Puyallup until January 15th, but cant touch the Carbon and lower Puyallup.. and there is no retention of anything up there either..

if someone told you it was because of the floods, and the WDFW has listed on their page until 2027 that this is the deal to protect Chinook, that right there tells you all you need to know..

they flat out lied, and caved to the tribes and lobbyists and are taking our fish, and giving them away...

thats the only explanation that i have for why they would do that... Coho arent Chinook, so whats the deal with protecting Coho and not Chinook?
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 02:53 PM

also, their so called "fish redd counters", are god damn morons...

last time i talked to them, ( see them multiple times a year), they said that they had seen nothing, at all.. i had already hooked my 7th fish that morning, and it was like 9:30...

off down the river they went, vaping oil, and twirling around in their raft...

not counting or looking for sh!t...
Posted by: Flatbrim Pescador

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 03:13 PM

Originally Posted By: 5 * General Evo
also, their so called "fish redd counters", are god damn morons...

last time i talked to them, ( see them multiple times a year), they said that they had seen nothing, at all.. i had already hooked my 7th fish that morning, and it was like 9:30...

off down the river they went, vaping oil, and twirling around in their raft...

not counting or looking for sh!t...


Yeah that's On the Swing for you. His dad set him up with the job, a complete nepotism hire.
Posted by: GoPro Hero

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/12/22 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: 5 * General Evo
also, their so called "fish redd counters", are god damn morons...

last time i talked to them, ( see them multiple times a year), they said that they had seen nothing, at all.. i had already hooked my 7th fish that morning, and it was like 9:30...

off down the river they went, vaping oil, and twirling around in their raft...

not counting or looking for sh!t...


Damn bro you sound like a good fisherman! You should DM me for some collabz for my channel bro.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/13/22 09:35 AM

Evo,

My bad. Sorry. I was thinking the NIsqually separated Region's 4 and 6, not the Puyallup system.

Regarding the confusing seasons and regulations, WDFW simply does what the Puget Sound Treaty tribes tell them to do. WDFW does not work for the people who pay the taxes and buy the licenses that keep the doors open and the lights on at WDFW. WDFW works for the treaty tribes. The tail wags the dog.

"Defund WDFW."
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/15/22 09:44 PM

Defunding begins with not buying licenses. Otherwise you just support their crack habit.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/16/22 09:45 AM

"Defund WDFW" is going to make fishing better how?
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/22 11:34 AM

Originally Posted By: darth baiter
"Defund WDFW" is going to make fishing better how?


Or, look at the flip side; how does funding WDFW make our fishing experience better? I should add that this is specific to anadromous fisheries. WDFW actually does sorta' OK with raising and stocking hatchery resident trout in lakes since the treaty tribes haven't staked any claim to those fish - yet. The hatchery trout stocking program is the one department budget line item that isn't pissing money into a black hole, unlike the preponderance of funds spent raising hatchery salmon that are primarily caught in BC, AK, and WA commercial treaty and non-treaty fisheries. By this I refer to the commercial fishing interests representing less than 2% of the WA population, while the 98% that pays the taxes and buys the licenses that keeps WDFW afloat gets very little from their investment. And now, with treaty tribes directing the Department to close the Stillaguamish R all summer to trout fishing under the guise of "Chinook conservation," but in reality opens the widespread Chinook poaching season when there are no eyes on the river, and closing rivers to recreational angling on days that treaty tribes fish to avoid gear conflicts that the people should be left to work out on their own, and the Skokomish R closure even though the State has a federal court decision describing the boundary of the reservation - a WDFW that works for anglers would leave the river open while the Tribe pursues a further legal remedy if they wish, or close George Adams hatchery if the Tribe won't back off, and on and on. These unnecessary reductions in recreational fishing opportunity are what WDFW does with the millions of dollars we taxpayers and license buyers provide them. We get the fishing that the treaty tribes of PS decide we can have. How would it be better if WDFW were defunded?

The fishing in WA that I rely on exists pretty much outside the efforts of WDFW. And my non-resident fishing licenses for OR, MT, ID, and BC yield greater benefits per dollar spent than my resident WA license does by a country mile. Tell me again why we should fund WDFW . . .
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/22 02:12 PM

here is the email i got over 2 weeks late..

read this horsesh!t...

Hi Nate,



Your email was forwarded on to me from the regional team down in Montesano. Thanks for contacting WDFW about the salmon seasons in the Puyallup and Carbon River, and your interest in those fisheries. Unfortunately the forecast this year for wild coho in the Puyallup Drainage is one of the lowest forecasts in the last decade, with less than 2,000 adults forecasted to return to the entire Puyallup River. This is primarily due to extensive flooding that occurred early in the 2020 winter and affected the 2019 brood year. Those juveniles wouldn’t have emerged from the gravel when that flooding occurred, likely resulting in high mortalities to juvenile coho from that brood year. There are smolt traps which are used to estimate abundances of juvenile salmonids emigrating out of the Puyallup and White Rivers, and the estimates from the 2019 age class are much lower than average indicating that the scour from flooding resulted in significant mortalities of juvenile salmonids. Juveniles from the 2019 age class are the 2022 3 year old adults returning this fall.



Due to the low forecast for returning adults, the Carbon and Puyallup fisheries were shut down early to protect wild coho in the later fall months when adults are migrating to spawning habitat in the upper portions of the watershed. The intent was to find a balance between offering recreational opportunity while also trying to protect the wild population in a year of low predicted abundance. Based on the data collected in creel surveys on the Puyallup and Carbon River the majority of hatchery that are harvested are caught in August and September. Closing fisheries at the end of September provides anglers solid opportunity for hatchery Chinook and coho and then provides some protection for wild coho in the later fall months.



The Carbon and upper Puyallup are closed due to negotiations with tribal co-managers to reach agreement on a Regional Management Plan (RMP) for Chinook that secures ESA coverage for our Chinook fisheries for a 10 year period. It was a policy level decision to close during those days to reduce impacts on wild Chinook in the Puyallup Basin in our collective fisheries in order to meet the management objectives that are part of the RMP. The wild population of fall Chinook in the Puyallup has continued to decline over the last decade with an even sharper decline observed since 2019. Failing to reach agreement on the RMP would put coverage for all of our Chinook fisheries in Puget Sound in jeopardy.



Thanks again for your interest and passion in the Puyallup and Carbon River salmon fisheries and let me know if you have further questions. I hope that we can return to a normal season that extends through the fall next year.




Gabe Madel

Fisheries Biologist

South Puget Sound

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife




soooooo, they start off with the flooding that occured, that wasnt that bad actually, nothing of the likes of the 2009 flood, not even remotely close...

alright, so floods killed off the smolt possibly..

then they go right into "the Puyallup and Carbon are closed" on the agreement with the tribes, for the 10 year plan (2027 as said on the website), to protect the Chinook that has been declining for over a decade...

right to the last sentence, of "I hope that we can return to a normal season that extends through the fall next year."

next year is 2023, not 2027, if you have a 10 year agreement to shut the river down early until 2027 to protect Chinook, how do you open it up to normal seasons next year?

100 percent the nets will be in the water all October, November and December, and probably more days than normal because they will adjust their season for surplus fish since we arent fishing for them... just like the Quinaults did a while ago when the Hoh got shut down early and they took over 80 percent of harvestable wild steelhead because the river was shut down to us...

fvck the WDFW, and the tribes... resource raping bastards...
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/22 02:21 PM

oh well looky here...

seems the WDFW sent Gabe out with the NFS (Native Fish Society, we all know what those clowns are about), out to do studies on fisheries...

quick question, why is an Oregon based anti hatchery anti anything but bug tossers organization doing research studies on Puget Sound fisheries...

Patagonia also funded part of it...

like i said on a friends post on Facebook, somethings about to happen that no one imagined.. you are about to be punched in the gut in the worse way possible...

i guess we can always go troll for Pikeminnow...

https://nativefishsociety.org/news-media/coastal-cutthroat-curious
Posted by: Flatbrim Pescador

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/22 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
closing rivers to recreational angling on days that treaty tribes fish to avoid gear conflicts that the people should be left to work out on their own


Since these "gear conflicts" involve tribal members pulling guns on the recreational fishers. Other than getting into a mexican standoff or shooting back, how do you suggest people work out "gear conflicts" on their own?
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/22 05:30 PM

If tribal members are pulling guns then deal with that. Rewarding them seems a bit of a problem doesn't it. I have heard of other examples of where tribal members engaged in illegal activity and as a result the state gave them all kinds of concessions to promise not to do it any more, despite the actions being against the current tribal regulations and agreements.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/17/22 08:21 PM

Back to the Chehalis…

South Monte boat launch is now open to the public.

Both ramps are fully functional but the parking area is significantly reduced. No attempt was made to stabilize the raw cut Bank on the north side of the river. “No parking” boulders have been set well back quite a ways from the raw undercut edge of the high bank.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/18/22 04:52 AM


That is good to hear Doc! Long term no idea either but we had a stinker of a spring and it looks to be a good summer and fall to fish or whatever. Yup good news.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/18/22 07:26 AM

7/18/2022

South Monty boat ramp is functional BUT parking while NOT a problem now will be a major problem in late September, all of October, and some of November.

State needs to remove the "blocking concrete barriers" and allow fisherpersons to park West of the bridge and to park under the bridge. These areas were "normal" parking since 1968, when I moved here and probably many years before that.

Road going in, needs to be better maintained....think Montesano City is has that responsibility, "pot holes need filling, and grass and blackberries need to be killed or cut way back.....tough to get vehicles coming and going.

South Monty to Fuller Bridge will be a challenge. Trees, logs, changing gravel bars could be hard on boater persons.....high tide should be limited problems BUT low tides could be tough on boat bottoms, jet pumps and prop's.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/19/22 11:10 AM

As to defunding WDFW I think there are couple things to do but they would be highly political.

The first is have the Leg create a new FW fishing license. Applies ONLY to non-salmon (including steelhead) in FW. The kicker is that funds from the license could only be used for hatchery production,stocking , and management of the species. Could not be used for habitat (that is a state wide duty fundable by all taxpayers, administrative oversight, and enforcement. May have missed something, but Salmo can add it.

Although much more risky I think we should elect the Commission. Four from Eastside. Four from Westside. They would be elected by east or west voters. Chair elected statewide. A requirement of qualifying for election, perhaps except Chair, is that they have held WDFW-issued annual licenses in five of the past 10 years and must hold one annually when in office. That would get the Gubbernor on Leg out of the equation.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/19/22 02:32 PM

Originally Posted By: 5 * General Evo


you are about to be punched in the gut in the worse way possible...

i guess we can always go troll for Pikeminnow...

https://nativefishsociety.org/news-media/coastal-cutthroat-curious



And its too late for much resistance from the n/t fishing community(s) on this end game, so get used to it. The current state politic is way invested and trained up to the nut on redistribution, equity, and justice, and will not turn back. All future PS fishing will be at the discretion of the tribal powers to be.

And

Your Pikeminow trolling opportunity along with Walleye chasing may not be allowed whenever the salmon are running...
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/19/22 08:49 PM

does anyone know when the Q's net schedule will be posted?
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/19/22 08:56 PM

Originally Posted By: 5 * General Evo
oh well looky here...

seems the WDFW sent Gabe out with the NFS (Native Fish Society, we all know what those clowns are about), out to do studies on fisheries...

quick question, why is an Oregon based anti hatchery anti anything but bug tossers organization doing research studies on Puget Sound fisheries...

Patagonia also funded part of it...

like i said on a friends post on Facebook, somethings about to happen that no one imagined.. you are about to be punched in the gut in the worse way possible...

i guess we can always go troll for Pikeminnow...

https://nativefishsociety.org/news-media/coastal-cutthroat-curious



Not sure if I missed something, but what’s the article from 2017 on Searun Cutthroat have to do with tribes limiting PS sportfishing? I’m in agreement they have the state by the balls but just trying to connect this to cutthroat studies.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/22 05:56 AM


The Nation usually releases their dates when it pleases them. Below is the agreed to season utilized for the 2022 harvest model. They start a week at noon Sunday.

8/28 - 9/3 36
9/4 - 9/10 37
9/11 - 9/17 38
9/18 - 9/24 39
9/25 - 10/1 40
10/2 - 10/8 41
10/9 - 10/15 42 week
10/16 10/22 43
10/23 10/29 44
10/30 11/5 45
11/6 - 11/12 46
11/13 11/19 47
11/20 -------- 48-53
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/22 08:42 AM

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
Originally Posted By: 5 * General Evo
oh well looky here...

seems the WDFW sent Gabe out with the NFS (Native Fish Society, we all know what those clowns are about), out to do studies on fisheries...

quick question, why is an Oregon based anti hatchery anti anything but bug tossers organization doing research studies on Puget Sound fisheries...

Patagonia also funded part of it...

like i said on a friends post on Facebook, somethings about to happen that no one imagined.. you are about to be punched in the gut in the worse way possible...

i guess we can always go troll for Pikeminnow...

https://nativefishsociety.org/news-media/coastal-cutthroat-curious



Not sure if I missed something, but what’s the article from 2017 on Searun Cutthroat have to do with tribes limiting PS sportfishing? I’m in agreement they have the state by the balls but just trying to connect this to cutthroat studies.



a WDFW biologist is actively working with an anti hatchery organization from Oregon...

he is also part of a group called The Nature Conservancy, and some of the individuals seem pretty radical...

he also lied to me 3 times in 1 email..

that should scare the hell out of you..
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/22 10:31 AM

07/21/2022

QIN does have a web site, this is what I use for current information..

This will show 2021 netting schedules but it will be updated as we get closer to September/October/November fisheries

http://quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf


Try it, then bookmark it so you'll have it!!!!
Posted by: GoPro Hero

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/22 01:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Flatbrim Pescador
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
closing rivers to recreational angling on days that treaty tribes fish to avoid gear conflicts that the people should be left to work out on their own


Since these "gear conflicts" involve tribal members pulling guns on the recreational fishers. Other than getting into a mexican standoff or shooting back, how do you suggest people work out "gear conflicts" on their own?


I was fishing in the skoke a few years before the closure and the natives dragged their net downstream and caught me in it! They started telling me they own the river and yelled a bunch of racist things at me. They need to hit the bong more and learn to chill out bro!
Posted by: Steeldrifter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/22 01:58 PM

Originally Posted By: GoPro Hero
Originally Posted By: Flatbrim Pescador
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
closing rivers to recreational angling on days that treaty tribes fish to avoid gear conflicts that the people should be left to work out on their own


Since these "gear conflicts" involve tribal members pulling guns on the recreational fishers. Other than getting into a mexican standoff or shooting back, how do you suggest people work out "gear conflicts" on their own?


I was fishing in the skoke a few years before the closure and the natives dragged their net downstream and caught me in it! They started telling me they own the river and yelled a bunch of racist things at me. They need to hit the bong more and learn to chill out bro!


LOL.....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/22 02:33 PM

Couple of things folks. First this thread is about the Chehalis or Grays Harbor if you will, and its tribs and since Doc started it everyone has pretty much respected that. Second it is not about Puget Sound and the eternal tribal conflicts that seem to reside there or any other thing hanging around. Here the QIN and recs have managed to get along mostly and BS about someone's race or ethnicity is 100% pure grade A BS.

Finally this BB is part of Bob's business and one should respect that and conduct yourselves accordingly. If you lack the manners to do that start a thread to rant about whatever is bugging your butt but don't bring it to this thread.

Posted by: GoPro Hero

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/22/22 12:04 PM

I heard the skokes are trying to net on the satsop and the chehalis so it is related. If they are allowed to then it will mean fewer fish for us. I am not saying anything racist either I am just telling you about my experience so it isnt BS Rivrguy. But if you are one of these woke people bro then everything is always about race even if it is not. Just chill and we can keep it on topic. But anyways there are gear conflicts between the recs and the tribes and closing fishing for the recs is not a good solution.
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/22/22 04:48 PM

Thankfully someone finally said it, since paker doesn't want to mod anymore and doesn't want to stand by his last post, but i doubt the people you're talking to care..

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Couple of things folks. First this thread is about the Chehalis or Grays Harbor if you will, and its tribs and since Doc started it everyone has pretty much respected that. Second it is not about Puget Sound and the eternal tribal conflicts that seem to reside there or any other thing hanging around. Here the QIN and recs have managed to get along mostly and BS about someone's race or ethnicity is 100% pure grade A BS.

Finally this BB is part of Bob's business and one should respect that and conduct yourselves accordingly. If you lack the manners to do that start a thread to rant about whatever is bugging your butt but don't bring it to this thread.

Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/24/22 10:11 AM

Region 6 has mismanaged GH fisheries into near extinction. They should change their name to Region Q. Back on track.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/22 08:38 AM

One could make the argument that as to Steelhead your right on but with salmon not so much. Our weakest Chehalis salmon run is late Coho but Coho are managed as a single stock as are Chinook with our small run of Springers being the exception. Our reduced Chinook returns are due to AK & BC taking about 80% or so of harvestable with prior intercepts on paper for 2022 at 10500 leaving a terminal runsize of 14957. Add to the mix that the QIN and all other managers except WDFW manage to the aggregate of all Grays Harbor streams and do not separate the Humptulips & Chehalis you end up with some strange math.

As I said with Steelhead it would be difficult to argue the fish have been managed into rather dire circumstances. Extinction might be a bit of a reach at the present time but that said the comanagers are certainly headed down that path.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/22 08:56 AM

Rivrguy,

You know far more about the GH basin than I ever will. Given the outright addiction WDFW and QIN have for harvest, I can't help but think the GH wild salmon populations would fare better if there were no hatchery salmon. Don't get me wrong; I am not anti-hatchery. However, it seems like in GH (and Willapa) that hatchery salmon continue to cover, or provide the excuse, for over-harvesting wild salmon. If there were no hatchery salmon to cover the addiction, it seems like it would force both WDFW and QIN to manage the wild salmon for sustainability, or else they both would be out of the salmon business in GH. At the rate things are going, it looks like WDFW, and QIN too, are trying to prop up a failed commercial fishery on the scraps that remain. I think the only way that salmon conservation can succeed is if the commercial fishery goes away. Absent that, I think the commercial fishery will eventually go away when the available catch no longer covers the gas money for the fishing boats.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/22 09:50 AM

GH & Willapa are examples of how to manage harvest and not to manage harvest. Willapa in the past and one could argue today is an example of how NOT to manage harvest. It was and is managed for commercial harvest right down to rearing the wrong fish in the wrong hatcheries.

Grays Harbor was and is managed for wild production which means hatchery fish are a bonus. Back some years this resulted in substantial hatchery returns which motivated both commercial and recs screaming more harvest on the "surplus". So the agency just reduced hatchery production because the Chehalis is managed for the natural returns. Now we have a much diminished hatchery production and the returns are more or less managed exactly the same.

All that said in my view it is the use of the aggregate of the tributary returns to enable harvest in the lower river Chehalis that poses the greatest risk for the fish in the individual tributaries. When you have the Satsop at 40% to 50% of escapement in recent years ( other tribs did worse ) and still harvest I think some priorities are miss placed.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/22 10:34 AM

“ Absent that, I think the commercial fishery will eventually go away when the available catch no longer covers the gas money for the fishing boats.“


And, with the slightly elevated prices of gas and diesel today, that “eventually goes away “ is right about today. Except for the tribal efforts, and that fuel will be subsidized by a bit of higher taxes. All to plan...

BTW, does anyone here know where the “charging stations” are for the motor boats ?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/02/22 11:43 AM

As always some of us have been chattering about jack season which opened August 1st. Well most anglers regard Coho jacks as insignificant but the other side of the coin is smoked right they are right up with BC Rainbow for taste and BC Rainbow are about as good as it gets.

Now where and how to fish ? Nope not touching that one other than small water is best, they move mostly with incoming tides, and eggs are the best and good eggs are a must. After that nothing here but frankly for the guys that have it down pat it is a great light tackle fishery.

From my seat in the bleachers smoked correctly Coho jacks are a real delicacy worth the effort. Those who do not enjoy this fish make sure you spread the word that jack fishing sucks !
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/02/22 08:07 PM

I've rarely been successful when I try to locate harvestable jacks, but I often catch them incidentally while fishing for cutthroat in August/September, and they are fantastic quarry on a 6-wt. fly rod. They eat trout streamers better than trout, and they go berserk when you hook them.

Have harvested a handful over the years, and they are as good as the adults in most applications.

Jacks are cool. Get 'em if you can!
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/03/22 09:08 AM

8/03/2022

mmmmm, Silver/Coho jacks are a awesome fishery. I've sat at many NOF meetings, jacks are never mention in the discussions as far as NT or QIN, Bay fishers, are concerned. It's only after the 1st 2 hours of NOF meetings when the "public" gets to speak......"I SPEAK FOR ALL THE PERSONS THAT ENJOY THIS FISHERY", I'm part of a group that enjoys this fishery.

Rivrguy is correct....smoked, and eaten fresh, they are excellent. Caught on 9 - 13' rods, in fast water, can be fun.

I check the amount of jacks that get back to many hatcheries, there are enough, that the limit should be raised. The limit is 6, no one knows or remembers when that number became the standard....I tried to get it raised to 12, fell on deaf ears.

Chinook jacks are, for the most part, released, by me......while good eating fresh or smoked, they have a smell that I don't want in my boat. If a Chinook jack is hooked by me, I hand rod off to a "young person", let them enjoy the fight or release them, MOST of the time.

Eggs catch the vast majority.......GOOD EGGS are a must!!!!! If you have xhit eggs be prepared to have a loooooooong day of watching others catch fish.

1 last comment...13' rod, if in a boat, by yourself, a silver jack, can be a real challenge to get into a net, especially in fast water......
Posted by: Local

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/03/22 09:15 PM

I look forward every year to catching Jacks. A very wise Fisherman once told me to be successful you must have good eggs. I followed his advice and always have good Jack fishing and good company on the river, with exception of that one day a few years ago when the smoke was so thick from Canadian fires "EH" that it was difficult to find my way down the river. See you on the river soon !
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/22 08:08 AM

I totally forgot about the smoke thing! What made it soooo much worse was two really foggy mornings that mixed with the smoke and was something to see. Well I guess not see is likely the correct way to describe that lovely experience . Frankly the use of the word lovely is a rather substantial abuse of the English language when describing that ugly mess !
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/04/22 08:49 AM

Was fishing the 7400 line of the Wynoochee one of those mornings in very early September. Smoke was incredible. Came home and smelled my clothing as I threw it in the washer, could actually smell the wildfire smoke as if I’d been standing next to a campfire.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/22 08:28 AM

Does anyone know when the 2022 tribal net schedule will be up on WDFW site?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/22 09:41 AM

it should be up id say right around labor day at the earliest..

looks like the cowboys got 9 days starting sept 28, 2022..

you can bet that between the indians and cowboys there wont be more than 3or4 days in OCT without nets.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/22 10:00 AM

At the end of NOF the Nation started the week of 9-28 and fish 3-4-3 days for the next three weeks and out a week. 10-1 start again with one day and 2 the next and 3 days each week the last two weeks of November. They always start Sunday noon and pull at noon on the end of a set.
9/25 - 10/1 40 3
10/2 - 10/8 41 4
10/9 - 10/15 42 3
10/16- 10/22 43 2
10/23- 10/29 44 0

The NT nets dates are:
42 9-Oct-22 cheh 1
43 16-Oct-22 cheh 2
44 23-Oct-22 cheh 3
45 30-Oct-22 cheh 2

The total days of a week with nets in by the GH Policy is 4 in a calendar week which does restrict the NT Commercials but not the Nation if they choose otherwise.


Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/22 10:27 AM

on wdfw site ..this is cowboys 2A 2D

7:00am-7:00pm sept 28th,,2022

oct-12,19,20,24,25,26

nov 1st,2nd
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/22 12:20 PM

Had to look but this is what is posted for NTs.

Chehalis
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM October 19, 2022
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM October 20, 2022
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM October 24, 2022
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM October 25, 2022
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM October 26, 2022
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM November 1, 2022
AND
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM November 2, 2022

Hump ( Area C )
7:00 AM, Oct. 17, 2022
through
7:00 PM, Oct. 18, 2022
AND
7:00 AM through 7:00 PM Oct. 27, 2022
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/22 01:56 PM

they have the sept 28th and oct 12th just above the other dates.. its kinda screwed up..

these two days are 12:01pm to 7:00pm and they are using 4 1/2 tangle

net.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/22 04:52 PM

Your right I totally missed that, my bad! They must be days where the tribe pulls at noon and are 3 1/2 days of a calendar week. That leaves the remainder of the day for NT's. Tangle nets are about releasing wild Chinook and any Steelhead. When the Nation starts at noon it counts as a day ( any net in does ) so when they do three days they are doing 24 hr sets not calendar days. That means with no NT's getting Chinook at night ( high movement time ) it does leave that 7 hour window. The GH Policy was written that way to keep games from being played with 7 week days. I am told NT commercials hate it and some staff are less than fond of it. It is how the Grays Harbor streams can only be netted four days a week. It is called the 4/3 rule.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/06/22 07:57 PM

NT gets to keep hatchery chinook again?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/22 09:05 AM

The modeled Chinook impacts for NT Commercials are 49 H and 100 W. Rec bay are combined C&R mortalities are H&W 234, freshwater river 333 and Chehalis Tribal ( which are part of the states share ) is 257 W. The QIN are modeled at 3566 combined H&W.

Now that everyone's blood pressure is up this, the QIN have federal approval to count all adults spawning in the gravel be it H or W as part natural spawn. The state does not count the spawning fish in that manner so WDFW's model shows expected natural (W) Chinook at 8967 but QIN expected numbers are 10,418 and W escapement goal is 9753. In other words the comanagers do not count fish spawning the same way. To complicate a bit more the Feds count the combined Humptulips and Chehalis as Grays Harbor not separating the two sides of Grays Harbor only Grays Harbor total. Looking at those numbers for combined Grays Harbor Humptulips and Chehalis Chinook harvest the QIN are modeled for combined H&W at 5673 and NT at 4019.

So this, for 2022 Chehalis Chinook Alaska Chinook fisheries will take 11,617, Canadian Chinook fisheries 4,633, Washington coastal 292 which leaves the Chehalis harvestable Chinook at 4626 H&W combined. If we had a Rec Chinook fishery I doubt it could be modeled. You could go boat to boat and never get your feet wet crossing the bay and traffic lights would be needed on the rivers! In other words we would blow the spawning numbers to hell and back in short order. One could argue that the QIN should reduce impacts but with the prior intercept numbers posted above I doubt that the Nation fishers would feel all that charitable.

So the answer to the problem is there is no answer unless the managers come to grips with marine intercept fisheries, which is more likely NOT to happen unless a federal judge forces the issue around ESA stocks.

The way our salmon harvest is managed toward crisis is that simple, that ugly, that just plain stupid. It leaves the Grays Harbor Rec fishers pissing and moaning about a couple hundred fish and reduced to C&R fisheries. Now that is the way things are like it or not.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/22 09:18 AM

For something different it appears that charters and others in the marine waters have seen substantial numbers of Coho running above average size and numbers expected which bodes well for our fall Coho fisheries.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/22 10:02 AM

The combined escapement for the Hump and Chehalis is also the official unit and goal in the PST. So any additional fishery restrictions that are outlined in the PST provisions would only kick in when the combo escapement goal is not achieved under the rules in the treaty.


.....as side note. The rules that describe when additional restrictions are required in PST fisheries are so complicated that never have those conditions be met for PST stocks.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/22 10:22 AM

Yup and the GH Chinook escapement goal for wild is 13,328. QIN methodology has projected escapement at 16,848 and WDFW at 12,555. Only WDFW separates the Humptulips from the Chehalis and bay tributaries. That came about when TF was the regional harvest manager in an effort to create a Rec bay fishery which was a different approach to say the least. The GH Policy codified this in the management of harvest and to be honest in the early 90's when the locals went at it about this the then Deputy Director looked us right in the eyes and said " we are going to loose Puget Sound and we need a place for those people to go". He also said the bay fishery would not impact fresh water fisheries but only access harvestable Chinook that the fresh water fisheries failed to harvest. Not sure that last part came to be.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/22 02:28 PM

I'm certainly not pissing and moaning about a couple hundred fish. I'm saying that the state welfare program for non tribal gillnetting should make them release hatchery kings if there's no chinook retention. No chinook retention should mean no chinook retention.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/22 02:46 PM

You've identified the "problem" of selective fisheries. Most of the commercial fisheries, whether net or troll, are not very successful at releasing non-target fish in good shape so they will survive. Not saying it can't be done, but it isn't.

Recreational, on the other hand, can successfully release fish is decent shape. We have not done the studies to show how C&R affects success at spawning or repeat spawning (steelhead) but we know that they can live after being encountered.

This means that the non-selective groups get bigger chunks of the protected fish pie. We can't (and won't even try) to change the Tribal fisheries but we could deal with the NT side if the political will were there. Which it isn't.

They, the commercials, have much more political power and I suspect that the Tribes will support them before they support the recs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/22 04:42 PM

All good points so far but this, it is not about retention but impacts. A dead fish is a dead fish and we burn our Chinook impacts with C&R. Commercials be it tribal or NT burn their impact straight with dead fish and NT Commercials seasons are restricted by no targeted Chinook fisheries per the GH Policy. Given the GHP Chinook restriction, 4/3 limiter on days of the week, daytime only restriction the few Chinook the NT's take are that rather few. As a principle I can see the burn over a couple hundred fish but if you do release mortality being around 8 of the modeled H Chinook 48 encounters so this is about 40 fish. Now I am no fan of nets but in the big picture of all the harvest done this is right down way past minor importance.

Again I get the principle but frankly I find principles fly away with harvest be it tribal, NT Com. or Rec as does fairness. It is that everywhere . Hell with the clamor for two Coho limit rather than one it took last two weeks of August and first two weeks of Sept off the table. One fish Coho bag would have given those weeks for Chehalis below Fuller Hill so I guess I lack a lot of sympathy as I want to kill fish crowd cost the tide water fishers a month of fishing.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/22 05:13 PM

Absolutely Rivrguy. It's dead fish. Unless by some miracle of nature there are X hatchery fish and X wild fish to be killed (equal numbers and presence of each) a selective fishery will put the non-selective gears in a hole. It has been said here many times before that if you have a certain number to kill while accessing more abundant stocks you can get more of the abundant stock if you take your kill of wilds as release mortality because survival is >0.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/08/22 08:36 AM

Some of us looking forward are always looking at the weather forecast and flows . So right now the Chehalis is above average flows which is a good place to be right now. Always a believer in the fact that on the coast weather forecast especially long range can be somewhat a pie in the sky it is interesting this year. August is forecast to be a few degrees above normal and very little measurable rain just a couple of shower days. September the first 3 weeks continue the above average temperatures but the last week or so drops well below the 72 degrees average. Rain during September is a few showery days but nothing serious .

Now October is where things really go for a change for about everything. Except for a few days scattered through the October is forecasted to be 4 to 6 degrees below the average of graph line average which means it will be cooler than normal, much cooler. It is the rain that really stands out in the forecast. 16 days of rain going from single day showers to several events that are 4 to 5 days in duration with substantial precipitation in the range of over half an inch daily.

Rain is everything to the Chehalis salmon runs. It determines when and how the fish move. The early rain ( Sept ) like the last few years is great inland messes up bay and tidal fishing. So one could draw the conclusion that unlike the last few years the fish will not blow past the openings where we fish in September but normal slow steady movement with the tides until wherever they stop and stage. That much rain in October is going make things strange. You have both tribal and NT commercial fisheries, it is likely the rivers will do the brown outs early, and the fish will move rather quickly inland some distance. Coho do not move high upstream until the spawning areas water up but stop and stage waiting for more water.

Broodstocking one learns this lesson rather quickly but there is a way to see the signs. When we get enough rain the small streams and beaver ponds fill and dump this brackish black water. It is especially visible on the swamp fed East Fork Satsop and Coho will kinda pause letting this water go by then it is after burners on.

So the crystal ball says nice August & September with normal fish movement and with this years forecast it should rather nice fishing. Now October is likely be downright different as we have not had this weather pattern for some years. One thing for sure if this forecast holds it going to a very interesting late summer early fall salmon fishery. Should be a lot of fun!




Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/08/22 08:56 AM

08/08/2022

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


Hell with the clamor for two Coho limit rather than one it took last two weeks of August and first two weeks of Sept off the table. One fish Coho bag would have given those weeks for Chehalis below Fuller Hill so I guess I lack a lot of sympathy as I want to kill fish crowd cost the tide water fishers a month of fishing.


Sorry, Rivrguy.....There was not a lot of clamor from sports, if you'll remember WDFW said "Model" indicated that the Coho run was larger than expected and that a "2 Coho fish limit, wild or hatchery, could be had in the Chehalis, and ALL THE TRIBUTARIES. Remember meetings were "zoomed", you and I were the only people that spoke. Now what I don't know is how many written comments were sent in.

For the last 2 years, the Tributaries and the Chehalis above South Montesano was a 1 hatchery Coho AND the season opened, for adults, October 1. Many sport fishers were pleased to be able to take hatchery or wild.

Wynoochee River, finally has a legal fishery for Coho. Anyone who knows about the 32 years of mitigation, knows that there have been no hatchery Coho placed in that river.....but year after year the regulation was "release wild Coho", could there have been some "dip in", I suppose but I never caught one.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/08/22 09:19 AM

All solid points DW. What was never discussed was two fish August 15 opening or one fish open August 15 for Coho adults. By the GHP the fresh water rec and Chinook mortalities to spare and Coho numbers allowed a good Coho season. By going to 2 fish our Chehalis opening is Sept16 which means the tidewater fisheries will be behind nets 5 out of 6 weeks.

Now the bay 2 fish made sense because that fishery is not behind nets. Tidewater it is right there with stupid. We traded a two fish bag for a restricted season of 6 weeks behind the tribal and NT nets 5 of those weeks. One fish we could a have retained adult Coho August 15 to Oct 31. ( Nov different thing ) Hell of a deal just depends if your retired like us to fish any day or still working with a family. We will do OK but the working stiff got the shaft!

By the way the clamor from sports was the usual folk and bay fishers and throw the guides in. Never was it fully modeled out for the one fish option August 15 or clearly defined what any option impacts were. In fact I am not sure that the two fish bag could have been done has the forecasted escapement for W Coho 29,778 above escapement goal. With Chinook impacts it was simply the the QIN count spawners one way ( approved by the feds ) and WDFW another. The NT side was never even close to allowable GHP impacts. The thing is that with 14K taken on the ocean it leaves only 3K or 4 K available terminal or like this year 3057. The purpose of C&R is to use our 1529 W Chinook in C&R mortalities for a maximum season on abundant Coho. Hell we would have to hook nearly every Chinook coming across the bar to blow our 1529 share of W Chinook. There was and is not now any compelling reason not to have a full Coho season based on the run timing rather than historical prejudice by the managers toward the fresh water Rec fisher.

The zoom thing and the person managing the zoom conference pretty well zipped it along to not allow any serious discussion which I believe was intentional. That you got dead on. When I got the final model ( and distributed it to all that wanted it ) it showed Red ( under escapement ) for W Chinook. I asked why and it was explained to me but the point is this should have been explained so the pubic understood the issue. This Zoom crap of hi, by, what the hell just happened is being deceptive on steroids !
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/19/22 06:23 AM

Now this bit I find interesting as it will likely effect our fall fisheries. The long range forecast has been all over the board but has been consistent of this weather pattern through Sept and above average temperatures. October looked wet then not so much but has stayed with below average temps. So it will be interesting as for fishing in the Chehalis in the fall it is more about how much rain in a 24 hrs to bounce the flows. So far the Nov forecast is not so hot with a rain causing a rather substantial jump in flows or mud if prefer that definition. Time will tell but I think it is going to look like the last couple of years but right now Oct. is looking iffy as it wants to be from one extreme to the other.

By Christine Clarridge
Seattle Times staff reporter
This could be hard to imagine now, but with a rare third consecutive La Niña winter in the forecast, Washington could be in for a colder than usual winter, according to assistant state climatologist Karin Bumbaco.

The La Niña pattern that has been in effect for over two years has a good chance of extending into early next year, according to the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center. The center is predicting colder than usual temperatures from December through February.

During La Niña events, trade winds are stronger than usual, pushing more warm water toward Asia and increasing the cold water upwelling on the western coasts of the Americas, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These cold waters in the Pacific push the jet stream northward, leading to drought in the southern U.S. and heavy rains and flooding in the Northwest and Canada. During a La Niña year, winter temperatures are higher than normal in the South and lower than normal in the North, according to NOAA.

Recall, if you will, a few highlights from our past two winters.

Between Feb. 12-14, 2021, about 6-12 inches of snow fell from the Everett area south into Oregon, with Portland receiving 9 inches of snow.

At Sea-Tac, 8.9 inches of snow fell Feb. 13, making it the snowiest single day recorded in February at the airport and the snowiest single day at Sea-Tac since Dec. 31, 1968.

In some areas, the heavy February snow was followed by lots of freezing rain, according to Logan Johnson of the National Weather Service in Seattle.

Last December, during our second consecutive La Niña winter, an arctic blast brought some of the lowest daily temperatures on record to the Puget Sound region and more snow than usual. The weather blanketed roads in snow and led to holiday travel disruptions and power outages.

On Dec. 26, the low at Sea-Tac was 20 degrees, beating the previous low-temperature record of 22 degrees for that date, set 73 years ago in 1948. On Dec. 27, we had a second day of record-breaking lows with the high only reaching 17 degrees.

“If it happens, this will be only the third time with three La Niña winters in a row in our 73-year record,” said Emily Becker of the University of Miami/CIMAS in an ENSO blog post.

The La Niña cycle, which is linked to more potent weather events, occurred about 28% of the time from 1950-1999, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. But in the past 25 winters, they’ve been brewing nearly half the time.

“[La Niñas] don’t know when to leave,” Michelle L’Heureux, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast office for La Niña and its more famous flip side, El Niño, told The Associated Press.

Her analysis shows La Niña-like conditions have occurred more often in the past 40 years. Other new studies are showing similar patterns.

The whole La Niña and El Niño system has a great influence on weather and climate during the cold season in the Northern Hemisphere.

The jury’s out on how we’ll fare in fall.

Last year, more than 19 inches of rain were recorded at Sea-Tac between Sept. 1-Nov. 30, compared with 11.81 inches in a normal fall, according to NWS Seattle.

Western Washington also saw bomb cyclones and one atmospheric river after the next, which brought torrential rain, evacuations, power outages, landslides and severe flooding.

One condition that’s different from years past, according to Bumbaco, is that La Niña winters typically bring above-average precipitation and lower temperatures, but this year the Climate Prediction Center says the odds are equal for above average, average or below average rain.

The Climate Prediction Center’s three-month outlook for August through October predicts above-normal temperatures statewide.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/19/22 08:23 AM

Boy... sounds like we're all gonna die this winter... or there's just as good a chance El Nino may "save us." Crazy how even the weather forecast is so sensationalized these days. Next time we see an El Nino, the long-range forecast will be for rampant wildfires and catastrophic water shortages.

People who live in the PNW need to start embracing the fact that cold, wet weather is the IDEAL weather for this region. People who fish for anadromous fish have been on board for decades. When will the weather wonks figure it out?

Joking aside, whatever the temps end up like, I'm hoping for small, intermittent rains to start in September. That seems to get things moving in a good direction for at least a good early season on the Chehalis. We'll see what we get. I just hope it rains (for real) at least once before the curtains of death go in....
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/19/22 08:56 AM

At least for tributary coho fishing, it was hard to beat the opening week last season with the big rain in the couple days prior to it. Hoping for a better November this year. I think I was only able to get out twice for the B run.

Still keeping my fingers crossed for a limited December fishery. I feel better about it going into this year compared to last.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/19/22 09:25 AM

Long range forecast are always, well almost always, not much good for day to day so I always look for patterns. It is shaping up overall to be dry but the Chehalis has the Olympic side of the basin and upper basin and rain events can be totally different. Bounce the Olympic side early flows right up down color couple three days mainstem good to go. With the time drag for upper basin water to make tidewater if both go out your 7 to 10 days to clear. Inch over a couple days minimal effect but inch in 6 to 8 hours different ball game. Cooler temps in Oct. is a good thing to be sure. Everything I can find says Nov. butt ugly and I think I am being generous on that one.

It would appear that the pattern changes a bit the last of Sept with an event but a bit out for the crystal ball thing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/22/22 09:48 AM

Several PM's have asked about how fishing is shaping up. Well the bay has been good I am told but only C is open. Jacks on the Chehalis I have not been tracking due to simply being lazy after doing home maintenance for six weeks. Which reinforced the thought in my mind that 74 is getting up there!

Two days ago there was a up tick in adults coming. Getting closer to time to get serious. What has been well above normal is Sturgeon not like the "old days" but much better than the last few years. I watched two guys fight one for some time until they got it to the boat to measure and release. It went over 7 feet and I am aware of some over 6 feet released. It is good to see folks fishing Sturgeon for the fun of it again !

Little edit: I thought about locations and went with the generalization. Frankly it is about acquiring 10 new friends you never knew you had until one post up fishing reports with details. These days with Grays Harbor fishing most say little but OK, great, or bad. OK, most leave great out for the above mentioned reasons.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/22 09:24 AM

Well we are into fishing season sorta. Jack fishing is not slow but almost nil! Three guys that are darn good fishers have seen the same with Coho jacks but not much for Chinook either. There are some Chinook around in tidewater but the ones I have seen have off color bellies with that grayish brown side color which means they have been here a bit. Water temps have dropped from around 70 in tidewater to 68 and above South Monte have dropped to 65. Flows are below average mean but not much.

After that god awful Juneuary everything has been late from gardens to apple trees. So it looks like right now the river is just still running a month late. When will it change no idea here but it will change hopefully soon.

Now heads up from Fuller Hill to South Monte the river has changed dramatically from last year and for the worse. I am told the gravel build up around the Satsop and right on down has shallowed things up. Ugly is the description that stuck with me so word to the wise caution is a good thing. South Monte down never changes much but we have got some world class dead heads hanging around. The ugly ones that show in the low water but go under at high water. It is the window in time where they are barely under that is going to be dicey at times. So be careful as those things can do some damage to a boat doing 30 mph!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/03/22 10:29 AM

Some things to think about with sediment transport. The stream drops stuff when it is too heavy to carry. This is why the big rocks (and gold) drops out first and silt last. As sea level rises it slows the river down further upstream. So, places that used to get (say) nice sized gravel now get sand and the gravel drops out upstream.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/22 10:24 AM

9/05/2022

Fishing report, Chehalis River above Montesano..... I've stayed away from this thinking things would improve but ?????..

No fish, no jack bites, not seeing any fish "jumping or rolling" in areas around the pump houses. Not even seeing many bank fishermen, and for sure not many boats.

I'll start fishing everyday, now that my late summer projects are done. I've fished this area for 40+ years.....I've never remembered a time like this.

Most year the Chinook jacks are 1st in the area to show, not a favorite of mine, then middle of August to December there is normally Coho jacks being caught. September and October are/have been when most jacks are caught. Water levels allow bank fishermen to fish light gear, with good eggs being important.

Gravel movement has "messed up" some of the better jack fishing areas. There will be "close to each other", fishing until the rains bring the water levels up.

Hopefully things will get better fast......I do enjoy smoking and eating Coho jacks. Caught on 10-13 rods, they can be fun.

Hold over tide today, or I'd be long gone by now.......grrrrrrrr
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/05/22 02:49 PM

I've been keeping an eye open here in aberdeen.. haven't seen anything jumping
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/22 09:03 AM

09/06/2022

Fished 4 1/2 hours on 9/05. Hold over tide, 5 bank fishers and me in my boat. There was not a jack bite for any of us..... no bite for an "old man" on his 82 birthday.

The bottom of the river is full of the "green, stringy moss/grass", even with a float you get that crap on your eggs......

There were a few other boats, only because of the "hold over tide". 2 of the boats were using spinners, no fish.

Where I park my boat, I can see some prime water that would normally have fish sometime rolling, nothing in that whole time on the river...... grrrrrrr

Will try again, this afternoon, terrible tide but "oh well"....
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/22 09:06 AM

Weird. Seems like nothing anadromous is moving into the rivers, to include searun cutthroat. I normally have good success fishing for those this time of year (with the odd, incidental salmon jack mixed in), but the two times I've tried this year, I've been skunked, save for a couple dink coho smolts. This despite the fact the river levels are above normal for this time of year.

I suspect water temperature is the big issue right now. The hot weather we had all summer seems to have heated up the water more than usual. I know this effect is much less in the tidewater, where the ocean water keeps things cooler, but it stands to reason that if a higher volume than normal of water that is warmer than normal mixing in that brackish water, the overall temperature should be higher. I don't know if that's true, of course. Just throwing something at the wall of mystery.

My hopes for a good late September in the tribs are starting to look bleak. When I checked the extended forecast Friday, it looked like we were going to start seeing some rain as soon as next week. Today, we're back to nothing but way too hot and dry for the foreseeable future. If weather is to blame for the slow start to jack season, there's no relief in immediate sight, so let's hope it's just the fish being late....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/22 09:42 AM

Quote:
Seems like nothing anadromous is moving into the rivers, to include searun cutthroat


To add to the mystery every year schools of 3 to 5 inch bait fish of some sort show in the river ranging from very large, darn near bank to bank, schools to more modest size. Birds go crazy and everything that eats fish goes at it. This year just nothing! Just beautiful scenery with Seagulls scrapping around. I have to agree this is beyond strange.

I am beginning to wonder if we have a dissolved oxygen issue? Low DO and fish just don't care for it as they like to breath just in water.

Maybe the showery days next week ( supposed to add up to less than a half inch ) will bring with it a barometer drop that drags some in. After that I am designating myself clueless!
Posted by: Get Bent

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/22 12:11 PM

No shortage straight out around 270. Big brutes stuffed with herring. We’ve been blanked twice now outside 3 and 2. I wouldn’t worry yet the volume and quality of the fish in front of the river is encouraging. The 6 we kept Saturday 5 were hatchery 8/9 lbs. eggs were still on the tight side.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/22 06:00 PM

my neighbor fished out behind Lakeside this morning.. nothing didnt see anything jump or roll..

he did see one of the Quins tying up a big orange float.. so they must be going in this sunday?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/22 06:07 PM

Likely just setting up anchors and floats for the net. Best I can tell they go in at noon Sunday in week 40. That is the 26th of Sept.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/22 06:54 PM

I haven't been keeping up with the day to day numbers but more of the 30,000 foot view. We moved to our current house on Budd Inlet in '15. Starting in '16 we annually had a Squaxin gill netter getting Chinook. Sometimes it was so good that one night filled a tote from a small net. This year, so far, have had them out here only one night. Perhaps i am too much of a pessimist but stuff doesn't look good coastwide.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/06/22 09:58 PM

9/06/2022

Chehalis River, above Monty----2 boats, no bank fishermen.......2 1/2 hours, no jacks, watching for jumping/rolling fish, nothing, zero, naught a.

On way to my take out place, checked, with my fish finder, 2 of the places that normal hold fish, no marking at all.......something is very wrong, wrong, wrong.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/07/22 10:29 AM

I haven't been out on So Sound this year, but a friend of mine, a good fisherman, has been doing really well. It's his opinion that this is the best season in many years. Also, another friend has been doing really well on silvers in the ocean out of Westport - nice healthy fish. Maybe the silvers are predominately Columbia River? Satsop has a good prediction, etc. My guess is fall fishing is going to be good.
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/07/22 11:11 AM

Same deal snooping around for late summers in the lower nooche. Not worth the sunburn.
Sent you a pm drifterwa
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/07/22 12:15 PM

May be right Tug. I mean Bristol sockeye were bonkers and Kenai not too bad. But Chinook sucked quite a bit. It's good to see healthy fish but again , there are lots of reports of fish being small for age. Fat, but small.
Posted by: Jake Dogfish

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/07/22 01:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Tug 3
I haven't been out on So Sound this year, but a friend of mine, a good fisherman, has been doing really well. It's his opinion that this is the best season in many years. Also, another friend has been doing really well on silvers in the ocean out of Westport - nice healthy fish. Maybe the silvers are predominately Columbia River? Satsop has a good prediction, etc. My guess is fall fishing is going to be good.

As runs continue to decline, every year I hear someone say “it’s the best year in a long time”. I think it has a lot to do with technology.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/07/22 01:58 PM

Must have been warm water. I saw an SST graphic from a few days ago that showed extremely warm water all along the coast. Today, the same graphic shows COLD surface temps nearshore, so if that was the issue, I think we'll start seeing some fish in the tidewater this week. Wishful thinking?
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/07/22 11:39 PM

09/07/2022

Originally Posted By: Jake Dogfish
As runs continue to decline, every year I hear someone say “it’s the best year in a long time”. I think it has a lot to do with technology.


I think it has a lot to do with a persons age....if you're not very old then the days of before the Boldt Decision you don't know, 3 steelhead limits on the Humptulips, Native steelhead of +25 pounds were taken every year...Hoh, Queets, Humptulips, Wynoochee, Chehalis, Satsop.

275 charter boats used to fish out of Westport, some charters could get 1-3 trips a day. Sport fishermen could get a special license that allowed them to fish in the ocean and sell any salmon they caught.

My biggest steelhead was caught on the Queets, during spring vacation, so April, and that fish was 26+ pounds, weighted by a tribal bio.

Grays Harbor used to have Steelhead Derby's, caught a 23# 11 oz. and NEVER Placed in the derby.

Will the big native steelhead rebound?????? Will the 50# Chinook be sport caught on local rivers, they were, but I don't think so now.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda, but it seemed like the days of 60's, 70's would go on forever,,,,,NOT!!!!!
Posted by: Get Bent

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/22 06:35 AM

You observations are correct flea. Out on the halibut hump the water was 62, we finished up with the flatties the deployed the tuna jigs and caught albies in that area. We we in 63 degree water out 40 miles. As we ran in the surface sea temp plummeted almost 10 degrees. As I mentioned earlier there’s no shortage of large healthy silvers at 270 fow where we tagged 6 in a couple hours. With the number and health of kings and silvers this year I can’t imagine they’d not be in the Chehalis as well. Willipa bay fished pretty good the second week of august. Haven’t been there lately it I’m looking forward to a fishy fun fall.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/22 07:55 AM

In the 70s I believe that the recreational harvest of coho out of Westport was around 750,000.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/22 08:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Jake Dogfish
Originally Posted By: Tug 3
I haven't been out on So Sound this year, but a friend of mine, a good fisherman, has been doing really well. It's his opinion that this is the best season in many years. Also, another friend has been doing really well on silvers in the ocean out of Westport - nice healthy fish. Maybe the silvers are predominately Columbia River? Satsop has a good prediction, etc. My guess is fall fishing is going to be good.

As runs continue to decline, every year I hear someone say “it’s the best year in a long time”. I think it has a lot to do with technology.


This quote comes to mind.
"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the latest ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Warne, Nat. Geo. April 2007.

My gramps grew up and lived in Puyallup his whole life through the 20's - 1987 when he passed.
The Puyallup arguably used to be the best Winter Steelhead river in the state. I was fortunate to see the last of that and thought it was good. He did witness 84-85, which was the best I experienced. Even he stated, "close the old days". Other than that, he would tell me. "Not like it used to be". I understand now.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/22 08:52 AM

Called "Shifting baselines". Cuts two ways. There are quite a few species that were quite rare when I was a kid and are abundant now. But, as noted above, a whole lot of our fisheries have gone downhill. Not only do we not have people around who remember the abundance but the managers ignore the old data.
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/22 12:05 PM

Shifting baselines and whitewashing historical data is one of the most flagrant issues concerning all of our natural resource departments and the future outlooks of the things they are supposed to manage.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/08/22 05:40 PM

Back when I worked on Fraser sockeye the first half of the weekly meetings was presentation of the available data that included current catches, test fishing, escapement estimates, and so on. It also included an historic retrospective of the runs on that particular cycle back to the 1890s. There was no way the managers could make a decision in a vacuum.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/22 10:22 AM


Short and sweet, fishing stinks. The access road from the nuke site is locked requiring a good walk for a couple of miles making life difficult for the bank fisherman. Seems work down around the pump houses is going to be done. After that some jacks are being caught above South Monte but it is very spotty from few caught to zip next day. Some Chinook hanging out but they do not seem to be going anywhere at least that anyone sees but they do prefer darkness when moving. What is around are some rather large sturgeon that do like to go straight in the air and fall over like a tree. It is like the river is stuck where it is whatever that is and everything is in a waiting mode. I have seen this before during the dry years of 90 to 93 and the year Steve shut things down.

I am told the Humptulips is experiencing a similar pattern for fresh fish moving in stream from the bay. I am sure if your in the right spot at the right time you can get something. It is the finding the right spot / time that is a bitch.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/22 11:48 AM

A little more and we have some rain / showers coming in. NOAA river forecast has a flow increase at Porter of about 87 cfs around the 20th of the month. With most of the tribs hanging out a bit below average flows but above record lows with the Chehalis at Doty closer to the record low flow bit.

Not much to cheer about but combined with lower air temperatures hopefully the river water temps come down and that would be helpful.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/12/22 12:16 PM

i hung out at the south aberdeen boat launch this morning for awhile.

didnt see anything moving.. no jumpers or anything. not good!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/13/22 10:41 AM

Thought this article is one some will find interesting. I think the no show salmon has a lot of grumbling going on which greases the conversation track which in this case is the newspaper.

Solid salmon return numbers forecast for next several weeks in Grays Harbor
The robust forecast comes after several lean years for the fish.

By Michael S. Lockett • September 10, 2022 2:30 am
Tags: Fishing, Local News, Outdoors and Recreation
A healthy year for coho salmon is predicted for 2022, as fish start returning to Grays Harbor in late September and early October to spawn. (Michael S. Lockett | The Daily World)
A healthy year for coho salmon is predicted for 2022, as fish start returning to Grays Harbor in late September and early October to spawn. (Michael S. Lockett | The Daily World)
Cooler water in the Pacific Ocean leading to rebounding fish numbers means a healthy harvest of coho salmon this year, said state and tribal fisheries officials.

The fish benefited from La Nina conditions out at sea.

“The coho returns this year at Grays Harbor is one of the biggest ones we’re expecting in a long time,” said Mark Baltzell, lead for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Salmon and Steelhead Fisheries Management. “In general, we can chalk it up to good freshwater conditions and good ocean conditions when those fish went out.”

The coho and other fish have had a few rough years of low numbers, Baltzell said, with El Nino conditions raising temperatures and reducing food sources. While this year is expected to be good, Baltzell said, without dam systems to gauge the number of fish going upriver, it’s difficult to make mid-season assessments of what the reality is on the ground.

“Those fish should be in the system in October. We should have some good fishing in the Chehalis in October through November,” Baltzell said. “We co-manage the species with the treaty tribes. It’s a little different for each river system.”

Co-management

That co-management with the Treaty Tribes, such as the Quinault Indian Nation in Grays Harbor, is hashed out each year in what’s called the North of Falcon process, referring to all the fisheries north of Cape Falcon in Oregon, said WDFW district fisheries biologist Mike Scharpf.


“The state and the tribe will put together fisheries for the federal government,” Scharpf said, speaking of the general process. “They get together to forecast the abundance of salmon.”

The state and tribal organizations involved get together each spring to plan out each year’s fishery schedules, said Ed Johnston, a fisheries policy spokesperson for the Quinault Indian Nation. WDFW also works with the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, who, while not a Treaty Tribe, have fishing rights on their reservation, Scharpf said.

Forecasting involves a number of factors, including historical data, trends, ocean conditions and other factors, Scharpf said.

“&#8203;&#8203;We have a good resource. The forecasting for the last couple of years is showing us we’re making gains the last couple years,” Johnstone said. “The ocean has been cooler the last couple of years.”

The modeling is only as good as the data fed into it.

“We can try to fit as much information into any one of these things,” Baltzell said. “But their ability to predict the future is always limited.”

Accurately forecasting the fish returns relies on keeping abreast of a vast array of factors.

“We don’t have to look very far to see there’s a lot of change happening in the natural environment. Sometimes we’re a little slow to catch up on the effects on fish,” Baltzell said. “We have conversations about it all the time both internally and with our tribal co-managers.”


Rain is key

While there’s a good return forecast, Johnstone said he hoped that the region would get some good hard rain to bring the fish the last few steps home to spawn.

“All signs are positive. When we get that rain, which we will, we’ll have fish and everyone will be happy,” Johnstone said. “I would imagine we need a good 2 or 3 inches to see a real significant move.”

Fresh rain in the water systems helps to bring the fish the final distance to their spawning grounds, Johnstone said.

“Rain moves them through the system. When they smell rain, that charges them up,” Johnstone said. “They’re heading for the spawning grounds in these creeks. They’re looking for a habitat that’s suitable for them to spawn in.”

Baltzell said the attitude toward next year is one of cautious optimism.

“Every year is different. I think there’s a certain amount of optimism for this year and heading into next year that we’ve kind of dodged the bullet on ocean conditions,” Baltzell said. “It looks like another La Nina year — that means more upwelling, more food for fish migrating.”
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/22 10:52 AM


Update bad news fishing stinks unless you like Pikers! Some spurts of Chinook adults but few adult Coho or Jacks be they Chinook or Coho. Good news I have been told upper tide water temperature is 61 degrees but middle tide water it is all over just depends if your at cooler low tide or in between or high tide as the water temperature is all over but dropping.

Ten day forecast https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi has lost any forecasted rain in the next ten days. Also we are looking at a flat line for flows https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ below average but Sept average is up because in some years we get rain which brings up the paper average over years. Looking at our flows from a fishing point of view we are about average minus a Sept rain.

The waiting game continues.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/22 01:12 PM

So fishing has picked up. Water temp is 64 and change at tidewater with 61 upstream. I am told bay is doing OK and the fish are moving up in tide water but they ain't in a hurry. They also appear to be in schools and with the very soft tides the fish are simply moving up and left and right and down which means just wandering around. If you find a bunch stay with them because they are not heavy biters. Most caught inriver are scales not set, very bright, and not hitting hard. Bloody pikers are hitting harder than the salmon.
Posted by: Get Bent

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/22 02:11 PM

Bottom end fished pretty good right around low water tide change. Get ready.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/22 12:02 PM

Fish update the Coho Jacks are above South Monte and finally in good numbers the last few days. Now adults in the bay has been rather good but as you go up river lots of jumpers everywhere but lock jawed with 63 degree water. Cosy boat launch was on fire this morning ( finally )`but the farther you go upstream things degrade. Today was the first day I have had adults that I can see in the channel in front of the house. Oh all chrome bright and most have sea lice.

Other side of the coin is the Chinook / Coho mix is way off. Chinook are just not showing in tide water in the manner they have the last 10 years. No idea but for the forecast we have it is odd!
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/22 06:22 AM

NWFRC showing a slight bump for rivers on the 29th. Haywire Ridge showing precipitation around 3/4 of an inch as well.

Ain’t much but hopefully enough to get things moving in the slightest. Whoever provided the rain dance last year to give us a big shot right before the Oct 1st opener must’ve forgot their dancing shoes this year.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/22 07:23 AM

I don't think we need (or necessarily want) a huge soaker; just enough to cool the tribs down a couple degrees. I'm hopeful the rain this week will get things moving. Should be good timing, too, with the nets coming out of the Chehalis Wednesday morning.

Fingers crossed....
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/22 07:32 AM

For sure. No doubt we’ll have plenty of it in November.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/22 07:50 AM

The NT Com will fish Wen afternoon when the QIN pull to 7 PM. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi looks to be centered on the Olympics but enough to get a small bump on Satsop as the river forecast changed this morning. At Porter the Chehalis gets about a 250 cfs jump Oct. 1st which will get down to tidewater early the 3rd. I am struggling to figure out the Satsop but it is about how fast it comes down as much as how much. Anything to get the water below 60 degrees would be nice.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/22 10:36 AM

Now that QIN fishers are in it is a good time to reflect on just what happened. Jack fishing was spotty until Sept and even then the first two weeks of Sept were nothing to write home about. Then things changed around the 15th big time is an understatement. To put things in perspective the bay was just great fishing with Coho streaming through and those who know how to fish the bay cleaned up! Now upriver in tidewater it was different to say the least. The river was a series of very soft hold over tides and the fish started building up below Cosy and after a couple of days the build up turned into what I call a mob! The mob was stuck in about a mile half or so stretch of the river and just slowly moved upstream. We had fish coming into the mob and fish moving up out of the mob but the mob just slowly went upstream. It was more like fishing in a lake than a river.

Saturday morning the 25th the bottom end of the mob was at Higgins Island and when tide changed to incoming it was a stampede as fish just stormed out of the channel and river screaming upstream. How far up they went no idea but for sure there is a lot of fish above South Monte but biters I am not sure of. I have not come into contact with a Coho with scales set, about half had sea lice, and about 50/50 hatchery wild mix. Despite a slow start the are a ton of Coho Jacks in the river and I mean a ton way way past normal and this is good. Now the bad, the Chinook numbers appear to be well below normal based upon encounters. Could be water conditions or anything but in tidewater Chinook are not present in numbers that the preseason forecast anticipated.

Now Coho, here is the thing it was a aerial circus where the mob was with Coho airborne all over the place. It got to the point that it was simply amazing to watch! Now the bad if you got the fish at the right time it was lights out but if not you just watched jumping fish. Clear water and at the end of a retrieve one could see one, two or more Coho just following your gear to the boat. To say this was frustrating would be and understatement of epic proportions! It was also entertaining as I watched George fishing near me and I swear he had Coho jumping all around his boat to the point I yelled just stick your net out and wait for one to jump into it! I thought the old guy was going to have a stroke! He finally got one hooked about 3 ft from the boat and George is as good fisher in tidewater as it gets.

It also got crazy out as anything that could float was on the river which is good but folks got a bit frustrated watching jumping fish and if you got a fish on lord did you draw a crowd! I watched 3 boats fishing the point as I was anchored taking a break and it was tight quarters for them but they did a V which impressed me. Then this boat came screaming by me saw them get a fish on and slowed down dropped his gear and trolled right through the V. Well that started a discussion to be sure and when I heard the words “you don’t own the river” I figured the jig was up then things settled down. It was not 10 minutes later that the boat at the top of the V hooked a fish that by its behavior was a Chinook and it did the power run left and power run right several times then made the turn right under his boat headed for deep water. Things went South again as that guy trolling had come back and literally trolled right over that guy’s line with a fish on! It went down hill from there as all three boats surrounded that troller and I exited as they sorted things out.

So it is a little strange out to be sure so everyone be prepared to be irritated more than once in a day but we have a good run and folks want to catch a fish! Us who fish a lot are just going to have to be tolerant but lord grant me patience comes to mind.

From this point on in tidewater we will fish upon only what is swimming upstream that day as the QIN and NT commercials will prevent any major build up. This morning I have yet to see a fish of any size jump which is normal with the nets in. Tidewater fishing is going to be Thursday through Sunday noon from this point on and anything to get the water temperature down would help.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/22 07:02 AM

It is raining this morning but the largest amount forecasted is half inch so we will see what happens and the NOAA update.

That said several of us have been doing just how big was the "mob" push? Good question but it was not small to be sure. What I am sure of it was large and in the thousands. A retired bio who is rather good at this thing is placing his pool money on the mob was the better part of 25% to 30% of the Coho run based upon the forecast. Then he throws this in the mix, hatchery Coho are modeled to be around 37% of the Coho run and the catch so far among us is around 50 / 50 H&W.

After that the fun starts as we fire e mails back and forth in the debate! Was it the front end of the run with increasing numbers for several weeks or was it the front part of the run ( end Sept first 10 days Oct ) early and the run will be slow to fill back in the time line?

When we see the QIN numbers we will begin to see just what the real deal is but my 10 bucks in the pool is on this was the front 1/3 of the run. The first week or two of Oct bump up will be smaller than thought or in other words we will have steady flow of fish but nothing like the "mob".

To my old neighbors in East County.........enjoy this doesn't happen all that often.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/22 08:09 AM

One more little detail. Of the hens we have caught the eggs are far more down the road in development for spawning than normal for this point and time of the run. Having spawned thousands of Coho I would guess that many were 60% plus or a bit higher needed to be able to spawn. Now that is a bit unusual to be sure.

Also the hatchery forecast includes Skook Mit Coho which are late timed as is a portion of Bingham's productions which makes our 50 50 split H & W at this moment somewhat puzzling.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/22 08:40 AM

Well it is Sunday and the QIN go in at noon so it is safe to post something up. Some of us wondered if the large movement of Coho the last two weeks of Sept would continue and in a word nope. It appears that the movement was simply the front of the run coming in mass and not a steady flow as that would mean a huge run size we have not seen, ever!

Think of a graph that starts and numbers of Coho increase by week, then peak, and decrease by week. Now it is the last two weeks of September and go forward in graph weeks to the first two weeks of October and take those fish and bunch them up in earlier September weeks and you have a bubble of fish returning. What is lending credence to this line of thought is how the numbers of fish moving has dropped substantially. So minus a rain event just how far into the normal weeks on the graph did the fish do? No idea but it was a bit of October’s fish to be sure and my 10 spot in the pool is a couple of weeks.

We have had fish moving the last few days but the numbers are more like what gets above commercial nets rather than a net free river with fish on the move. Add to the mix is this has been the worst case of fish with lock jaw I can remember in tidewater.

This is an interesting tid bit. I talked to a QIN fishing and first day in Coho in good numbers but next day not as good but that night they got a bunch of Chinook 15 to 18 lbs. In total they thought they did okay but nothing like they thought they would as the “mob” of fish that had filled tidewater for the better part of two weeks moved Saturday before they went in. Lucky for us Rec’s inland to be sure.

The set that NT Commercials had for 7 hours got them 1174 Coho and the QIN numbers are not up. For 7 hours that is OK but the numbers we have seen fishing since then do not indicate those numbers continued. Then one has to think lock jaw and the answer to the question of what fish are moving is rather impossible arrive at.

Going forward bottom line is above the QIN fishers inland one should not expect to see a lot of fresh fish but some numbers, bay should be OK, and tidewater below South Monte will suck until next Thursday at the least.
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/22 09:36 AM

have information from a good source that over 50 were caught this morning behind Walmart...

they also should be removing their anchor lines when not in use, its a navigational hazard..
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/22 02:50 PM

Ah struggling here as 9:30 AM posting is 2 1/2 hours before the QIN started unless something has changed we are all unaware of.
Posted by: Get Bent

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/22 04:18 PM

Bottom end is still fishing well Saturday/sunday. Few more kings than last week too.
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/22 04:33 PM

if you are struggling, change bait and or presentation...

another stupid thing is that the tribes and commercials from the netting info allows them to keep hatchery chinook, yet i had to let loose a 21 and 25+ pound king last week, and another one that was larger was also released...

as long as Inslee is governor, your fisheries will continue to decline, like they have, until there is nothing left...
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/22 05:25 PM

{as long as Inslee is governor, your fisheries will continue to decline, like they have, until there is nothing left...}

u got that right!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/22 06:04 PM

Regardless of who is elected governor our anadromous salmonids are toast. Too much money fighting against them.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/22 11:37 AM


Another fishin fool and his update.

Figured I’d update you if you’re still fishing the Chehalis or Bay. I fished the lower Wynoochee float yesterday with ZERO fish to show for it. Not a fan of fishing that river since they aren’t hatchery supplemented to a good degree, but we took my buddy’s boat and he loves fishing that river.

Saw two small Chinook or large coho as we floated over them as spooked em, and that was it besides the typical non-biting jumpers at Sterling Landing. Will be floating/dragging the Satsop from Decker to the Highway takeout on Wednesday and will provide another update.
Posted by: thaxor

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/22 08:58 PM

Fished around porter Saturday. Only had 4 hours to fish. Went up and down river a ways, no rollers, no bites.
Posted by: satsop_connoisseur

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/03/22 09:59 PM

Might want to be careful floating Satsop. I hear of an impassable logjam below Cook Creek (just above Satsop Riveria area). Sounds like it'll be a problem in high water as well.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/22 04:26 AM

Originally Posted By: satsop_connoisseur
Might want to be careful floating Satsop. I hear of an impassable logjam below Cook Creek (just above Satsop Riveria area). Sounds like it'll be a problem in high water as well.


Damn, I was considering floating the Satsop in the coming weeks. Has anyone put eyes on this? Might be worth taking the single person pontoon for the time being.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/22 05:41 AM

Can’t get passed decker. The log jam mentioned and a couple logs are blocking the chute right above west fork launch. The only floatable part of the river is west fork down.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/22 08:29 AM

Even if the Satsop was passable above the old W. Fork launch, it's so low that floating it would be a huge chore and probably not worth the effort.

I spent yesterday doing some across-basin recon. Lower Satsop was quite crowded, so I didn't bother to fish there. I was excited to find the Wynoochee deserted, but it didn't take long, per Rivrguy's report, to figure out why. Not a salmon in sight, save for one dark jack I saw jump. Checked the Wishkah for grins. Looked more like Cloquallum Creek than anything you would call a river. I skipped fishing for the salmon that weren't present and settled for a little (semi-successful) cutthroat wrangling. After that, I decided trout fishing was the best thing going and went to a favorite spot on the upper, trout-only section of the E. Fork Satsop. No cutts (they have been hard to come by this season), but right off the bat, a 6-lb. coho that was a certifiable chromer grabbed my bugger and gave me a wild ride before coming to hand for release. I started seeing jumpers (mostly fire trucks), and I figured that must mean the fish were finally moving upriver. Figuring I might find a harvestable fish down below, I stopped off at the old W. Fork launch on the way home. There were definitely fish piled up in the holes below the launch. Again, mostly dark rollers in the wood, but I did see bright fish flashing in the deep parts of the faster water (probably new fish on the move). No bites. Other fellow fishing said he had put in a full day and also got skunked.

Anyway, it looks like there are some lockjawed fish piled up in parts of the Satsop, but that's pretty much it for the major tribs so far.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/22 12:01 PM

Got a question for you guys, has anyone came into contact with a Chum lately? Lacking the QIN reporting it is educated guess time but it looks like something is up.

Weather update and the long range forecast for any significant rain has been backed up to mid November ! Some rain mid October but it is less than half an inch over three days which is not much. It looks like pattern we are in is advancing up the calendar by months.

One last bit Chehalis tidal water temperature still hanging in at 63 and change to 64 and a bit. Flows upper basin are down to some above record lows but it helps to remember that 30 or 40 cfs in flows is just about nothing.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/22 01:50 PM

Some perspective from those that’ve seen these rivers for several decades would be great.

Are these conditions approaching historic levels? How did the salmon react in previous times? Just trickle in until at some point their biological clocks couldn’t wait anymore and then just a mad rush through shallow water? Any effect on the returns 3-4 years later?

Scenarios like this are what I wish WDFW had in mind when allowing a 2 fish non-select harvest on Coho this fall. Could really burn escapement if it gets bad enough.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/22 02:14 PM

It's not warm water but in (I believe) '79 we had freeze start in November that ended the end of January. The streams had anchor ice it was so cold. We had a hole downstream of the trap that had, by our estimate, 200 coho when the freeze hit. Those same fish were still there in January for the thaw. Once temperatures warmed they boiled up out of the hole, headed upstream, spawned, and died.

At the other end of the spectrum was a chum stream on Hood Canal. Dry fall, no fish in creek. Rain occurred between the two weekly surveys. Pre rain there was nothing in the creek; post rain there were a couple hundred spawned out carcasses. They'll wait as long as they can.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/22 07:08 AM

In the early 90s it was drought years. Everything hung up except there was a flow of fish but not huge. Learned two things Chinook bucks will come in slowly but Chinook hens will hang back in tidal water but once the Chum moved in mid Nov the Chinook hens did also.

The Coho did not make the hatchery in any numbers until the late in the 3rd week of November when it rained hard and we had a a brown out. In one night the hatchery return came silver, tainted, bright red all at once. Darn near lost the pond because of low DO and slammed the gate shut.

Salmon will settle in fresh or stay out in the ocean when dry waiting for rain. Until we have enough rain to water up spawning waters the fish hold up someplace. Oh almost forgot they bite at first but week to ten days they stage up and you have a river full of rolling non biting fish with a huge portion of the fish turning red.

I have seen and worked in it but dry years is something most have not seen. Hell this is the first summer with good weather on the coast since the 90s and this rainy summer crap came about. Then the woods many years went on hoot owl and the woods were closed to hunting until fuel moisture came up to allow it usually mid to late Oct.

We are in a normal weather pattern be it one that has not been around for a bit.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 05:19 AM

Appreciate it guys. Definitely a first for me. Floated/drug a Chehalis Trib yesterday. If anyone would like a report, feel free to PM me.

One thing I figured I’d ask is on the lower end of the float, we had a helicopter take off right near the takeout, and immediately started progressing upriver about 200’ or so above our heads. Looked to be a WFDW game warden (green pants and all) hanging his feet out the side door, observing the river. He and I were definitely making eye contact so it seemed there was some interest on their part on fishing and/or river conditions. Guessing they were maybe looking at water levels, blockages, fishing pressure, etc.

Anyone hearing anything? Would’ve been nice to see that effort on the closed winter fisheries from enforcement, but I can imagine it’s pretty pricey.

On another note: more bright, unspawned, dead Chinook and Coho than I’ve ever seen where I fish. Some were absolutely chrome. Quite a bit of algae as well. Real bummer to see, and guessing a lot of this is water temp related?
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 08:08 AM

After the closure of the Forks area OP rivers….the chehalis and its tribs are probably next, especially if they are out monitoring it like that. They are probably looking for floaters and stuff too. Probably close it around the 10th of so.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 08:20 AM

Would be best for the fish, unfortunately for us. Low conditions will make it easy for those among the community wishing to snag the Chinook that are already on their redds. We’ve all seen those trash sub-humans.

Time to focus on chanterelles I suppose.
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 02:55 PM

they just closed the entire system and all tribs...

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/...0RUgsHocdfTLvHM
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 03:31 PM

Are the nets being pulled, too? If the goal is to protect fish, they probably had better shut them down, too.... Ocean and bay fisheries?
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 03:34 PM

According to the social media person for WDFW, they told me on Facebook the tribe will be pulling all nets too. That’s what they always say….yet nets are always in when they “shut down all fishing”. Weird.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 03:44 PM

As long as everyone else targeting the same fish has to sit on the sidelines, too, I'm fine with it. Probably the right thing to do, but it is damned disappointing, to say the least.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 04:00 PM

Don't see any rule changes for bay or ocean, so it looks like the big boat crowd can still wail on 'em while the poor sucker bankies wait for rain. I imagine the gillnet effort will all shift to the bay, since it's still open for sporties?

Oh, well. Guess I shouldn't worry about all that; all I need to know has already been communicated. Now... what to do with myself on weekends and the Mondays I took off to go (sob...) fishing?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 04:12 PM

Here is what it says and look at Chehalis and read it carefully. As written the bay and mainstem tidewater are open still. So unless it was written wrong below Fuller Hill main river is open all tributaries are closed.

Action: Closes all fishing.

Effective date: Beginning October 8, 2022, until further notice.

Species affected: All Species.

Locations (includes all tributaries to listed areas):

Black River (Grays Harbor/Thurston Co.)
Chehalis River (Grays Harbor Co.), mainstem from Fuller Bridge upstream, and all forks and tributaries from the mouth upstream.
Cloquallum Creek (Grays Harbor/Mason Co.)
Copalis River (Grays Harbor Co.)
Elk River (Grays Harbor Co.)
Hoquiam River including West and East forks (Grays Harbor Co.)
Humptulips River including all forks (Grays Harbor Co.)
Joe Creek (Grays Harbor Co.)
Johns River (Grays Harbor Co.)
Moclips River (Grays Harbor Co)
Newaukum River, including all forks (Lewis Co.)
Satsop River (Grays Harbor Co.), including all forks.
Skookumchuck River (Lewis/Thurston Co.)
Van Winkle Creek (Grays Harbor Co.)
Wishkah River (Grays Harbor Co.), from the mouth to 200’ below the weir at the Wishkah Rearing Ponds and from 150’ upstream to 150’ downstream of the Wishkah adult attraction channel/outfall structure (within the posted fishing boundary).
Wynoochee River (Grays Harbor Co.)
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 04:20 PM

From what I have gathered the "mob" that came and went is stuck in reaches with little water. That was a lot of fish that moved and is the biggest movement I have seen in the Chehalis. It is the Chinook that are most vulnerable to this scenario.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 04:26 PM

Thanks for pointing that out, Rivrguy. That probably means gillnetting is still full steam ahead, too?

Frankly, leaving the lower river open flies in the face of the professed purpose of the trib closures. This way, the same fish they say we're protecting will face the most deadly gillnet and hook and line gauntlet they face in their lives untold numbers of times before the fish start moving into the tribs. Indeed, this renders the upstream closures completely pointless and unfair.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 04:28 PM

Missed bottom half of E Reg.......MY BAD!

Reason for action: These closures are necessary to protect salmon returning to coastal rivers. Fishing will reopen when flows increase, or stock assessment information suggests that salmon have resumed their upstream migration.

Additional information: This conservation measure follows regulation changes by comanagers for their respective fisheries. The National Park Service has closed their corresponding fisheries in associated waterbodies, as well.

Anglers can be notified of in-season rule changes as they are announced by signing up for WDFW Regulation Updates at wdfw.wa.gov/about/lists.

Information contact: Region 6 office, 360-249-4628

Fishers must have a current Washington fishing license, appropriate to the fishery. Check the WDFW "Fishing in Washington" rules pamphlet for details on definitions and regulations. Fishing rules are subject to change. Check the WDFW Fishing hotline for the latest rule information at 360-902-2500, press 2 for recreational rules. For the Shellfish Rule Change hotline call 360-796-3215 or toll free 1-866-880-5431.

Individuals who need to receive this information in an alternative format, language, or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact the Title VI/ADA Compliance Coordinator by phone at 360-902-2349, TTY (711), or email (Title6@dfw.wa.gov).
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 04:31 PM

I have zero idea on QIN or NT commercial. Frankly without QIN numbers we are playing blind mans bluff and for whatever the reason the QIN are dragging things out or the agency staff are someplace. That is the only choices on this bit.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 04:47 PM

I imagine they're catching a lot, since fish are hanging in the tidewater longer, and they don't have to convince the fish to bite. Perhaps they were concerned they were catching too many and proposed some restraint to let the numbers rebuild?

Anyway, my final take is that these closures might be the right thing to do, but leaving the lower river and bay open is directly counterintuitive to any strategy designed to "protect" these staging fish.

I better quit thinking about this before I blow a fuse. I need a new hobby, more and more every day.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 05:22 PM

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
Some perspective from those that’ve seen these rivers for several decades would be great.

Are these conditions approaching historic levels? How did the salmon react in previous times? Just trickle in until at some point their biological clocks couldn’t wait anymore and then just a mad rush through shallow water? Any effect on the returns 3-4 years later?

Scenarios like this are what I wish WDFW had in mind when allowing a 2 fish non-select harvest on Coho this fall. Could really burn escapement if it gets bad enough.


In my 50+ yrs bummin around I have never seen the rivers so low this late in October. Has to be some kind of record low. 14 day forecast is more of the same. Not good! 210 cfs on the Hoh is unheard of. Have fished there many times in tidewater when it's low, but not that low. Might have to check it out. Good time to look at things you may never see again. Lots of other systems running in the 200-300's. The fish will rush shallow water if and when they are biologically forced. Can be an impressive sight to witness. Happens the most at low light or dark. I can understand the closures. It's the best choice right now. Visible lock jaw salmon bring out the worst in anglers. Seen it too many times, frustrated anglers resorting to illegal tactics. Nature has a way of predicting this and runs seem to compensate by having huge numbers available to spawn to perpetuate the species. You can bet the future returns will pay. Pray for rain! Sucks for hunting too!
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 06:20 PM

Yes pray for rain.
Today I walked the upper reaches of the west fork Chehalis and the mainstem from high Bridge down to browns creek up in timber land...
Zero springers seen and only 1 test dig in the whole reach. (Even had a snorkel crew up there that I don't think saw anything), some fish seen and some redds below Pe ell, but the Springer counts are in the absolute dirt right now

Floated Elma gt to porter yesterday and saw only a couple springers and zero redds
Both of these areas should have way more spawning since we are past the normal peak for those springers.

I DID see a fair number of prespawn Mort chinook and a couple coho in the porter float. All big fall kings that just couldn't take the low dissolved oxygen coupled with high Temps.

I have certainly never seen the Chehalis this low, its CERTAINLY time for action.

Surveyed Bingham creek down to west fork earlier this week and saw about 70 kings above Schaefer park, mostly fall fish, with a couple summer chinook on redds working.
Some coho were present.

What I DID see that relates to these closures was a noticeable amount of fishing pressure above Schaefer park(2 that I saw were most certainly not fishing for "trout") and the couple anglers I had above the middle fork were outright sight snagging and not shy about it.
This is an enforcement issue as much as anything else and we all know how people tend to fish in these low water times when the bite gets hard.

Willipa bay streams are also being hit hard with angler pressure in areas closed to salmon fishing... nemah and naselle both have close to 1000 premorts each below the intakes.
Dissolved oxygen counts are well below the baseline on "5" needed for salmon to survive...naselle had a number down in the 3's I think.

We are setting records daily with this weather and have ZERO real rain totals in the forecast.
Fish are spawning in areas right now that will be the first to be scoured with the high water when it finally comes. There is a myriad of reasons why these regs have come down the pipe...

It is truly pathetic to see the comments on said news releases from people that should know better. But that's what happens when knuckledraggers are given the chance at the mic.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/22 09:28 PM

Originally Posted By: On The Swing
Yes pray for rain.
Today I walked the upper reaches of the west fork Chehalis and the mainstem from high Bridge down to browns creek up in timber land...
Zero springers seen and only 1 test dig in the whole reach. (Even had a snorkel crew up there that I don't think saw anything), some fish seen and some redds below Pe ell, but the Springer counts are in the absolute dirt right now

Floated Elma gt to porter yesterday and saw only a couple springers and zero redds
Both of these areas should have way more spawning since we are past the normal peak for those springers.

I DID see a fair number of prespawn Mort chinook and a couple coho in the porter float. All big fall kings that just couldn't take the low dissolved oxygen coupled with high Temps.

I have certainly never seen the Chehalis this low, its CERTAINLY time for action.

Surveyed Bingham creek down to west fork earlier this week and saw about 70 kings above Schaefer park, mostly fall fish, with a couple summer chinook on redds working.
Some coho were present.

What I DID see that relates to these closures was a noticeable amount of fishing pressure above Schaefer park(2 that I saw were most certainly not fishing for "trout") and the couple anglers I had above the middle fork were outright sight snagging and not shy about it.
This is an enforcement issue as much as anything else and we all know how people tend to fish in these low water times when the bite gets hard.

Willipa bay streams are also being hit hard with angler pressure in areas closed to salmon fishing... nemah and naselle both have close to 1000 premorts each below the intakes.
Dissolved oxygen counts are well below the baseline on "5" needed for salmon to survive...naselle had a number down in the 3's I think.

We are setting records daily with this weather and have ZERO real rain totals in the forecast.
Fish are spawning in areas right now that will be the first to be scoured with the high water when it finally comes. There is a myriad of reasons why these regs have come down the pipe...

It is truly pathetic to see the comments on said news releases from people that should know better. But that's what happens when knuckledraggers are given the chance at the mic.



So, 2 snaggers and a couple cheating "trout anglers" fishing water where the fish AREN'T is a greater threat to this year's spawn than 50-100 boats trolling bait through the tidewater where the fish ARE? To say nothing of the GILLNETS filling in the off time? Do I have that brilliant bit of policy logic right?

My point, in case you missed it, is that this closure won't "protect" $hit while the only water with fish in it is still getting relentlessly hammered. That makes it bad policy, even if a majority of the posters here who can still fish think it's sounds okay. Close the tidewater and you've got an effective, sound policy, not just another misguided lie to protect the "favored" fisheries.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/22 05:05 AM

Not knowing all the facts this thought. First it is not about numbers coming in but rather low flows and the fact that the fish staged up hard low. That mob of fish was huge and unlike the last few years where the fish got into safe reaches with rain this year they did not. They came in without rain early and stuck in close to tidewater areas which is not good.

This summer weather has not been around for a few years but it is a normal pattern. For many years the high risk area was below the South Elma Bridge to Fuller Bridge for Chinook. What is different is all of us. When I was younger it was locals and some sportsman and that is again the difference. Sure we had crowds then but nothing like now. To add to the misery the manner in which people conduct themselves shall we say has deteriorated more than a little bit. A lady I worked for when I was 16 used to say " most persons are decent but people are a quarrelsome, destructive, ill mannered thing". Then we have and ever growing bunch of guides crowding themselves into a already small area to fish.

So unless the preseason forecast was and is total garbage it is not a numbers thing. It is about the fish and the fact they staged up low with little water in the tribs. The bay and lower tidewater the fish have water and acreage to use. Above South Monte it gets dicey but they do have water, tides and room for now. The tribs and mainstem above fuller hill the fish are trapped and it was proper to do this. I do worry that if the fish keep stacking up in the Fuller Hill to South Monte we could loose that reach also.

One final thing this and other years the area few miles down stream below Schafer Park it has been a real problem with fishers snagging and harassing Chinook, just saying.




Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/22 05:20 AM

10/7/2022

4:32 a m.......mmmmm, how to approach this??????

After about 50 years of fishing the Chehalis River, mostly above the South Monty WDFW boat launch. Pin points where I fish, but the following needs to be said.

Past few years the Chehalis River has had major changes, lots of movement of gravel.

Places that were often for running even "prop boats" are few and far between. Oh ya, at high tide many boats will have little problem, its the changing to "low water" that causes problems. There are 4-5 places between South Monty and Fuller Bridge that cause problems. The names of these areas have been used for years,,,,barge slip, Lukins, Eagle Nest, well casing, pipe hole, pump houses, blue tarp hole. Most that fish the Chehalis will know the different places but newer persons will have no idea where they are.

The closing of the majority of rivers in Region 6, tomorrow, 10/08/2022, will force lots of boats and bank fishers to move to the Chehalis River below Fuller Bridge.

Skinny water, jet boats gota run......many of the skinny water places have bank fisher OR boats anchored......going to be hard feelings, no easy answer.

1 of my favorite "jack fishing" is at the bottom of the "blue tarp hole", changes in the river.....logs to the North, gravel build up causes all the water to go to a 20' chute......boats anchored and bank fishers.......well you know what I mean. Tough to come "off plane" skinny water....so it will be interesting in this area. Everyone wants to gets to a certain spot....I'm here to tell you, the certain spot is probably going to have boats or bank fishers there.....

This is the year to pray for rain to get the flows up.....great for the fish, also great to spread "everyone out".........but then the Bay fishers will hate it....

Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/22 07:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Not knowing all the facts this thought. First it is not about numbers coming in but rather low flows and the fact that the fish staged up hard low. That mob of fish was huge and unlike the last few years where the fish got into safe reaches with rain this year they did not. They came in without rain early and stuck in close to tidewater areas which is not good.

This summer weather has not been around for a few years but it is a normal pattern. For many years the high risk area was below the South Elma Bridge to Fuller Bridge for Chinook. What is different is all of us. When I was younger it was locals and some sportsman and that is again the difference. Sure we had crowds then but nothing like now. To add to the misery the manner in which people conduct themselves shall we say has deteriorated more than a little bit. A lady I worked for when I was 16 used to say " most persons are decent but people are a quarrelsome, destructive, ill mannered thing". Then we have and ever growing bunch of guides crowding themselves into a already small area to fish.

So unless the preseason forecast was and is total garbage it is not a numbers thing. It is about the fish and the fact they staged up low with little water in the tribs. The bay and lower tidewater the fish have water and acreage to use. Above South Monte it gets dicey but they do have water, tides and room for now. The tribs and mainstem above fuller hill the fish are trapped and it was proper to do this. I do worry that if the fish keep stacking up in the Fuller Hill to South Monte we could loose that reach also.

One final thing this and other years the area few miles down stream below Schafer Park it has been a real problem with fishers snagging and harassing Chinook, just saying.



I know the justification isn't based on actual numbers in the tribs, but I also know I don't need to tell you of all people that every policy decision WDFW makes on salmon is about numbers (mostly on paper) at the end of the day. Someone crunched some numbers to decide what needed to be done here. In this case, I think the calculation is about how many assumed fish from each tributary managers think they can transfer to the lower river and bay allocation without endangering escapement (another number). Rather than letting people try (and mostly fail) to catch them in the tribs, they are essentially allocating the catch that would normally be occurring in the tribs to the mainstem. From an angling perspective, if you have a boat, that probably sounds pretty good, and I don't begrudge anyone for taking the opportunity; I just think an honest assessment can only arrive at the fact that upstream opportunity has been traded to allow for more harvest on the mainstem. I think the QIN, who are probably benefiting handsomely from the fish staying where they gillnet, might have had a rather solid hand to play in that game.

There should be no question among us that during times of low water, many more fish are caught and killed every day in the lower river and bay than in all the tribs combined. Simple function of number of rod hours concentrated in the area that has the most fish (yeah, more numbers). There should also be no question that when the water's low, the same fish cycle in and out of the river with tide changes (or else pile up below river mouths) until conditions in their trib of choice become suitable for them to make their move. These factors, combined, make time staging in those areas the most perilous time these fish face in their lives (after surviving smolthood, I suppose). That means it's the place that makes the least sense to fish right now if we're trying to "protect" fish, as the emergency regulation clearly states we are. That's the hangup for me. I think they're sacrificing all opportunity upstream to allow for more harvest down below, plain and simple, motivated by politics, and yes, supported by somebody's numbers.

One last thought: I hate fishing around snaggers as much as anyone. They shut down a bite quicker than anything else. That said, as ugly as it is to see (and illegal as it is), how much harm does snagging really do in modern times? Those who still do it generally abide by gear restrictions that make it hard to snag in the first place, and when they "hook up," I have observed that they lose most fish rather quickly, and those they do land are almost always released, either because they're boots, have too many fins, or (the majority) aren't fair hooked. For sure, the harassment is poor form and probably not great for fish, but hardened-off salmon are pretty tough, so even that probably has a relatively small impact at the end of the day. Don't get me wrong; not looking to legalize snagging, and I think it's despicable. Just putting it out there that snagging might not be the threat to salmon we assume it to be. I guess I'm saying it's poor justification for closing fisheries, in my opinion. Poaching is obviously another matter, but that goes on whether the river is open or not (maybe more when it's closed), so....

How much any of this matters? One last number: zero. Hope the fishing is good for those who still can. Be careful out there; I may be jealous of you downstream guys right now, but I don't want to see anyone hurt!
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/22 03:32 PM

Flea..
While I understand and on some point agree with your comments and frustration, I think for this whole scenario you're kinda painting with a broad brush.

After having a pretty frank discussion with people that have seen your other comments I disagree with your assertion that they are just trading fish from one to the other and that the QIN have a hand in the ruling... the data supports the assumption of what in river pressure could have on kegged up fish.. the dissolved oxygen counts in all tribs is getting low to the point of the crucial cut-off for salmon to survive, coupled with high water Temps and data that we KNOW and have discussed here on this site, and indeed this thread at length on Lactic acid build up, it's dispersal time and the associated health issues from it. A fishery with 100% legal AND ethical fisherman would still..in my opinion.. have a negative and detrimental affect to the stocks with these current conditions, that's my opinion, boots on the ground everyday working these tribs.

When it comes to snagging and its associated issues, I gotta say I am quite disappointed and surprised at your assumptions to the effect that it causes...
Once again I will refer to lactic acid buildup, of course energy lost from the fish(which is finite)..do i really need to comment on HOW people release snagged fish? It certainly isnt done with "care" by most anglers, especially the knuckledraggers that employ the tactics on a regular, that right there accounts for a large jump in % to that fish ending up as a statistic.

But you also need to be aware of the other tertiary issues from snagging such as ANY time that the belly wall is punctured the chance of premortality grows exponentially, but the real issue is that even if that fish were to survive to the redd, the minute water gets into that belly cavity of a female the eggs are toast and a decent % of them will become unviable..

We can also extrapolate that data to the redd where, if that female has unviable eggs now we are not just losing that fishes production but that of the MULTIPLE males milt associated with her that could have gone to a viable female.
-seeing recent posts of guys that I know were flossing or lining fish on the humptulips talking about going 2 for 23 fish in a day, how many of the 21 that got away had these issues? How were they released?

Just one example of other effects illegal/unethical fishing has on the stock as a byproduct....and no, I certainly don't agree that poaching INCREASES during river closures. Simply put, unless it's landowners, people parking anywhere near a river are suspect to wardens. And as a surveyor who is in closed waters a lot the evidence of fishing pressure doesn't pencil out to your broadly painted assumption.


I'm not happy with the way these regs came out, I think we should have had more warning for the public and I DO think we could have squeezed out some more opportunities in GH and willipa bay tribs(what up with the mark-selective fishery?) But it is what it is right now and from someone who has been on the water counting the premorts, and as a avid fisherman in this area I agree that *while some finer details could have been better* we are on the right path for these stocks while mother nature holds us ransom for rain.

I hope you find some opportunities to get out and enjoy what you can. This sh!t isn't easy for any of us.
I'd rather not get into a pissing match with you on policy, being that as a worker bee it's not my place, I'm just telling you what I see in the field, boots on the ground and my background of being a second generation fisheries biologist/technician and of knowing these systems pretty well working them and fishing them since the late 90s
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/22 05:01 PM

I'm surprised they left tidewater open with the tribes pulling there nets? What a mess! Joke crowds because no where else to fish, bumper boats, bankies trying, fish nowhere to hide, I don't want a salmon that bad. Flea Flicker boasts a good argument! Close it all, until rain is in the forecast.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/22 05:59 PM

Couple points on C&R, especially on pre-spawning fish. There has been very little work on the reasonably long-term effects of C&R. They tend to look at survival; did it live or die. If it lives, then it's all good.

We do have some data on the effects of C&R on egg survival and Rivryguy can chime in but we have brood stocked fish that were spawned; what was egg-fry survival versus (say) standard hatchery fish taken in the pond? But, for Atlantic Salmon there is data that a C&R'd female produces fewer smolts than an unfished female. IF this is true, then the escapement goal needs to be increased for a C&R fishery as more females would be needed to get the same number of smolts out. Makes for some interesting discussions.

Back when I began in Harvest was that WDF actively worked to keep fisheries away from FW areas where fish spawned. The Agency, at that time, was really not in favor of FW fisheries for salmon except in reasonably unique situations like LW sockeye and super-abundant pinks.

Especially in areas where natural escapement is important what is the downside of full closure when the fish are so stressed. A few additional spawners on top of comically low escapement goals?

To my mind the Co-managers show their true colors when they fish in conditions that are super stressful for the fish; showing that dead fish in the boat are more important than live fish on the grounds.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/22 07:41 PM

Everyone here is worried about the pressure on the kegged up fish at the top of tidewater, and the same people have continuously posted about how many fish are in what spot on the Chehalis basically keeping a running update as they came up the river, so might be something to stop advertising on the internet. FFS
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/22 06:42 AM

Having had some time to cool off and process through the dregs of yet another fishing season lost, I've realized I said some pretty outrageous stuff in my previous rants. To those who know better or might have been offended, I apologize. I still have concerns about the timing (why now, when the water is finally starting to cool, even if it's still low?) and the fact that it eliminates virtually all opportunity for the bankbound, but I think I'm at least satisfied with the idea the tribs should probably be closed.

The one point I firmly stand by is that leaving the lower river open while we wait for rain, while it does provide needed opportunity, is NOT consistent with any policy designed to help the fish. On that note, if the Tribe DID pull their nets (haven't seen any confirmation yet; guess we'll find out around noon tomorrow), major kudos to them.

One more thing: Just like the rest of you, I
mostly just want to fish. When I find out I can't, I get cranky, and I sometimes go looking for answers that aren't there. Given a day or two to process, I generally even out and come to terms with the decision, no matter how much it sucks.

So who's got an open seat for the river or bay LOL?
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/22 11:24 AM

Until you see the tribes numbers, no one has any reason to give the tribe kudos for pulling their nets. It just might be a numbers thing, where they have already taken their share, or more likely, more then their share. I am a bit jaded, but it seems there may be a reason they have not released their numbers yet, or why the state has not released them. This alone could be part of why the fishery above was closed. After watching how things work, I get very skeptical when things are done without releasing all the facts.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/22 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Krijack
Until you see the tribes numbers, no one has any reason to give the tribe kudos for pulling their nets. It just might be a numbers thing, where they have already taken their share, or more likely, more then their share. I am a bit jaded, but it seems there may be a reason they have not released their numbers yet, or why the state has not released them. This alone could be part of why the fishery above was closed. After watching how things work, I get very skeptical when things are done without releasing all the facts.


The QIN being slow to report numbers is regrettably normal, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence they are deliberately slow to report. Let's assume the best of intentions until something else becomes evident. But for sure, it would be better if they got their numbers posted faster.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/22 12:23 PM

I have not seen or been told that the QIN will not be fishing as scheduled or that the NT commercials will not be fishing. It is very much true that minus the QIN catch numbers we do not know with certainty just how the run is performing. The 1100 and change in 7 hours NT commercial set at the end the first QIN set should show good QIN catch numbers. So we wait.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/22 03:01 PM

My fear is that the Quinault have blown by their numbers and that is why the state is pulling back so quick. Allowing the recs to continue in the river would put the run at risk of falling way blow the allowable escape. If the fish are staging in a place where they are more vulnerable than usual, this would likely be more likely than not, unless the nets pulled back. My experience has been that when something is missing, the state usually does not want us to know the truth. We will see, but it just seems to always be the case.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/22 12:07 PM

10/9/2022


Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02


The QIN being slow to report numbers is regrettably normal, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence they are deliberately slow to report. Let's assume the best of intentions until something else becomes evident. But for sure, it would be better if they got their numbers posted faster.


Come on Flea, the slow reporting by the QIN has been going on for many years. Fish are caught, set nets or Gillnets, fish go to "fish house", either Wishkah or Taholah. Fish tickets should be available within a 24 hours time period. Technology being as fast as it, there is no reason that WDFW shouldn't be sent a daily copy or at least a weekly copy.

Personally I'd like to see report Hatchery/Wild numbers reported on WDFW web site.....sports have to record, should be on commercial side also. Maybe WDFW gets numbers and choose not to post???? Can't be much effort to include in the web posting.......
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/22 12:39 PM

I agree....

So, what's the verdict? Are the nets back in?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/22 01:59 PM

It's odd. Way back when WDF had commercial samplers who hit all the fish houses essentially daily. Most fisheries the numbers were available fast; 99% of the catch (I and NI) in 3 days or less. The data was on computer and available for looking at. This was 40 years ago. Technology has advanced a lot and the data is less available??
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/22 02:01 PM

10/09/2022

The nets are in.....went in at 12:00.......QIN schedule October 9 - Oct 12

We just need the numbers posted.....
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/22 02:14 PM

Thanks, Drifter. That tells me all I needed to know. No fishing (at least in Grays Harbor) tomorrow.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/22 02:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
It's odd. Way back when WDF had commercial samplers who hit all the fish houses essentially daily. Most fisheries the numbers were available fast; 99% of the catch (I and NI) in 3 days or less. The data was on computer and available for looking at. This was 40 years ago. Technology has advanced a lot and the data is less available??


The resource became scarce. Then, the politics got more secretive and dirtier. Now, we citizens get only what the co-manglers choose to let us see, and only when they choose to let us see it.

Of course, you understand this, and I'm only following your lead....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/22 03:11 PM

The thing about QIN numbers is they always showed a week or so after the fishing week. It is unusual for the QIN to be in their 3rd set and numbers not available for the first week. The QIN manage their fisheries for their people and no where do I remember seeing the word co managers utilized for the Chehalis Basin closures. It appears this was a WDFW thing and I imagine the NT commercials will also fish. TeamMontesano@dfw.wa.gov or James.Losee@dfw.WA.gov is how to reach James Losee or Kelly Cunningham in the concrete palace in Olympia as he is the harvest top dog.

Until we get the QIN numbers it difficult to bring reason into the discussion. The press release mentions harvest and concerns but remember this is WDFW and numbers do not appear to be of concern to the QIN in the Chehalis. Lacking the necessary information my gut says this is about a huge fish movement that stopped short. A rather substantial number of fishers descended on them with the usual bandits mixed in. The optics are bad to be sure but that is people and frankly with the preseason forecast recreational exceeding their catch enough to harm escapement in the Chehalis is pure BS.

After all that minus the QIN numbers we truly do not know what the run looks like and why WDFW and the QIN are setting on the tribal harvest numbers. One thing I do know local staff we interact with does not take actions like this but rather Region 6 Fish Program top gun Mr. Losee James.Losee@dfw.WA.gov and the infamous concrete palace in Olympia where Mr. Cunningham hangs out. Keep in mind these guys are not prone to coming forth and explaining their actions in a forthright manner as it usually involves smoke and mirrors.


.

Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/22 04:16 PM

From day 1 of Boldt QIN was recognized as "self-regulating" as they already had a professional staff "capable" of managing by themselves. I think they are the only Tribe that has that designation assigned by the Courts. I do recall, when I was working, that there was tribe in PS with a Chinook fishery that was still unreported in December.

You simply can't manage for escapement without up to date numbers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/22 07:54 AM

About optics of in river fishers then and now. In the early 80s the Coho came in and stopped right at the Satsop twin bridges. As luck would have my wife and I were off a week to fish so when I seen this was happening we fished it with 4 guys from Monte. Then the Chum came up and I mean the old bridge flats it was a river full of fish. My wife did a C&R on the biggest damn bowser I have ever seen and that fish had her ass deep in the river more than once, up and down the bar on runs that was something to see.

Then a Seattle TV station ( KOMO I think ) did video for the nightly news and the next day that gravel bar was ass deep in people. The reaction from WDF was it was a great year for fishing! I abandoned that zoo but if you have lots of fish that are accessible your going to draw lots of people. The press release quotes James Losee with "Historic low flows this summer are creating conditions that limit fish movements and result in higher-than-expected harvest rates," said James Losee, WDFW Region 6 fish program manager. "These areas are closing to fishing until river conditions improve and salmon are able to reach the spawning grounds in adequate numbers." Right here I call BS LOUDLY because commercial harvest and Rec harvest continues in the tidewater and bay. This is about a substantial number of harvestable fish stopping where folks can access them. As in all things that draws folks it can look and is unruly but that is combat fishing. Optics suck but the average person who does not have a boat can get a fish!

For Janes Losee and Kelly Cunningham and the minions in the concrete palace to put this is about conservation is simply as I said a load of BS. Now I cannot back this up with numbers because the QIN and WDFW will not release the QIN harvest numbers. That said the QIN and NT commercials are still fishing so the closure is clearly not about conservation. It is about the optics of large numbers of fish and large numbers of river fishers coming together for "combat fishing"

Again the optics are bad but for average citizen who cannot afford a boat and fishes a few times a year to finally get to catch a salmon after several lean years is a dream come true. For Fish Programs harvest managers James Losee and Kelly Cunningham to put forth that for the Chehalis this is about conservation is just plain a falsehood. It is about the optics of the average citizen and large numbers of fish coming together. It ain't pretty but neither is a gillnet ripping fish out of the water but terminal commercial fisheries and charter boat mayhem are acceptable.

This is the discrimination that inriver Rec fishers have struggled with for years. I do not use the word discrimination lightly but it is true. Many things have changed over the years but the bias within WDFW toward inriver recreational fishers has not.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/22 08:26 AM

One thing I noticed about WDF/WDFW was a fascination with boat based fisheries. For a variety of reasons, including sea-sickness, I really don't go for boat fishing but that is what they emphasize.

Back in the 80s fisheries were more reality-based. You had updates, you had daily catches, and management was expected to be nimble. Now, the preference is for auto-pilot. I can understand the Tribe's desire for that as they were the ones being cut off due to declining run or increased catch.

So, they all agreed to scheduled fisheries with no updates. Auto-pilot management. The NI take a number (set) outside. The I -side then fishes a fixed schedule inside (guaranteed). If any adjustments needs to be made after the horse is out of the barn they head upstream to close.
Posted by: steelhead59

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/22 09:00 AM

NT nets will be in Willapa Bay Monday and Tuesday as scheduled.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/22 09:08 AM

As others have said here, just dont buy a license. Were just funding somebody else's crack habit. If getting fish to the spawning grounds is the problem, there is no logical reason to leave the lower river and bay open. Dont help fund somebody who is not going to work for you.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/22 09:15 AM

A logical explanation and the state of Washington do not go hand in hand. Here's a logical start to fix our problem's. Quit destroying habitat, and handing out building permits like there candy. For as green as Washington claims to be, they sure do alot of the opposite.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/22 09:36 AM

And people still think that WDFW want what’s best for the fish. If the tribe is netting, commercials are netting and the tidewater is still open for fishing, then I agree….”letting fish get to spawning grounds” is not the goal.

Then the state wonders why we don’t trust them during the steelhead management on these rivers.

I’m beyond done with WDFW. From the top to the bottom…they are useless. I didn’t see a single fish checker, bio or game warden each day I fished the tributaries when they were open. How the hell do they make these decisions if they can’t or won’t put boots on the ground?

I was catching fish in the mornings. Did fishing decline considerably when the 80 degree sun hit the water? Yeah…but fish were in the tribs and it was some great morning fishing.

We need a change. We will lose all “opportunity” with the current regime at WDFW. They are lazy and live in fear of frivolous lawsuits from the wild fish only groups. It’s all about “optics” like riverguy said. “Crap, sportsman are catching fish, Wild fish bug throwers are going to be upset and sue us”.

These steelhead meetings this year should be everyone calling in questioning their decision making ability after this BS. They can’t manage sports salmon fishing…how do we except you to manage steelhead.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/22 10:58 AM

Back when sturgeon fishing seasons were a bit more liberal, a few guys discovered that the pool at the dead line was holding fish. I was there one day and a boat had gone across and was catching fish. Two guys, that was it, but they caught their fish real quick. The game warden was standing next to me and observed this. I said something like, man, they look to be in there thick. His response was classic. "I know, we might need to close it.".

I have only seen one other boat do this. But hey, if they are catching, we need to close it.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/22 12:22 PM

Everything Rivrguy said. Only thing I would add is that there weren't many people fishing the parts of the tribs I had been fishing (which are spots I know hold fish and are not secrets-most right at public access points). I suppose it makes a difference that I go out of my way to avoid combat situations (in life and on the river!), but I hadn't observed anything I would consider a real crowd anywhere before it was closed, probably because everyone knew the fishing was so tough. I know I had put in less effort than usual, because I didn't see much reason to expect the kind of fish movement we need to spread out the fish to places where I like to get em.

Another thing for me, personally: When the salmon fishing is slow in October, I like to turn my attention to cutthroat, jacks, or whatever else might be around. With this closure, that's not an option anymore. I think there are ways WDFW could have declared only a salmon closure and supplemented the rule with appropriate gear restrictions, to allow for some opportunity on game fish.

I am very familiar with the tired arguments that if they leave the rivers open for anything, the snaggers and poachers will keep doing their thing. If that's true, it's only because WDFW doesn't enforce its rules in the field. We all know they are under-staffed, but that's not our fault or our problem. Only WDFW can take action to defeat the evil spectres of snagging and poaching. And while we're on that topic, why aren't these WDFW staff doing stream observation issuing citations to the snaggers they claim to be observing all over the place? That might make a difference! Taking away fisheries from people who abide by the rules is never the appropriate way to punish those who don't.

Grrrr....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/22 03:07 PM

Going way back the old WDG used to have most of the field staff commissioned. That meant that, while doing a spawner survey, I could (if Commissioned) issue citations. Our boss didn't want us to be Commissioned (although he did get it) because it could take time away from work. There are some solutions available that don't require additional staff.

We were a small group of 4 at a field station. But, we walked the anadromous zones of five watersheds weekly so there was a lot we could see.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 02:20 PM

Draft email to Losse, Director, and Governor... any thoughts? I know it's too long, but that's just because I wrote it....


Mr. Losse:

I am writing to express concern with your office’s decision to close the vast majority of the coastal rivers and Chehalis tributaries to all fishing as of October 8, 2022. To be very clear, I am a conservation-minded individual, and I am supportive of in-season changes that genuinely seek to protect fish that are at risk. My issues with your decision are as follows:

· You allow fishing to continue, as planned, in the mainstem Chehalis tidewater and Grays Harbor, which flies in the face of your stated objective to (paraphrasing) “ensure enough fish are able to spawn successfully.” If there are enough fish to keep the tidewater fishing open, there are enough to keep the tributaries open.

· Your decision to close the tributaries while leaving the mainstem open allows people who can afford power boats to keep fishing, while putting most bank anglers, most of whom are only bank anglers because they cannot afford boats, on the couch. All anglers pay the same for their fishing license. Regardless of motivation, that is discriminatory policy, which means it’s also bad policy.

Anyone who has fished the Chehalis drainage for any length of time (22 years for me) understands that when the fish aren’t moving into the tributaries this time of year, they are mostly holding in the tidewater and bay, waiting for rain, cooler temperatures, or whatever it is that tells them it's time to move. While they cycle in and out of the lower river (which we’ll call the mainstem water below the mouth of the Satsop River), they are subjected to constant fishing pressure and predation, whether it’s from a large contingent of sport anglers in boats, the tribal and non-tribal gillnets fishing the river 4 days (or sometimes more) each week, or predatory pinnipeds. Without question, this is the most perilous 10 or so miles of water Grays Harbor salmon encounter along their journey to the spawning gravel or hatcheries.

In a typical year, fish start moving into the tributaries by the end of September, so the “waiting” period is limited to a period of 2-3 weeks, effectively limiting the impact of the fisheries to a reasonable level. This year is clearly not typical, however, with flows well below normal and temperatures well above, and the current forecast suggests it may be November before we see changes sufficient to move fish. If that’s what plays out, it will mean the early run will have been essentially trapped in a relentless kill zone for no less than 6 weeks. That simply cannot be conducive to successful spawning, and it will almost certainly eat up the entire recreational harvest quota before the majority of stakeholders in the fishery (the average Joes and Joans who don’t own power boats) ever get a chance to wet a line. If that sounds like discriminatory policy, well, it probably is. That is why I have CCed the Governor’s office and the WDFW Director on this communication; I feel they should be aware that this sort of policy, while it’s been the most used tool in the WDFW in-season adjustment toolbox, disproportionately affects people of lesser economic means. I may be a privileged white, but many of my bank fishing cohorts are people of color, and one thing we all have in common is that we can’t afford boats.

That all explains why anglers displaced by this decision are not satisfied with your explanation that our water is closed to “protect spawning fish,” which brings me to another reason I saw fit to share this with your superiors. This is but the latest on an ever-growing list of half-truths and even outright lies your sport angler contingent has been fed by the Department in recent years, often in attempts to justify the unjustifiable. Based on what I hear from other anglers (even some among those who can still fish now), what we want most from our representation at WDFW (and particularly the Region 6 office) is honesty and forthright communication. It’s clear to anyone familiar with Grays Harbor fisheries this closure was not implemented to protect spawning fish. As citizens and paying stakeholders, we deserve (indeed, we are entitled!) to know the truth, even if it is as simple as the fact that your staff classifies bank anglers as a bunch of lowlife snaggers, unworthy of equal opportunity and government representation, so you decided to allocate our quota to the big boat crowd and gillnets. With that, Sir, on behalf of a shrinking but critical mass of your license-buying customers, I ask you for the (whole) truth about why I can’t fish right now, but my friends with boats can.

I am absolutely NOT asking that you close the tidewater fishery, unless, of course, that becomes legitimately necessary to protect fish. That is, after all, the only thing left, for anyone. I AM suggesting that, if it’s still safe to be fishing the lower river and bay, it’s still safe to be fishing the tributaries, even if it’s not likely to be very productive. Opening the tributaries would spread out pressure, and any day now, the switch will flip, and the fish will start moving. They always do. In the meantime, please carefully consider whom these decisions impact the most when you propose in-season rule changes. Those lowest on the totem pole are getting extremely tired of having our opportunity be first on the chopping block every time your staff decides any action is necessary.

One final point: When field observations lead to closures, which is what I understand happened here, WDFW staff frequently make mention of people “snagging” fish in places where they are holding up. Snagging is despicable, unethical, potentially harmful, and just plain bad in general. Any angler who tries to catch fish legitimately hates fishing around people who are snagging. That said, it is not our place to correct their behavior, and if it is such a pervasive issue and is leading your staff to think we should close fisheries, why aren’t you citing people when you observe them snagging? That might actually make a difference! Instead, you always seem more inclined to generalize us all as snaggers and close our entire fishery. That may be convenient in helping you achieve objectives, but it’s lazy, disingenuous, does nothing to discourage the bad behavior, and quite frankly, it wrongfully punishes law-abiding citizens. If snagging is the problem your staff say it is, do your job and enforce your regulations. If you don’t have enough enforcement staff to do that effectively (and I suspect you don’t; the hard-working wardens I know are stretched far too thin to effectively enforce anything), perhaps the people CCed on this message can help with that….

Thanks for your service and consideration. Here’s hoping we get to a better place, where all these constant twists and gyrations aren’t necessary to decide who can fish when. Until then, delivering the straight truth when you make a decision to close a popular fishery many of us look forward to all year would be a huge step forward that would be much appreciated.

Respectfully,

(name)

Disenfranchised Angler
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 02:45 PM

Question: If a WDFW enforcement officer issues a citation, does the revenue go to WDFW, or somewhere else? Probably the local county, right?

Just thinking of suggestions for ways to enhance enforcement. Seems they never have money to get more staff. Might a crackdown campaign on snagging generate enough revenue for WDFW to fund another officer or three (if the revenue goes to WDFW, of course)?
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 04:17 PM

lol, there were about 15 boats in the bay over the weekend, not quite the "bumper boats" mentioned earlier, and the fishing wasn't great. A vivid imagination is nice, but it's not always realistic.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 04:36 PM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
lol, there were about 15 boats in the bay over the weekend, not quite the "bumper boats" mentioned earlier, and the fishing wasn't great. A vivid imagination is nice, but it's not always realistic.


The bay's not usually as crowded as the river, and I bet that's especially true now. The bay's not as much of a concern anyway, because it's got lots of room for fish to move around and cooler water. I'm mostly concerned about the lower river.

Could be plenty of reasons the fishing was slow over the weekend. Full moon, east wind, hot weather, dour fish; take your pick of bad indicators. I sincerely hope it wasn't slow because the early run is underperforming or has already been overharvested, but I kind of doubt that. Maybe just crappy fishing. I know the guy you fish with doesn't like those big tides....
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 06:11 PM

i'll tell u why its slow down in the Aberdeen area.. theres been nets in 10 or 11 days out of 14
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 06:17 PM

Not bad FF and rather good job of laying all cards on the table.

A low boats in the bay should be expected because the major build moved upstream a bit back and your fishing on what swims by you that day. Fishing is back to normal numbers for Coho.

For the Chehalis and the Chehalis only this is not about conservation but about the optics of large numbers of Coho stopped and large numbers of people pursuing them. The projected wild Coho escapement modeled for the season is 58,284 with the escapement goal being 28,506. Without the QIN numbers one cannot be sure but the NT commercials harvested over 1100 Coho in 7 hours on the back side of the big movement of Coho. This says we are on track numbers wise in fact with the prior Coho movement possibly Coho are performing better than expected. Chinook are a concern but as someone who worked to save the Satsop Chinook a pure conservation shut down is again 100% grade A BS! The tribes daily harvest more than any Rec impact for the whole bloody year!

This closure is about the optics of a large number of fish and fishers coming together in combat fishing. It violates the purest view of floating the foggy river seeking a salmon or hiking in to a river in the natural setting to get a fish. Well folks that world mostly left 40 years ago! Now we have way more people, fewer fish, and less opportunity.

Conservation closure in the Chehalis is as I said pure BS. This is about the optics of combat fishing pure and simple. You want bad optics watch a drift net fleet as it fishes. Now I guarantee that fish with low flows spawn lower in the river but how many fish would be impacted? 1 or 100 or 1000 and does this endanger Coho escapement, I think not. Chinook now maybe yes but it must not be of concern because the QIN are still hauling them away.

So under the WDFW totally false narrative for the Chehalis Basin closed for conservation the reality is it is the BIAS of WDFW toward the inriver fisher. All they have done is screw over the working family that cannot afford a boat and gets to fish around work a few days a week from the bank. It is discrimination toward those of limited financial means to the benefit of commercial fisheries and those who have the means to put down 50 to a 100 thousand for a boat.

Now right out front I DO NOT blame the QIN at all. QIN staff are paid to represent the QIN fishers not baby sit NT fisheries be it Rec or commercial and do a good job of it. For the Rec fishers that is the job of tax payer and license funded WDFW staff. Frankly from my view the tribe has to be damn near dying laughing at this fiasco! This mess is about Mr. Losee and Mr. Cunningham stepping in to manage the second largest watershed in the state which by appearances their knowledge of is limited to say the least. This is about elitisms, bias toward inriver fishers, and incompetence.

After all that I have been told and do not doubt that fish are spawning down the lower reaches and this is normal in dry years. Wait until the Chum show! That said would angling endanger escapement and again the QIN and NT commercials will take move fish in a set than the bank angler in a year under these circumstances. As I said it is discrimination and bias not conservation.

One last thing for those who do not know me my home is 20 feet off the river in tide water, I have a dock that can moor boats, and I have two boats. So my objections are not about me loosing opportunity but about bias and discrimination by WDFW toward the inriver fisher. Who by definition as a general rule lack the means to purchase a boat or the time from work to fish otherwise. When it gets down to catching a fish you must purchase a boat, or go on a charter boat as Phil Anderson suggested to a citizen, or be a commercial fisher then frankly the system is not broken but has descended into the world of bias and discrimination again/still.

FF go after Mr. Losee and Mr. Cunningham as it is my belief that they are the prime actors in this fiasco. I would not leave the Director out either as it is his job to insure rogue staff are not let to run amuck. Gov was a nice touch but I doubt you get pass the secretary other than thank you for sharing your thoughts but let fly anyway.










Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 06:46 PM

Great letter FF.

So, if it starts raining on the 20th/21st, how fast do they open the rivers? Certain amount of rain? Looking to see rivers hold at a particular CFS? They sure can pivot fast for a closure, but what about opening things back up.

I have been hearing through the grapevine, unless it’s 2”-3”…they will likely just wait until November 1st.

My hope is (kinda lacking that right now) is we get rain the 20th-23rd and they open it up on the 24th and give us a little bit of October to fish. I’m sure they aren’t clamoring to open the rivers up.

I feel like we should open a betting line on when the tributaries will open. I’m putting some money on November 1st.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 06:55 PM

Long range forecast says your right! Looks to be around 28th of Oct. or the 1st week of Nov. Nov. looks to be one of the wettest in a while and it could have few fishing days. It is waiting time.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 07:37 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
Great letter FF.

So, if it starts raining on the 20th/21st, how fast do they open the rivers? Certain amount of rain? Looking to see rivers hold at a particular CFS? They sure can pivot fast for a closure, but what about opening things back up.

I have been hearing through the grapevine, unless it’s 2”-3”…they will likely just wait until November 1st.

My hope is (kinda lacking that right now) is we get rain the 20th-23rd and they open it up on the 24th and give us a little bit of October to fish. I’m sure they aren’t clamoring to open the rivers up.

I feel like we should open a betting line on when the tributaries will open. I’m putting some money on November 1st.

Make no mistake; the early run is over for the in-river crowd. The way they communicated the conditions for re-opening, no action will be taken until it's clear fish are moving normally. As you know very well, the day "it" happens, the entire run will bolt for hatcheries and spawning gravel, and by the time they can publish a rule change, nothing but boot chums will be in the fishable water until whenever the late run shows. WDFW knows this, too, and that's why they are currently pimping out your portion and mine of the early run to people in the tidewater.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 08:54 PM

https://www.vzmessages.com/ol/37d5d6ffeb61fa0c7f6704a323bd642cf68faaf9

Please watch and this is 44 seconds down stream from Schafer Park above the confluence of East Fork and Middle Fork. This video was taken in the last 7 days. No fish moving they say! Again and again pure BS.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/22 09:24 PM

Yup. Water temp finally got there, flows be damned. Those aren't great numbers, but they're definitely salmon on the move! Fun to see. Even if we can't fish for 'em.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 06:21 AM

Update: The video was shot last Tuesday the 11th of October. Oh almost forgot, look at the color of the fish in the video and you will see nothing but silver.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 06:47 AM

Wasn't it L. P. Berra who said you could learn a lot by watching? Sure looked like those fish were not kegged up.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 07:47 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Originally Posted By: fish4brains
lol, there were about 15 boats in the bay over the weekend, not quite the "bumper boats" mentioned earlier, and the fishing wasn't great. A vivid imagination is nice, but it's not always realistic.


The bay's not usually as crowded as the river, and I bet that's especially true now. The bay's not as much of a concern anyway, because it's got lots of room for fish to move around and cooler water. I'm mostly concerned about the lower river.

Could be plenty of reasons the fishing was slow over the weekend. Full moon, east wind, hot weather, dour fish; take your pick of bad indicators. I sincerely hope it wasn't slow because the early run is underperforming or has already been overharvested, but I kind of doubt that. Maybe just crappy fishing. I know the guy you fish with doesn't like those big tides....

F4B. Obviously our definition of bumper boats is different. I generally fish during the week and the weekends IMO have been a [Bleeeeep!] show. I get it, beautiful weather great fishing, only game in town. Now with the nets in it's also obvious the fishing has dropped off. Makes sense huh?
Flea. Great write. Really curious what if any response you get. Please share.
Cool vid! Just goes to show you how sneaky they are in low water. Am surprised that movement in bright sunlight? Usually most movement in low light or darkness. If it were open run up to the head of the hole and cast.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 07:55 AM

I'm sure the observations from before the closure were right. At the time they announced the closure, there were definitely NOT many fish moving (though there were definitely some, to include an absolute chromer I caught and released while fishing for cutts above Schafer Park). Still, this is what usually happens (no fish moving one day; many moving the next), and it teaches us that flow is less important than water temperature in determining when salmon think it's "time." Makes absolute sense, if you think about it. After all, they can't sense water volume....

Okay... so now fish are moving (with video evidence). Has anyone informed the Region 6 office of this fact? They said in their announcement the rivers would remain closed until either the flows increased or the fish started moving. They're moving, so we should start pressing them to reopen the rivers this Saturday. If they don't respond to that, we'll have more ammo for nastygrams...
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 08:04 AM

Haven't sent my email yet. Waiting to get all the facts in. I suppose now, I need to add something about the fact the fish are in, yet the rivers are still closed, but before we do that, to be fair, I think we should contact Region 6 and let them know fish are being observed moving up the Satsop. At least give them a chance to do right and open it back up before we launch an assault. I'll do that today...
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 08:35 AM

Just sent this to Region 6. We'll see....



Video evidence of bright, moving fish from yesterday, below Schafer Park, was shared on a local fishing forum. I can share if you're interested, but my guess is someone in your office has seen it already or will see it today.

Your office's closure announcement said the rivers would remain closed until either the flows improved or the fish started moving. Well, they're moving. I imagine you can't just take my word for it, but it would be a great gesture if you guys could get a field observer out there to confirm, so maybe we can get back to fishing this weekend....

If that's not going to happen, please let me know the reason. The non-boating majority is entitled to know the truth about why they are being denied the right to fish they paid for, same as the gillnetters and boat crowd in the bay and mainstem Chehalis....

Thank you,
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 08:58 AM

Unless you have rain fish move and finally stage. Now why they pick a location is beyond me but the behavior is always present. For around 10 years it was the pump house and fishing you had fish jumping and rolling all around you. Those fishing waited for incoming tide for " fresh biters." When fish mob up they do not stay there until rain ( well some do ) but once the group builds in numbers new fish join the group as others move up. That pattern of behavior is always present minus rain and moderate rain will move them but never to dry spawning areas. I have seen years that above Schafer it is Coho everywhere but you will find few fish at Bingham hatchery just a few miles away.

A friend of mine always asks why the fish do this and I always reply fish will do what fish do. Many folks have this vision that Chehalis salmon just move upstream and that is just plain wrong. They move up for whatever the reason on their own timeline this year being an example with this years massive Coho movement in mid September and these fish were almost two months from spawning for heavens sake. They stopped at the upper end of tidewater and into the bottom of the tribs and now well down stream to South Monte. Will they stay there is the question and some do but the for the majority it is once the numbers increase and group them up new fish move in ( biters ) and others in the group move up. They do not storm up the river but move some and move again and again. They simply work their way upstream waiting for spawning conditions.

This behavior is really visible with Chum and on the Satsop they seem to like one place for a few years ( Cook area is one area easy to view from the road on the bluff ) sometimes down low on the river sometimes even above Schafer Park. I do not know for sure but water temperatures seem to have an cause and effect on the movement but in the end it is about the fishes comfort zone and time remaining to spawn. All that said they will continue to work there way upstream be it slowly and for the East Fork Satsop will stop mostly a mile two below Bingham down to Schafer Park.

This pattern of behavior is constant just as is the stampede when it rains enough water up spawning areas. This closure was ill-conceived, not well thought out, showed that lack of knowledge of the Chehalis Basin by senior staff, and is clearly discriminatory toward inriver fishers minus means to spend many thousands of dollars on a boat.

Conservation my ass this is about bias toward the inriver Rec that by its very nature is discriminatory toward bank fishers and folks of modest means. QIN & NT commercials are fishing as is tidewater and bay and as I said if the issue is Chinook the inriver Rec impacts for the year would not be what QIN sell in a day.

Almost forgot I sent the video to staff, Mr. Losee, the Director and the Commission.


Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 09:01 AM

I was seeing fish just below that on the 1st (3/4 of a mile below the middle fork). Moving and even biting in the morning. This is getting ridiculous. Fish are here, water temps are down (cold damp mornings every day) they need to let us fish.


Some guys weren’t getting them to bite and assumed they weren’t there. I walked about 6 miles of different stretches and found willing fish (coho) in all of them. It also pays to be a good bait fisherman with really good bait wink
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 09:08 AM

Water temps will really take a bite down! Above or close to 60 degrees you have give them a reason to bite. If every fish that was in that massive Chehalis movement was a biter I mean like lord we could sunk our boats minus limits. That said at 64 and change water temperature it did make things difficult! It was 45 degrees last night at my house and water temperatures are slowly falling, thank god!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 09:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Unless you have rain fish move and finally stage. Now why they pick a location is beyond me but the behavior is always present. For around 10 years it was the pump house and fishing you had fish jumping and rolling all around you. Those fishing waited for incoming tide for " fresh biters." When fish mob up they do not stay there until rain ( well some do ) but once the group builds in numbers new fish join the group as others move up. That pattern of behavior is always present minus rain and moderate rain will move them but never to dry spawning areas. I have seen years that above Schafer it is Coho everywhere but you will find few fish at Bingham hatchery just a few miles away.

A friend of mine always asks why the fish do this and I always reply fish will do what fish do. Many folks have this vision that Chehalis salmon just move upstream and that is just plain wrong. They move up for whatever the reason on their own timeline this year being an example with this years massive Coho movement in mid September and these fish were almost two months from spawning for heavens sake. They stopped at the upper end of tidewater and into the bottom of the tribs and now well down stream to South Monte. Will they stay there is the question and some do but the for the majority it is once the numbers increase and group them up new fish move in ( biters ) and others in the group move up. They do not storm up the river but move some and move again and again. They simply work their way upstream waiting for spawning conditions.

This behavior is really visible with Chum and on the Satsop they seem to like one place for a few years ( Cook area is one area easy to view from the road on the bluff ) sometimes down low on the river sometimes even above Schafer Park. I do not know for sure but water temperatures seem to have an cause and effect on the movement but in the end it is about the fishes comfort zone and time remaining to spawn. All that said they will continue to work there way upstream be it slowly and for the East Fork Satsop will stop mostly a mile two below Bingham down to Schafer Park.

This pattern of behavior is constant just as is the stampede when it rains enough water up spawning areas. This closure was ill-conceived, not well thought out, showed that lack of knowledge of the Chehalis Basin by senior staff, and is clearly discriminatory toward inriver fishers minus means to spend many thousands of dollars on a boat.

Conservation my ass this is about bias toward the inriver Rec that by its very nature is discriminatory toward bank fishers and folks of modest means. QIN & NT commercials are fishing as is tidewater and bay and as I said if the issue is Chinook the inriver Rec impacts for the year would not be what QIN sell in a day.

Almost forgot I sent the video to staff, Mr. Losee, the Director and the Commission.




That pump house hole (more of a run) was dynamite when the fish used to stage there. You could almost count on a few new biters in that run every day. Best fly water I've ever fished for coho. They just flat bit flies in that stretch...even better than spinners. Nobody was really fishing jigs in those days, but it probably would have been good for that, too.

I have observed the same; when flows are low, fish will still move and stage, as long as the water's cool enough. When the flows are better, it spreads the fish out better and keeps them moving (and biting better), but for sure, there's no magic moment that occurs every year to move the fish; seems to be different factors from year to year....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 09:56 AM

Yup FF fish do what fish do.

To conservation some numbers for all to chew on. The modeled 2022 anticipated harvest for Chehalis Chinook look like this and this is H&W combined.

Alaska harvest 11617
British Columbia harvest 4637
WA Coast Treaty and Non Treaty marine harvest 291

Terminal returns 14957
QIN harvest 3566
Rec impacts bay inriver 567
Chehalis tribal ( charged to state share ) 257

So what this says is AK & BC Chinook harvest will take more Chehalis Chinook than cross the bar at Westport. The QIN will take a good number with the Chehalis tribe ( which again is charged to the state share ) taking a modest number. The Rec bay predicated impact is 234 with C&R and freshwater inriver is 333 for fresh water C&R impacts or dead fish if you prefer that description.

Soooooo ...... look at these numbers and explain in clear precise english what are the conservation concerns? The Rec lost trebles hooks, barbed hooks and are limited to catch and release mortalities for Chinook. Now we shut down the fresh water river fishers for conservation? Are you kidding me! When WDFW mentions conservation one should NOT blindly except this as being truthful as that definition is designed generate a response driven by by oh my god the poor fish! The reality is the total disdain and bias that WDFW has for fresh water fisheries let alone the bank fisher. This guys is not my opinion but read the numbers above it is simple fact! Conservation my a--!!!!!





Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 11:32 AM

It's is historically interesting that Hoh v Baldridge came about because the last in line (Hoh) were saddled with the burden of conservation because all the earlier intercepting fisheries were allowed to proceed.

It is my belief that the ocean fisheries are heavily supported by the Tribes to ensure that their terminal fisheries go ahead. If conservation, recovery, and restoration were actually the goal then there would not be (many-updating fisheries are needed) fisheries until the runsize was confirmed by an inseason update. Then, fisheries would be managed daily by use of current catch information which would be available within a few days of landing. Might be costly but the fish would benefit.

It would also mess up all the staff who want to be out in the field hunting and fishing in the fall.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/22 01:55 PM

Did anyone else notice that they closed the other ocean shores area streams but nothing North or South of it. Seems odd to close the entire streams when they could have just closed it from the highway down.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/13/22 06:23 PM

QIN Chehalis numbers are up with the first three weeks all at once. So we all wondered what that the numbers do or do not show. That huge movement of fish that parked in East county plus the modeled numbers looks really good on Coho. Chinook numbers look bad and this is where the guessing starts. Were they in the movement so large so early? Did they hold up and this was a Coho thing? Now the Chum numbers way short and this supports the fish movement was a Coho thing the old rule is Chum will come through the bay by the 1st week of Nov even if it is a dry year. It also supports the thought that October fish came in early and the Coho tail down with the QIN was falling behind the curve as in the last couple of years with rain. It looks to be that Coho now are coming above forecast and Chinook not. The big unknown is the early movement being the largest I have seen validated by the fish in East county.


FIXED THE ERROR MY BAD

Actual Modeled

Coho
4920 4467
4859 10603
3559 6014

Chinook
612 1170
280 1448
142 623

Chum
32 5
295 295
205 2224
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/13/22 07:54 PM

hmmm....I dont understand your numbers. The actual vs modeled for coho were exactly the same to the fish for 3 weeks in a row????
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/13/22 08:35 PM

Looks dodgy to mee, too.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/13/22 09:21 PM

10/13/2022

1. Go to the WDFW web site

2. Fishing and Shellfish

3. Tribal Fishing.....You should be on the right page

Then Rivrguy information will be clear........

Looks like Chinook on Chehalis side AND Humptulips side are both in trouble!!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/13/22 09:36 PM

When the modeled and actual are exactly the same three weeks in a row I think it suspicious.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/22 03:30 AM

Well it does not pay to do three things at once. I have fixed the modeled Coho numbers. Keep in mind harvest numbers do not show fish that got by the nets. The massive early movement were the very fish that were modeled for the QIN to catch.

I also received this from another gentleman who like me does not eat WDFW propaganda for breakfast.



When I read about the closure due to low flows, I went to USGS flow data (https://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/current/?type=flow). I only ran three tribs, the Satsop, Wynoochee, and Humptulips; discharge only, and for all years available. What the graphs show is this isn't a bad year flow wise for the three tribs I looked at.

The graphs are rather busy so I tried doing tables copied from USGS, importing them into microSLOP EXCEL, but I am now in ongoing discussions with the software as to how to properly sort the data. The sort function is not cooperating; go figure.

What I'm trying to do is distill the data down (approx. 35,000 records per year) to only the lowest flows for each year. I'll keep working on it, and when I get the sort function to work, I'll run all USGS tribs in the closed areas. I'll send you the results.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/22 05:05 AM


What one has to remember is the model and run timing is based on history of years of harvest. It does not reflect years that rain is early as the past couple of years or dry years such the early 90s as well as this one which usually means movement is late. Also every year somewhere around the first week of Nov the rains come and the river is unfishable for all QIN & NT and we have a major movement.

One retired bio I keep in touch with e mailed me that it looks like Chinook and Chum are a little late and Coho early. Then he followed with or Chinook and Coho are both early and Chum are late. What is puzzling to him is why this behavior in 64 degree plus water was another thought.

One final bit is the long range forecast has changed with rain expected the Oct. 21 though the 27th. Now that is a change that is positive.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/22 07:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Well it does not pay to do three things at once. I have fixed the modeled Coho numbers. Keep in mind harvest numbers do not show fish that got by the nets. The massive early movement were the very fish that were modeled for the QIN to catch.

I also received this from another gentleman who like me does not eat WDFW propaganda for breakfast.



When I read about the closure due to low flows, I went to USGS flow data (https://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/current/?type=flow). I only ran three tribs, the Satsop, Wynoochee, and Humptulips; discharge only, and for all years available. What the graphs show is this isn't a bad year flow wise for the three tribs I looked at.

The graphs are rather busy so I tried doing tables copied from USGS, importing them into microSLOP EXCEL, but I am now in ongoing discussions with the software as to how to properly sort the data. The sort function is not cooperating; go figure.

What I'm trying to do is distill the data down (approx. 35,000 records per year) to only the lowest flows for each year. I'll keep working on it, and when I get the sort function to work, I'll run all USGS tribs in the closed areas. I'll send you the results.


I'm good with Excel, in case there's a need to help get a spreadsheet working...

Beyond debunking WDFW's justification for the closure (which we should do), I think flow is probably the wrong metric to study; I'm pretty sure it was water temps that were slowing the fish down. As you have pointed out, dry weather and low flows are absolutely normal late summer/early fall conditions. What was not so normal this year was the air temperatures. Seems like we saw 90 degrees almost weekly from July on, and while the overall average may have only been a couple degrees above normal, in water temp terms, a couple degrees can make a really big difference....
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/22 08:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Well it does not pay to do three things at once. I have fixed the modeled Coho numbers. Keep in mind harvest numbers do not show fish that got by the nets. The massive early movement were the very fish that were modeled for the QIN to catch.

I also received this from another gentleman who like me does not eat WDFW propaganda for breakfast.



When I read about the closure due to low flows, I went to USGS flow data (https://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/current/?type=flow). I only ran three tribs, the Satsop, Wynoochee, and Humptulips; discharge only, and for all years available. What the graphs show is this isn't a bad year flow wise for the three tribs I looked at.

The graphs are rather busy so I tried doing tables copied from USGS, importing them into microSLOP EXCEL, but I am now in ongoing discussions with the software as to how to properly sort the data. The sort function is not cooperating; go figure.

What I'm trying to do is distill the data down (approx. 35,000 records per year) to only the lowest flows for each year. I'll keep working on it, and when I get the sort function to work, I'll run all USGS tribs in the closed areas. I'll send you the results.

This is some cool stuff here. I have always loved low water fishing for both Salmon and Steelhead so I have some diary entries over the years during low waters. 2018 was the last bad one. Obviously for sure, not all watersheds are created equal. The information I have is so inconsistent. Drought years, certain watersheds do better but not necessarily. So many factors set up a watersheds performance during a drought or freeze up. One detail under these current conditions caught my eye, I have noticed the Hoh @ 190cfs. I have never seen that one. Many others have not seen either. But some, as mentioned, are still better. Another thing for sure, super low water may slow migration but does not stop it. I hope the gentleman's research is posted. How do we get the Hump gauge funded and back running?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/22 08:53 AM

Just saw the updated numbers for coho in the QIN catch. Looks like all species are in the crapper, at least compared to what was expected.

I missed out on "the mob." Are we thinking a really large portion of the early run moved up before the nets went in, and that explains the poor QIN numbers after the first week? I certainly didn't see what looked like a "large" number of fish in the Satsop before it closed. Maybe I was just looking in the wrong places? The Nooch and Wishkah had even less going on, and I haven't seen, but I heard accounts Porter was all but deserted, so I doubt those were early upper basin fish.... I dunno.... Doesn't seem to me like any significant movement happened before the nets went in, but I guess it could be there were a lot more fish in the Satsop than what it appeared....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/22 10:38 AM

Oh the Coho stacked at the bottom of the Satsop but I posted a video of them moving toward Schafer Park. That said nothing much moving on the Chehalis tidewater this morning but the "mob" has spread out from Elma to Monte with fresh fish moving be it the most lock jawed bunch still.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/22 11:05 AM

Thanks. So it seems the mob persists and is above the nets, if not very far. I guess the nets only fish up to around Friends' Landing or so, so they might have missed a bunch, explaining the lower than modeled catch numbers. Sound right?
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/22 05:02 PM

Well, we juuuust started really seeing springers spawning in the Pe ell to Jones creek float and Elmat gt rd to porter floats...
Everything else above there is an absolute ghost town... like only 3 redds above wheyerhauser..that whole upper basin!

Surveyed skookumchuck from the dam down to bucoda and same story...springers are just now hitting the gravel, well past peak(same story i hear in the Newaukum) and fall fish are starting to show despite the dams flow regime that was trying to separate the 2 stocks.

My index areas are about to go crazy next week if we get a bump of rain, However, it's still dead dog low and those fish will still be spawning in all the areas I don't want to see them for fear of losing most of the eggs to our first big freshet.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 07:53 AM

NOAA this morning.

".LONG TERM /WEDNESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY/...Models in good agreement
with the upper level ridge over Western Washington Wednesday and
Thursday. The ridge will begin to weaken Thursday. Front moving
down the British Columbia coastline still north of the area during
the day Friday. Front moving through Friday night. Over 90 percent
of the ECMWF ensembles indicating rain Friday night. The GFS
ensembles not that certain yet but trending that way with more
than double the number of ensemble solutions showing rain Friday
night versus the October 15th 00z run. Rainfall amounts also
trending upward with a chance of a wetting rain in the North and
Central Cascades.

This system looks to be the pattern breaker with another system
embedded in the northwesterly flow aloft arriving later Saturday.

Highs Wednesday in the lower 60s to lower 70s which is still warm
enough for possible records this time of year. Highs cooling a
little Thursday and more Friday and Saturday. Good chance many
locations do not get out of the 50s Saturday." Felton
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 09:14 AM


With all that has happened in recent days around fishing and the closure confusion over what why how this happened is present to say the least. So I feel the need to share this with folks. I received an email from a guy I met years ago and we have some things in common both being multi tour vets of the war in SE Asia. He asked if I could give him a call and so I did. Guys that was the most difficult conversation I have had since the my last one with my wife before she passed.

So to boil the conversation down he wanted to know why we had let the agency do this heavy-handed closure. Why did the bankie take the brunt? Why did he pay for two licenses and not be allowed to fish? At this point I was more than a little defensive, confused, and frankly a more than a little angry. In the middle of this I had a moment of clarity and asked him just who was this “we” thing? Why you GH Advisors he fired right back and you’re the one who has always tried to get a fair shake for the river fishers. At this point I was beside myself and explained as far as I knew the GH Advisors had been fired by the Director. Not true was his response I sent the link to your email to see it. So I did a C&P with the link he sent and there it was the GH Advisor list. https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/about/advisory/ghsag/gh_salmonadvisorygroup_2019_update.pdf

Then this, the nets are in for 5 days! Oh no was my reply, you go look he said which I did and sure enough off the WDFW website the QIN are in 16,17,18 followed by NT commercial 19th and 20th. That is a complete violation of the Grays Harbor Policy.

I was stunned and I want to say this. I want to sincerely apologize to those who depended upon myself and the other Advisors to represent them. I had no idea that folks did not know that the terminal Rec fishers had no input into the harvest process other than that phony ZOOM crap. I had no idea that WDFW continued to utilize us on their website. I had not done up the commercial days both tribal and NT on the calendar because I simply believed that staff would not violate the policy. Again folks I apologize to all for my shortcomings on this as I did not pay attention, trusted staff, and I failed you all miserably. My short comings as a person are many but I have always tried to make sure the inland fishers got a fair shake and again I failed you all miserably.

If I were still an Advisor I would have urged caution on this year’s harvest which I did in the ZOOM thing. Also when faced with the early Coho movement and the possibility of problems with wild Chinook I would have supported an emergency rule change but not what came down from WDFW. Closed above Fuller Hill, yes it was the correct move. The Satsop could have been closed above the old highway bridge which would have afforded the protection Chinook needed but allowed reasonable opportunity for the bank fishers. On the Wynoochee it could have been closed above or near the railroad bridge upstream, just down the road from Region 6 offices, allowing some bank fisher opportunity while protecting Chinook.

In my mind it is Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Losee that are responsible for what has transpired and I cannot believe the Director did not sign off. I give to all my word that I will seek answers to all the questions surrounding this year’s terminal fisheries. As a former Deputy Director once said on a similar issue “it is not one of WDFW’s finest moments”. I think we can all agree on that!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 11:26 AM

And we (the collective We) still buy licenses from these guys?
Posted by: FISH'N BRASS

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 12:38 PM

RG-2 comments-Thanks for info you supply to all of us. I appreciate your info and the time you take to keep us informed. Second comment concerns "the mob". I scouted the lower Satsop on Fri 30 Sept-I always go to river before opener to check river changes, snags, new drifts etc. What I saw was mind boggling to me-thought I was in AK! For an hour, wave after wave of coho went by me-heard them first coming thru rapids(skinny water) then saw them in schools of 30 t0 50 fish. Talked to WDFW guys who were spraying knotweed and they said the same thing had happened the day before. No idea how many total went up, but had to be a chit load! Again thanks from a fellow Vet.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 01:25 PM

Saw the same thing FnB. Up river at the middle fork. Two days in a row (last week). A couple hundred fish (at least) two days in a row blowing right up river. Somehow the pros keep missing them? Looking in the wrong place? There are….more than enough coho in that river to justify it still being open.

Thanks Riverguy. I really appreciate your opinion and (often times) facts (even in the face of what WDFW is spewing).

So if I got this right (living in east GH and not willing or able to burn the gas to look) the tribe AND the state commercial fisheries in the chehalis went on as scheduled? Am I getting that right? If so…that would explain most of the low chinook numbers getting up the tribs. Combine being thrown back (probably multiple times by different net boats) with the water temps and conditions, that would explain the pile of dead chinook below the satsop. The fish might make it out of monte down to the bridge after getting in the nets a couple times, but then they have to wait at the mouth of the tribs.

I’ve fished the fuller section more than a couple times…hardly a dead coho on the bottom. 99% chinook. Hmmm…only salmon species that has to be thrown back in October by nets…funny how that works isn’t it.

On the other hand, I’ve seen very few chinook hooked on the fuller section lately. Probably has something to do with people targeting coho with types of water and gear (spinners and jigs). Very few people where throwing much bait on the chehalis now that a jacks aren’t really the main target by the majority of fisherman this time of year.

So tell me…how is this decision about conservation again? How is this not discriminatory policy towards mostly bank bound anglers? The group the least likely to actually impact the fish? It’s 2022…people can just live in fantasy land and delusion I guess?

We’ve already lost our steelhead seasons for the foreseeable future, now hardly a coho season. Management by closure is the lazy cop out strategy (except nets, that’s a MUST). The smallest factor in fish mortality is also tue easiest for the state to control. Us.

Again…if this wasn’t bad management…the chehalis would have been closed and the state would have worked with their masters errr “co” manager to keep their nets out. Instead, just keep the bank anglers off the rivers because the game wardens are to lazy to find snaggers (which will catch just as many fish at 1500cfs as they do at 150).
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 01:43 PM

WTF are we supposed to believe? Are there very few fish in the Satsop or "lots?" I don't think anyone has any idea what's really going on out there. It seems to me like everyone's just running with whatever story fits their agenda. It's typical, but as I sit here, watching the no defense Seahawks give up yards like it's going out of style, I can't help but get more pissed off that I can't be out fishing right now. Meanwhile, more fish for gillnets. That's fair, equitable management, right?

I think all we KNOW is that WDFW and it's commercial stakeholders will go to any length to provide more opportunity for gillnets. That appears to be what happened here. WDFW hasn't answered any of my inquiries, so I'm left to trust my own impulses, and that's what they tell me. If I'm mistaken, someone at WDFW had better speak up, lest I assume the worst and act accordingly. I promise to be the biggest pain in WDFW's collective a$$ EVER if I don't start getting some honest answers. At this point, with all my fishing shut down, I have nothing better to do....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 03:27 PM

To clear up the closure thing. It is about Chinook numbers I was told not Coho. Couple the movement and both tribal and commercial catches Coho are either at numbers forecasted or possibly greater. Their catches were smaller than projected due to the MOB movement. The QIN came in on the very backside of the movement as they were up already be it not far just lower end the tribs and from Fuller to South Monte. ( think rain movement minus rain) Always in the past as soon a the Chum move they bring Coho right with them I see no reason to doubt that this will happen as usual.


Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 04:23 PM

No Chinook retention in tribs, and minimal encounters, especially since there aren't any around. Sounds like a poor reason to close the upstream coho fishery while fishing continues where the kings actually are. Okay, so shut down for conservation again is the message we're to believe? I mean, it does look like the kings are in bad shape, so I'm happy to do my part there, but it just makes keeping the lower river open that much more questionable....
Posted by: FISH'N BRASS

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 04:29 PM

If I was king for a day-I would not allow eggs on any river not open for Chinook retention until 15 Nov. I know it would be unpopular but too many are targeting chinook even though we can't keep.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: FISH'N BRASS
If I was king for a day-I would not allow eggs on any river not open for Chinook retention until 15 Nov. I know it would be unpopular but too many are targeting chinook even though we can't keep.


Agree. Even October 15 would all but eliminate rec impact on chinook and put the conservation burden where it belongs: on the ocean and gillnet fisheries that harvest the lion's share.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 04:50 PM

...and I owe the Seahawks defense a tip of the hat; the alternative to fishing was much more enjoyable than expected today. Now I just need something to do on Saturdays, and my threat to WDFW (minute though it may have been) will be fully neutralized.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 07:25 PM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Originally Posted By: FISH'N BRASS
If I was king for a day-I would not allow eggs on any river not open for Chinook retention until 15 Nov. I know it would be unpopular but too many are targeting chinook even though we can't keep.


Agree. Even October 15 would all but eliminate rec impact on chinook and put the conservation burden where it belongs: on the ocean and gillnet fisheries that harvest the lion's share.

One exception: the jack fishery on the lower mainstem Aug. 1-Sep. 15. I hear that fishery is rather egg-dependent, and it probably doesn't impact many adult kings. But yeah... no bait in tribs until at least Oct. 15 and no bait in the mainstem Sep. 16-Oct. 15 might help save some king impacts without sacrificing much opportunity.

Frankly, however, it's completely absurd that the stock in-river recs CAN'T harvest (and impact the least) is the one that limits our fishing. If kings need to be saved, they should be trimmed from the open ocean quota first. Wouldn't take that many to make a big difference down here. Oh, well. Preachin' to the choir....
Posted by: FISH'N BRASS

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 07:52 PM

CONCUR!
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/22 08:53 PM

WDFW allowing the violation of GH Policy by letting gillnets go in for 5 days is an absolute departmental failure and we should be calling for someone's job. Enough is enough.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 10:10 AM

For those who want to say something.

James.Losee@dfw.wa.gov Region 6
Mike.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov Region 6
COMMISSION@dfw.wa.gov
Director Susewind (director@dfw.wa.gov)
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 10:36 AM

Think I'll apply the "Thumper Rule".
Posted by: satsop_connoisseur

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 11:09 AM

Floated the Satsop from Decker Creek to West Fork takeout in my kayak on Sat. Logs across river in 3 separate locations: below decker creek just above S curves, car body hole where WDFW constructed engineered log jams, and a blockage where mainstem meets the west fork. I won't be floating the upper if WDFW ever opens the river. No shortage of fish. Most of the A run likely be at the hatchery/above Schafer by the time we get a chance.
Posted by: GodLovesUgly

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 11:22 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Originally Posted By: FISH'N BRASS
If I was king for a day-I would not allow eggs on any river not open for Chinook retention until 15 Nov. I know it would be unpopular but too many are targeting chinook even though we can't keep.


Agree. Even October 15 would all but eliminate rec impact on chinook and put the conservation burden where it belongs: on the ocean and gillnet fisheries that harvest the lion's share.


Look what happened on the Skagit. 9/1 coho opener and guide boats full of clients raking the water side drifting egg clusters and hammering on fall chinook, resulting in a subsequent closure.

No bait in non-chinook retention waters in Sept/Oct makes too much sense...
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 11:52 AM

The rain headed our way starting Friday looks to be a half inch or less per day depending what part of the Chehalis Basin you live in. Olympic side is looking at a max accumulation of 4.5 inches over 10 days. Upper Chehalis is 2.5 range. Unless in the mix we get a 2 inch dumper day things should not blow out. From the 22nd to 28th at Porter the river will go from 300 cfs plus to 1029 cfs which sounds like a lot but is not just nice rise. Satsop will go from 165 cfs to to around 700 cfs during same time period.

Keep in mind that the upper Chehalis water takes a couple of days to reach tidewater so that water crest should arrive around the 30th. Water temperatures in tidewater are dropping and boat said 59.9 once this morning.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 12:13 PM

Conditions should be great next week...if it gets opened.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 12:56 PM

Let’s see if they can pivot on opening as fast they can on closing a river. I’d love to be absolutely shocked. Will probably be the 27th at the earliest. They probably have some arbitrary flow they want the rivers at. Like 500cfs for the satsop.

Probably will just wait until November 1st. I’ll gladly eat my words if they make a move before.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 05:04 PM

Originally Posted By: satsop_connoisseur
Floated the Satsop from Decker Creek to West Fork takeout in my kayak on Sat. Logs across river in 3 separate locations: below decker creek just above S curves, car body hole where WDFW constructed engineered log jams, and a blockage where mainstem meets the west fork. I won't be floating the upper if WDFW ever opens the river. No shortage of fish. Most of the A run likely be at the hatchery/above Schafer by the time we get a chance.
Whoah! Post #8! Welcome to the conversation!
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 07:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
For those who want to say something.

James.Losee@dfw.wa.gov Region 6
Mike.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov Region 6
COMMISSION@dfw.wa.gov
Director Susewind (director@dfw.wa.gov)


Email sent.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/17/22 11:35 PM

The WAC that contained the dates for the State fisheries was filed on July 2. Would the State have known what the QIN fishing schedule was then in order to comply with GH policy?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/22 05:17 AM

yes

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/22 08:38 AM


Some comments that I received and can post up. Several more cannot or rather will not as...... colorful might describe them!


Hey, one thought, I was watching news this morning an find the best way to unveil these folks is to go Facebook or social. Gal in SanFran films with her phone every day druggies shooting up and other stuff the news just wont cover. You should start a page with a generic name and start posting, then others can know facts and repost broadly if a point is being ignored. Maybe post those old videos ect. People need to know the history, and you are the historian! Or do you have a incognito facebook or twitter account???


Then again, I just want to walk the mossy trees and step into a fog covered river in the morning. Ah, yesterday.


I agree with the frustrations. What can we do about it?


Thanks for working on this. It is important to keep a long perspective on these management issues. In other words keep up the pressure and do not despair.


GH folks should be calling and emailing WDFD….protest signs with homeless carboard. They have already pushed it with two 4 day settings, now a 5 day, minor pause then NT again. Thought that was illegal.

One of the worst bank fishing ever.


Let us folks know how to call or write.


It sucks. They suck. Compliance with law and policy has not a priority at least since the Reign of Atkins, if not earlier. Appears to be getting worse. And worse is such a low bar that it is on the ground.


what and where is that GH policy on consecutive days? Hope you get answers soon. Combine this with reason for ER closures and folks should be hot.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/22 11:06 AM

So this is the text of the policy that was not followed by the State schedule ?:


"WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur. If the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week."

So for this year, because the Treaty had 4 days scheduled (Oct 16-19) during the week of Oct 16-22, there shouldn't have been any NI net days scheduled. So for this week, not only was there not a minimum of three consecutive days with no treaty or non treaty fishing, there was also a 4 day tribal schedule that would preclude any non treaty net.

Have I got this correct?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/22 11:38 AM

The minute a net hits the water that 24 hour calendar day counts. So QIN go on Sunday noon and pull Wednesday noon it is 4 days by the calendar week. The QIN fish 24 hour sets which is different. The GHP says when possible which applies if say the QIN did Sunday to Thursday which takes 5 days out but the GHP DOES NOT limit QIN but only the non treaty fishery. WDFW simply redefined the verbiage to fit their needs of cramming a NT Commercial in an extra day. The key words here are calendar week which was put in just for that purpose to keep staff from playing games.

It would sure be interesting to see how staff presented this to the Director. I imagine judging by the fact they hid this innovative interpretation of the GHP in plain site utilizing the ZOOM dog and pony show omission facts and intent likely was not all that great of concern.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/22 12:14 PM

....so because there were 4 treaty days in the week, there shouldn't have been any NI days. Right?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/22 12:18 PM

yes

they just interpreted the intent of the words in a manner not intended to enable more net time.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/22 12:35 PM

Is there something in the plan that mandates separate days? Seems they could go on the same days. And, you could always give the QIN a head start.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/22 02:51 PM

Yes they could and are. In fact they have been using the last half of a day when QIN pull this year.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 09:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
To clear up the closure thing. It is about Chinook numbers I was told not Coho. Couple the movement and both tribal and commercial catches Coho are either at numbers forecasted or possibly greater. Their catches were smaller than projected due to the MOB movement. The QIN came in on the very backside of the movement as they were up already be it not far just lower end the tribs and from Fuller to South Monte. ( think rain movement minus rain) Always in the past as soon a the Chum move they bring Coho right with them I see no reason to doubt that this will happen as usual.


i heard it was about the worry of over harvesting.(per news letter from dfw) (recs cant harvest Chinook, so it cant be that, right?) So why is the lower river still open. And the nets are in for 4 days?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 09:51 AM

It's safe to say the lower river is still open to recs SO THAT there is justification for the nets to go in 4 days. If we can't fish, they can't fish thing. Nobody gillnets the tribs, so it was all too easy to put the entire conservation burden on the upriver crowd and shut us down. Conveniently, closing the tributaries "frees up" more quota for take in the lower river.

The purpose WDFW cited in their release was to ensure what few fish were in the tribs had the opportunity to spawn. Since that release was put out, we have learned the species of concern is, as always and ironically enough, Chinook. Right or wrong, each of the tribs is allocated some number of catch and release impacts on Chinook, and if the tribs are closed, those impacts can be shifted to the lower river fisheries (particularly gillnets). WDFW Region 6 staff never miss an opportunity to put gillnets in the Chehalis, so here we are....
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 10:02 AM

It would be interesting (but likely sickening as well) to see what the harvest allocations for the major tributaries were when the seasons were planned. Combined, one would have to think it's at least equal to the number allocated to lower river fisheries. That's a lot of fish, which translates to a lot of opportunity ($).
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 10:12 AM

Got to remember that allocation covers all WA fisheries. If you want to have tributary fisheries don't go catching them in the ocean.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 10:21 AM

That’s what I was thinking. If they shut the tidewater fisheries down, no way they could justify a commercial harvest (although the state could justify anything and claim their “science” backs up their stupid decision)

So it’s Wednesday…a lot of people have been at work for WDFW since Monday. Do they not have access to weather forecasts, river forecasts or even the morning weather on the radio on the way to work? They know the rivers will have PLENTY of water to get fish up the tributaries right? Are they so inept that they are really going to announce an opening like On Sunday for Monday? They could easily put out a release stating that the tribs will open on ___________ (should be Friday/Saturday)

It’ll never cease to amaze me, the amount of idiots that work for this useless department. They (and voters) keep appointing the same people expecting different results. We’ve tried and failed at same policy and programs for the last 30 Years? Things have gotten worse.

Idaho, Oregon and BC (even Alaska) have dramatically changed their policy the last couple years. We just keep shutting down programs that work and trying to save every wild fish. It’s over for 90% of rivers.

Region 6 might be the worst group out of them all…
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 11:22 AM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
It's safe to say the lower river is still open to recs SO THAT there is justification for the nets to go in 4 days. If we can't fish, they can't fish thing. Nobody gillnets the tribs, so it was all too easy to put the entire conservation burden on the upriver crowd and shut us down. Conveniently, closing the tributaries "frees up" more quota for take in the lower river.

The purpose WDFW cited in their release was to ensure what few fish were in the tribs had the opportunity to spawn. Since that release was put out, we have learned the species of concern is, as always and ironically enough, Chinook. Right or wrong, each of the tribs is allocated some number of catch and release impacts on Chinook, and if the tribs are closed, those impacts can be shifted to the lower river fisheries (particularly gillnets). WDFW Region 6 staff never miss an opportunity to put gillnets in the Chehalis, so here we are....
bingo, bango. I dont think that dfw has a clue how many Chinook are still in tidewater being encountered. The creel fellas dont get accurate info from everybody.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 11:42 AM

look the bottom line here is $$$ the commercials have it and wdfw will roll over to it!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 11:50 AM


Look down to the high lighted portion and pay attention to the words if possible. When possible was understood to not to include the Chehalis Tribe fisheries. This is in the GHMP addressing QIN fisheries days at time making three net free days impossible NOT about jamming in NT days. Whoever did the right up for Mr Cunningham took some rather large liberties with the facts.

October 1 9, 2022
Dave Hamilton
Hamilton.dave@comcast.net
Dear Mr. Hamilton :

Thank you for your correspondence. In your letter, you made some assertions regarding fisheries
that I would like to address.
Negotiations for the commercial fishery openings in Grays Harbor occurred during the 2022

North of Falcon process and have remained unchanged since they were submitted with the CR -
102 filing on May 17, 2022 and finalized by the signing and filing of the CR -103 on June 29,
2022. Planning Model D, which includes the same planned commercial fisheries, was sent both
to the distribution list of advisers and the general Grays Harbor distribution list on Friday April
15, 2022, in preparati on for the final GH/WB Post North of Falcon salmon fishery discussion
held on April 19, 2022.
During North of Falcon, District 17 Fish Biologist Mike Scharpf and Director Susewind
compromised on a season structure with the co -managers that follows the intent of the Grays
Harbor Salmon Management Policy by enhancing the overall economic well -being and stability
of Grays Harbor fisheries, providing fair distribution of opportunity across all sectors, and
minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. The resulting schedule provides at least three
consecutive days without nets in the water each week there are non -treaty commercial days
scheduled. During statistical week 43, those consecutive days occur Friday through Sunday.
Each of the other weeks in which non- treaty commercial fisheries are scheduled, those days
without nets occur Thursday through Saturday.
The Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management Policy provides guidance for commercial fisheries
and under Guiding Principle 8 states that we shall schedule a mi nimum of 3 consecutive days in
a given calendar week if possible : “Recreational and WFDW- managed commercial fisheries
shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts.
WDFW- managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area
2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there
are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state -managed commercial fisheries
occur. If the tr eaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW -managed
commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week.”
Negotiations this year did
not make 3 days within a given calendar week possible, and the policy was not violated. &#8203;
Dave Hamilton
October 19, 2022
Page 2
Lastly, you took issue with the implementation and justification of closures to Freshwater Areas
in the Grays Harbor basin. I want to re -iterate that fisheries closures are not something the
Department or the Directo r take lightly or without careful consideration of a myriad of factors.
We are hopeful that these closures will be short lived and a change in weather will allow for a re -
opening of these opportunities soon.
Sincerely,
Kelly Cunningham
Fish Program D irector
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 12:09 PM


One more thing, the Chum are headed in and it appears they have numbers. This was at Aberdeen so it will take a bit for them and the Coho to get upstream in numbers with no rain and nets in. Oh yeah and the Coho will be right with them.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 12:31 PM

No rain, nets in. But, but, shut er down cause the bankies might bonk a couple fish that they paid for. This is almost as amusing as a green warden telling me i couldn't fish a spinner in anti snagging water couple weeks back.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 12:35 PM

The coho will be with the chum. In a Gilnet or guide boat if we dont get enough agua this weekend.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 12:44 PM

It's interesting ate a FORECAST of rain and increased flows wants the rivers opened. But, a FORECAST of fish numbers (not an actual update) is too unknown to act?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 02:36 PM

Coho no they are OK with many up the Satsop. Chinook is another story as QIN catch showed under performing but then no one knows how many Chinook were in the MOB movement. Chinook are an unknown at the moment. Always keep in mind the QIN & WDFW count spawners differently so Chehalis Chinook escapement goal is 9753 . WDFW has estimated 2022 Chinook escapement at 8801 & QIN method say 10331 which is 1530 difference. Using WDFW numbers it says we are in trouble but QIN numbers say not.

So with WDFW logic slam the door on trib fishing ( mostly ) and the REC inland is required to conserve but nobody else is. Above Fuller Hill the water temps & flows says the closure is the correct move. The lower tribs not so much and it is like Elmer Fud killing a fly with a 10 gauge shotgun in your house. Your gonna get the fly but the collateral damage is substantial. Got this from another when I asked what he meant by Elmer Fudd bios.

Staff does not work Sat & Sun so unless they lift the closure at the start of rain, which is supposed to be Friday, nothing happens to next Monday.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 04:32 PM

They seem to like Fridays for closures and Saturdays for openers. If it does open back up, my guess is the 29th, by which time all the early fish (or what's left of them) will have moved all the way through the fishing areas on the tribs. Would love to be wrong and see it opened Monday or something....
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 06:07 PM

Well, FF…. Here is an email I got back from Mike Scharpf. I’m not shocked…but it’s pretty telling that they really are dragging their feet.

I understand the chinook concerns, but again…if they were concerned about chinook, the NT fisheries would have shut down completely and not just the tribs. So how much rain is enough. Give us a number. What flow? Anyways….

Here is the email:

Hey Jared,

Thanks for your comments. I understand the desire to get back out fishing the upper rivers, we know coho are in the systems. We will be watching the weather and flows in hopes that the forecasts are correct. My concern and reason I supported the closure is for Chinook, not coho. Forecast for Chinook wasn't real robust and those fish are stacked in pools waiting for rain. These low waters cause stress and to have a dozen anglers hooking and releasing them would not have been a good thing. With that said, we have noted just this week, some of the Chinook are not waiting for rain and have moved to spawning areas. The number of new redds observed during our spawning ground surveys increased quite a bit from last week, but not enough to remove concerns. Will the forecasted rain be sufficient to alleviate the low flows and move more fish up, we will have to see. One rain event isn't enough. We need to see sustained increases. Sorry I can't give you an exact day we are going to reopen, but certainly we are watching all the forecasts and will be monitoring actual flows closely.

As for a conversation about the GHMP guidelines, we opted to develop a fishing package for this fall the exceeded 5 percent impact on natural coho because of the large forecasts. This was contrary to the guidelines within the GHMP and provided the recreational anglers with 81 percent of the NT coho harvest. We developed a NT commercial season following the intent of the GHMP by enhancing the overall economic well-being and stability of Grays Harbor fisheries (allowing more than 5 percent impact on natural coho), providing fair distribution of opportunity across all sectors, and minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. The resulting schedule provides at least three consecutive days without nets in the water each week there are non-treaty commercial days scheduled. During statistical week 43 (this week), those consecutive days occur Friday through Sunday. Each of the other weeks in which non-treaty commercial fisheries are scheduled, those days without nets occur Thursday through Saturday.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 07:32 PM

Originally Posted By: SpoonFed
I dont think that dfw has a clue how many Chinook are still in tidewater being encountered. The creel fellas dont get accurate info from everybody.


I can tell you first hand there have been very few Chinook encounters compared to other years. They are pretty much nonexistant in the bay over the last couple of weeks and going back to the opener it has been a fraction of what the normal numbers would be.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 08:00 PM

I can tell you first hand that in a half hour at one of the ramps last weekend that 3/4 of the boats i talked with released a Chinook. 2 of them for sure did not tell the creel guy that they did. Also saw a couple roll in Aberdeen. Figured they're still some around.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 08:33 PM

Think whatever you want, I'm telling you what it's been like in the bay. I have no idea what they're seeing upriver. The fish you saw roll in Aberdeen, if in the Chehalis, were most likely coho.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/22 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
Well, FF…. Here is an email I got back from Mike Scharpf. I’m not shocked…but it’s pretty telling that they really are dragging their feet.

I understand the chinook concerns, but again…if they were concerned about chinook, the NT fisheries would have shut down completely and not just the tribs. So how much rain is enough. Give us a number. What flow? Anyways….

Here is the email:

Hey Jared,

Thanks for your comments. I understand the desire to get back out fishing the upper rivers, we know coho are in the systems. We will be watching the weather and flows in hopes that the forecasts are correct. My concern and reason I supported the closure is for Chinook, not coho. Forecast for Chinook wasn't real robust and those fish are stacked in pools waiting for rain. These low waters cause stress and to have a dozen anglers hooking and releasing them would not have been a good thing. With that said, we have noted just this week, some of the Chinook are not waiting for rain and have moved to spawning areas. The number of new redds observed during our spawning ground surveys increased quite a bit from last week, but not enough to remove concerns. Will the forecasted rain be sufficient to alleviate the low flows and move more fish up, we will have to see. One rain event isn't enough. We need to see sustained increases. Sorry I can't give you an exact day we are going to reopen, but certainly we are watching all the forecasts and will be monitoring actual flows closely.

As for a conversation about the GHMP guidelines, we opted to develop a fishing package for this fall the exceeded 5 percent impact on natural coho because of the large forecasts. This was contrary to the guidelines within the GHMP and provided the recreational anglers with 81 percent of the NT coho harvest. We developed a NT commercial season following the intent of the GHMP by enhancing the overall economic well-being and stability of Grays Harbor fisheries (allowing more than 5 percent impact on natural coho), providing fair distribution of opportunity across all sectors, and minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. The resulting schedule provides at least three consecutive days without nets in the water each week there are non-treaty commercial days scheduled. During statistical week 43 (this week), those consecutive days occur Friday through Sunday. Each of the other weeks in which non-treaty commercial fisheries are scheduled, those days without nets occur Thursday through Saturday.


What an a$$hole.

You should reply to Mr. Scharpf with a request that he please not cite any further Chinook conservation concerns until he pulls the non-tribal gillnets from area 2D. Anything short of that is disingenuous, insulting to your intelligence, and worst of all, detrimental to the best interests of the fish he claims to be protecting. I know it's tempting to include a few choice words, but that never helps, so....

If you ask me, the foot-dragging and absolute BS about needing "multiple rain events" are likely indicators that no upstream opener is planned, and just as we thought, our share (whatever it was) of the coho was handed to the gillnetters and tidewater sports, done deal. The fish are already moving (Scharpf said as much); if the kings aren't there, they aren't coming or somehow managed to get above anywhere WDFW can see them. My guess is we overharvested the ocean again, and they're not coming. Low-holed to death again....

Worst part is we all know a LOT of coho and chums are going to move with this rain event. Only the lying apologists at WDFW are saying anything else might happen. And they won't be doing any surveys while the rivers are puking trees next week. I'm pretty sure we're done, before we ever got started.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 07:41 AM

It will be interesting to see his next reply. I asked him for specific amounts of rain and flow rate. I asked him to lay it out for example on the satsop. Are you looking for 3”? 1.5”? What? Or getting flows to 300cfs? 500? 1000?

I kind of hope I can bait him into saying they don’t have a plan. At this point I want to make them look as bad and as dumb as they are. They have no plan (other than keeping us off the river).

Im done trying to convince the so called “experts”. They just tow the party line and are good little bootlickers. Most of these “scientists” also think there are 2500 genders…so it’s not shocking they can’t manage salmon.

I’m going to be hot at the steelhead meeting tonight. I’ll try to keep my cool. After listening to Bob Kratzer last night…I’m not convinced we’ll have much luck convincing them to have any type of season: especially on the chehalis system.

Just look at it ye asshats with the money we are up against. They are a loud and rich minority that have huge sway over the governor, director and the Seattle voter base. A bunch tofu eating vegan nut jobs who hate you. Read the article below and tell me they have any interest in keeping the chehalis open for salmon and steelhead fishing. I went out salmon watching for a 20 minute hike down the satsop, if they have there way…that’s all that will be left to do.

Northwest Sports Magazine
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 08:24 AM

I suspect you'll get no specifics, and that kind of stands to reason, because they're looking for a satisfactory number of spawning Chinook; not any specific flow value. Gillnet results and rec reports indicate the Chinook numbers are way down. In my mind, that's a good reason to take action; the rub lies in the action they took, which placed whatever kings are around in the tidewater in even greater peril. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is the default for Region 6, but it's a poor conservation strategy. They probably should have shut all the state fisheries down.

We know the QIN didn't catch as many kings as modeled, and that was with next to zero upstream migration happening during their first 3 weeks of fishing. That's a really bad sign, unless there's some mythical land in the upper basin where spawning Chinook frolic among the squatches and the unicorns, unbeknownst to field staff, which sounds cool but unlikely.

Until they find a bunch of kings, we're most likely off the water.

Not saying any of this was fair representation or sound management; we should definitely stay upset about the discrimination inherent in the decision, as well as the fact the decision may have exacerbated a bad situation for our limiting ESA stock, putting future fisheries at risk.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 08:39 AM

"I’m going to be hot at the steelhead meeting tonight."
May I ask what Steelhead meeting is going on tonight? What time and where?
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 09:07 AM

Thought I’d post a little food for thought after observing this morning’s escapement report for Coho.

October 20, 2022:
Bingham Creek Hatchery
H: 1108
W: 54

October 21, 2021:
Bingham Creek Hatchery
H: 750
W: 50

I’m sure you all remember how much more water there was early last fall. If I recall correctly, a decent rain in the days preceding the October 1st opener.

Hoping we get at least several weeks of fishing the tribs this November. Those thinking we won’t get any season at all seem a bit alarmist to me; but then again I’ve got less years dealing with the Department than many of you.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
Think whatever you want, I'm telling you what it's been like in the bay. I have no idea what they're seeing upriver. The fish you saw roll in Aberdeen, if in the Chehalis, were most likely coho.
sorry, when i said tidewater, i meant like up to just about the deadline. The fish i saw were about 13-20lbs and colored up. 99% sure they were nooks.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 09:18 AM

Here STEELHEAD MEETING DETAILS you go.
Posted by: old nate

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 09:52 AM

Does anyone know if the the Quileute system is being netted through this closure?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 10:29 AM

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
Thought I’d post a little food for thought after observing this morning’s escapement report for Coho.

October 20, 2022:
Bingham Creek Hatchery
H: 1108
W: 54

October 21, 2021:
Bingham Creek Hatchery
H: 750
W: 50

I’m sure you all remember how much more water there was early last fall. If I recall correctly, a decent rain in the days preceding the October 1st opener.

Hoping we get at least several weeks of fishing the tribs this November. Those thinking we won’t get any season at all seem a bit alarmist to me; but then again I’ve got less years dealing with the Department than many of you.


Coho numbers aren't in question. It's all about Chinook. Unless WDFW is somehow satisfied there are enough Chinook spawning, the tribs will most likely stay closed. That's not an alarmist opinion on what has happened; it's mandated by ESA rules that we not knowingly exceed our impacts on ESA stocks.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 10:40 AM

Link to Steelhead Town Hall, 6 PM tonight

Zoom link
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 10:48 AM

Anyone notice it is raining outside?

In the middle of a full blown fog bank. Unusual but that fits with the way the year has went so far!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 10:54 AM

GH Chinook are not ESA-listed. While some would say that QIN and WDFW are working hard at getting them listed, they aren't. Yet.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 11:10 AM

FF,
Posting those numbers was more to show that fish are moving, I probably should have specified this. That, along with Mr. Scharpf’s comments lead me to believe at some point *hopefully soon*, the Department will be satisfied by river conditions allowing fish (Chinook) passage, and a re-opening of the tribs. This might even require crafting rules such as a bait ban which I would be all for, or getting creative in other ways to mitigate impacts on Chinook.

All I’m saying is I DO have a little faith that the department will find a way to provide tributary opportunity for Coho prior to Demeber 1st. I may be naive in this, and will gladly swallow my words if incorrect, as anyone should.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 11:34 AM

December? If they kept the river closed until November 1st it would be piss poor management of chinook and the coho fishery that is supposedly huge. If it’s not open by November…people really need to just go fishing at that point. The amount of rain we are getting in the next 5 days should be more than enough…but they would rather sit on their thumbs and “use an abundance of caution” approach, rather than use a little common sense.

I’m starting to think most of the people working for the department spent most of their younger life in a classroom learning about fisheries rather than spending time on the river. A bunch of overpaid paper pushers have less idea what is going on in the river than the average fisherman. That’s just sad. Likely had some of their student loans paid off by most of you (well, $10,000 of it) just be piss poor at their “job”.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 11:37 AM

“If it’s not open by November…people really need to just go fishing at that point.”

Lead the way.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 11:41 AM

Also, not using an abundance of caution is what got us into the position we’re in with many fisheries. As I stated last Spring while they were season setting (paraphrasing), the more fish on the gravel, the better. To be clear, I disagree with the open season on the Lower Chehalis right now. If the department’s priority was Chinook hitting the gravel, they’d start with offshore mixed-stock fisheries, and not try to fix the problem in reverse order.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 12:07 PM

Fine man. Great attitude. That kind of attitude is the problem.

Meanwhile WFC and other anti fishing groups are sitting around at a camp on vashon with WDFW staff and legislators eating vegan food and singing Kumbaya around the campfire. Making changes and closed door discussions.

Good for them. They are unified. We are not. Sucks for us.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 12:13 PM

Not sure what attitude it is you’re referencing.. this side conversation is getting into the weeds. You’re welcome to PM me so we’re not bogging down this thread. In the meantime, I‘ll be optimistic we’ll get an opportunity to fish for Coho sometime in the next couple weeks. Hopefully sooner than later. Raining at work here in Bremerton.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 12:15 PM

Sportsman aren’t the problem. Keep drinking that kool-Aid and living in that delusion. We don’t even crack the top ten for reasons fishing sucks.

1. Over harvest in the ocean
2. Birds eating smolt
3. Predators eating adults
4. In river commercial fisheries (tribal and state)
5. Fish passage being blocked (dams and other blockages)
6. Bycatch from domestic and foreign trawlers.
7. Logging
8. Commercial and residential development
9. Poor waste water management
10. Unfavorable ocean conditions


And probably a few others before you get to sportsman.

We could take care of the majority of those problems with a little effort and money…but shutting down in river recreational anglers is the laziest and cheapest “solution”.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 12:39 PM

Guys the closure was about Chinook spawning low due to flows and release mortalities. All that said it was centered the optics of combat fishing with bankies and boats working the holding areas.

Now let us get this conservation thing correct. This year it was estimated Grays Harbor Chinook harvest is AK 11,617 BC 4637 for 16,250 taken and the Grays harbor Chinook escapement goal is 13,326. This left a total Chehalis terminal runsize of 14,957 with QIN taking 3,566 Chehalis tribal 257 and Rec bay and inriver 567 with C&R. Always remember only WDFW separate Humptulips and the Chehalis for all other entities it is all combined Grays Harbor.

Conservation is always a real thing with the vast majority of Rec fishers but some not so much. Things could have been done differently but WDFW chose to do it this way. All that said there are no conservations concerns for GH Chinook when one grasps that the ocean managers fed and state allowed over half of the run to be harvested in the ocean.

For years I have been told by staff that oh they cannot do anything about the ocean fisheries. What happens year after year is the terminal fishers fish on what remains of the Chinook run after being butchered by AK & BC. I do not recall a WDFW staffer or Director or the Commission or the Governor or state legislators or our federal Senators or Representatives in congress speak out in an effort to stop this. What I hear is habitat habitat which by definition of results would mean more ocean harvest with the SAME terminal runs.

So what you end up with is the inriver with the least impacts is expected to take the brunt of conservation as viewed by Region 6. Now if your fine with that it is OK as everyone is entitled to their own views. For myself not so much and as far as I am concerned it is money and political power enabling this harvest that is concealed by the words conservation and habitat. Boiled down this is pure 100% grade A BS and hypocrisy. Conservation my ass!
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 12:39 PM

Green-
Where did I say sportsmen are the main problem? I agree those issues you listed have a greater impact than we do fishing the tribs. But at some point we do have to acknowledge there is blood on our hands, figuratively and literally. Yes, actions should be taken to address those other issues, but unfortunately at THIS point, the only options the department has is to limit us and the netting. I wish they weren’t netting or fishing the lower river as well. Just sends a mixed message.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 01:02 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen


I’m starting to think most of the people working for the department spent most of their younger life in a classroom learning about fisheries rather than spending time on the river. A bunch of overpaid paper pushers have less idea what is going on in the river than the average fisherman. That’s just sad. Likely had some of their student loans paid off by most of you (well, $10,000 of it) just be piss poor at their “job”.


Most definitely! It's been that way ever since the WDG and WDF merged in 1994. Everything has gone down hill since. A large group of WDG guys fished and hunted and therefor had a vested interest in it. Most either retired or left after the merger. Today far less are directly involved and sorry to say, what we have is what you get. By the way. Thanks for the meeting reminder for tonight.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 01:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
GH Chinook are not ESA-listed. While some would say that QIN and WDFW are working hard at getting them listed, they aren't. Yet.


Oops. Must have had my Puget Sound hat on there.

SO: Not ESA listed, but nonetheless, the stock that limits our fisheries on the Chehalis side. Does that sound more correct?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 01:32 PM

Yes /No A bit back we failed to make Chehalis escapement 3 out of 5 years so the GHMP limited NT (all) impacts to 5% of the runsize terminal. Now the reason was more AK and BC harvest than terminal QIN or NT.

This year it was simply that after the ocean harvest the NT terminal share of harvestable Chinook was not enough to allow harvest. In other words we would blow escapement if we retained Chinook and take us off the water for Coho. The Rec fisher bay and fresh water is capable of taking a rather substantial number of Chinook if allowed to do so, really fast!

Just for conversation say the AK BC harvest had been reduced 20% that would put 3250 more Chinook across the bar. Right there you have a season.




Little edit: The numbers do not include draggers and other things by catch which is also substantial. Cheap fish and chips / fish burgers are not so cheap.
Posted by: Get Bent

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 01:51 PM

Hey now, I live on Vashon/Grayland and most of my buddies eat venison.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 01:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Yes /No A bit back we failed to make Chehalis escapement 3 out of 5 years so the GHMP limited NT (all) impacts to 5% of the runsize terminal. Now the reason was more AK and BC harvest than terminal QIN or NT.

This year it was simply that after the ocean harvest the NT terminal share of harvestable Chinook was not enough to allow harvest. In other words we would blow escapement if we retained Chinook and take us off the water for Coho. The Rec fisher bay and fresh water is capable of taking a rather substantial number of Chinook if allowed to do so, really fast!

Just for conversation say the AK BC harvest had been reduced 20% that would put 3250 more Chinook across the bar. Right there you have a season.




Little edit: The numbers do not include draggers and other things by catch which is also substantial. Cheap fish and chips / fish burgers are not so cheap.


That's right. The dreaded "Penalty Box." Been a while.

No doubt, the ocean is where the action is on kings. I have no problem with that, as long as they don't harvest into escapement then kick me off the river. That's especially cruel....
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 03:11 PM

Oh no, I wasn’t referring to the people of vashon. I was referring to the group meeting there for the camp.

Seabeck:

I’m sure we probably agree on most of the issues. I will die on the hill that in river sports anglers don’t have the blood on their hands. Yes we kill fish. Some of those fish (1%-3%) hooked, die. I could, and have been able to, fish every day; and not make the impact of one day of a net in the river.

Most fisherman suck. It’s only the guides and some rec fisherman that can catch fish in any numbers. That’s not saying I’m better than anyone else, or any of us are…but A LOT of people we see on the rivers are pretty novice and not hooking a lot fish.

I’ve talked to bios and WDFW employees that will tell you that if you see XXX amount of anglers, they can determine the amount of fish hooked. That’s patently untrue.

We aren’t the problem. Like riverguy said…it’s the Alaska, BC and commercial Washington fleet killing the vast, vast majority of chehalis bound chinook…and it’s not even close. Telling the recreational bank anglers to stop fishing is like treating a scratch on the leg on a gun shot victim shot in the head…it’s pointless.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 03:18 PM

Regardless of how many fish one kills, that fish won't spawn. If, as is normally the case, the harvestable surplus is taken certainly outside the tributaries if not outside the river then those dead fish eat into the escapement goal. It's a numbers game.

Certainly nets can and generally do take more fish in a day than any one angler does. Look how fast the Lake WA sockeye anglers take fish out whenever there is a fishery. A fishery that was historically inefficient enough to last months now (when open) lasts days.

Volume-wise, the problem for WA Chinook is AK and BC; no argument there. But WA anglers can and do remove enough fish to impact escapement. Dead fish don't spawn.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 03:49 PM

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
FF,
Posting those numbers was more to show that fish are moving, I probably should have specified this. That, along with Mr. Scharpf’s comments lead me to believe at some point *hopefully soon*, the Department will be satisfied by river conditions allowing fish (Chinook) passage, and a re-opening of the tribs. This might even require crafting rules such as a bait ban which I would be all for, or getting creative in other ways to mitigate impacts on Chinook.

All I’m saying is I DO have a little faith that the department will find a way to provide tributary opportunity for Coho prior to Demeber 1st. I may be naive in this, and will gladly swallow my words if incorrect, as anyone should.


Man, do I hope you're right, but it's going to take more than water to make enough kings magically appear to meet escapement, and I think that's the only way this thing can be opened. It's far from unprecedented that we seem to have overharvested kings, but this is the first time the tribs have been outright closed to protect them that I can recall.....
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 05:04 PM

Green-
We clearly aren’t in agreement on the impact of sportfishers. You mentioned it yourself, guides are very efficient in the taking of fish. Take an average day on the Hump… let’s say 10 guides, 3 clients each, 2 fish limit.. they don’t always limit out, but when the fish are in, let’s say 1.5 fish per client. That’s 45 fish kept per day JUST through guides. Figure another 45 impacted (released, lost at boat, whatever). That really adds up.

Mixed stock commercial fisheries are an absolute meat cleaver on these populations, but we as recreational fishermen and ESPECIALLY guides are absolutely part of the whole “death by 1000 cuts.”
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/22 05:05 PM

Further, I agree it’s not fair that we bear the brunt of the challenge to make escapement, but that’s where we’re at: the terminal end of the fishery.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 10:26 AM

Remember the email I got back from Mike Scharpf? The one where he said they can’t/won’t use weather or flow forecasts to reopen rivers? Well, the state just opened up the dungeness and Wallace river.

Under reason for action: With forecasted rain and increasing flows predicted and most of the Chinook salmon spawning complete in the Wallace River conditions are improved for allowing fishing to resume in Wallace River.

So which is it? It’s like they think we are stupid and won’t notice.

The amount of superiority complex at work at the WDFW is staggering. They act like they don’t HAVE to answer for their decisions. They are public SERVANTS and in such are subservient to the people of Washington. If we ask for a number, give us the number..not some BS “we don’t know” or “we assume”, if that’s the case…manage to keep it open, not closed.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 10:34 AM

I got a response back right after this from Mike. Essentially, no fishing until MAYBE later next week after the do more spawning surveys on Chinook. Unfortunately it’s looking like we won’t get to fish until maybe November…they probably aren’t going to find a lot redds when the river is turbid…
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 10:57 AM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
Remember the email I got back from Mike Scharpf? The one where he said they can’t/won’t use weather or flow forecasts to reopen rivers? Well, the state just opened up the dungeness and Wallace river.

Under reason for action: With forecasted rain and increasing flows predicted and most of the Chinook salmon spawning complete in the Wallace River conditions are improved for allowing fishing to resume in Wallace River.

So which is it? It’s like they think we are stupid and won’t notice.

The amount of superiority complex at work at the WDFW is staggering. They act like they don’t HAVE to answer for their decisions. They are public SERVANTS and in such are subservient to the people of Washington. If we ask for a number, give us the number..not some BS “we don’t know” or “we assume”, if that’s the case…manage to keep it open, not closed.


The key phrase in their justification is that the Chinook are thought to be done spawning. It was never about flow; it was always about Chinook, specifically numbers of spawners observed in tribs. Given that the Chinook in the Dungeness are endangered, I question the wisdom, but hey, I'm glad someone gets to fish.

I'm encouraged to hear that Scharpf left the door open for an opening; that's encouraging, but for all the reasons you mentioned (plus the fact the Chinook probably won't be there in sufficient numbers when they DO get a chance to do a survey), I have serious doubts. But hey, more positive than I felt yesterday....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 11:01 AM

The NT Commercial numbers are up for the last two day set Chinook Actual 1 Modeled 68 Coho Actual 282 Modeled 1710 Chum Actual 337 Modeled 1462. Keep in mind that many of the fish modeled are already up.

Fishing this morning water temp 57.6 and clear, like really clear! Not much as to numbers of fish showing. It was slow enough that I can say I lost a jumper as an highlight! Oh almost forgot, the lock jaw bit is still on as a couple followed the spinner to he boat.

So how is fishing ? The word ugly comes to mind.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 11:19 AM

Am I remembering correctly that last year there were four steelhead virtual town halls? I noticed there’s three this year and for some reason I feel like that’s less? Actually prefer it to be three if that’s a change.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 11:55 AM

Whatever's around is about to start moving, and it probably won't be stopping anywhere for too long on the way to the gravel (or concrete for hatchery fish). As a blind, silly prediction, I say the fishing (and biting!) will be good on the incoming tomorrow morning, and maybe Sunday. Hey... just trying to generate a little mojo here....
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 12:00 PM

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
Am I remembering correctly that last year there were four steelhead virtual town halls? I noticed there’s three this year and for some reason I feel like that’s less? Actually prefer it to be three if that’s a change.


I think I heard 3 last night. I think we learned all we need to know last night, though, as regards where there will be sport fisheries: Quillayute System and Hoh. Closing Feb. 28. Have at 'em, folks! But don't bring the boat... Unless you're doing the Bogey hatchery float, of course.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 12:09 PM

Yeah I’m pretty much expecting the same as last year. More than I was expecting going into the meeting. A lot of mileage on the truck, but hell, that’s fishing nowadays I suppose.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 12:09 PM

Quote:
Hey... just trying to generate a little mojo here...


Aren't you a sweetheart!
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 04:08 PM

Yeah, let’s all just be content with table scraps and $300/week in gas to have an “opportunity” to catch a fish. Sounds fun. Just the way they like us, content with with practically nothing.

Anyways, fish are already moving up the satsop. Saw a large number of chinook move up the lower river, but Mike scharpf must know more than me, because he said they won’t move until later next week. Man is a GOD amongst us plebs. He is all knowing.

Funny I didn’t see any of his minions walking or floating the river today? You’d think they would have been all over the tribs today, maybe pick up a little time and half this weekend? Nope. They’ll wait until Monday…when the water is starting to blow out…be hard to count redds in less than a foot of visibility. But what do I know, I didn’t spend $100,000 on a bachelors that I want tax payers to pay off…
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 05:45 PM

Department employees are far busier than you imply. Good friends with quite a few on the inside. On the rivers year round. Staffing is an issue.

Curious how much you volunteer to help improve things through habitat restoration, river clean ups, out/in-migration counts to help with the data collection we all value. Talk is cheap if you’re not willing to be part of the solution.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 06:36 PM

So I should feel guilty for not doing their job? Calling them on their crap when they aren’t willing or able to do it? Yes, I have picked up my fair share of garbage on the river. I don’t leave any (that I can recall, we’ve all probably dropped things). I have volunteered at hatcheries, at least with moving some fish around on more than a couple occasions.

The state doesn’t even have an answer on habitat. Remember when they used to remove log jams? Now they keep putting them in? Which is it? Now if you cut out a sweeper it’s a fine.

They hired a few extra fish checkers for the chehalis (according to the guy I checking the fish my last time coming back to fuller) and why not have them on the tributaries in the winter?

The WDFW has over 1500 employees…how many are just pencil pushers and redundant? Maybe get rid of a few and hire more enforcement, stream walkers and fish checkers? According another guy on here, there are only 5 people out checking redds and spawners….that’s not my fault and I won’t feel any pity on the WDFW for their choices in where to put their staffing budget. It another cesspool of government waste. Far to big but has limited reach.

It’s pretty much useless. Standing by them is just Stockholm syndrome. I don’t care who works there, they are public servants, doing a horrible job serving the public, unless your a lobbyist for the WFC and the humane society and all the other bleeding heart POS organizations that claim to love fish and have never held a fish in their hands.

If you don’t fish or hunt, you shouldn’t be allowed at the table. Period.

Fishing and hunting should not be managed or influenced by hikers and bird watchers.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 06:51 PM

We do need some voices in management that aren't about killing stuff; that's necessary for balanced decision-making, because let's face it, how many sportsfolk could be unilaterally trusted to manage hunting or fisheries? We'd all be tempted to load the dice in favor of our favorite fishery/hunt, right?

After fish runs being in the tank, I think the campaign money working against us is our greatest barrier as a stakeholder group. Most folks at WDFW are great, hard-working people; it's not their fault leadership is rotten. I've had good experiences talking with regional bios and wardens over the years. I think those folks have their hearts in the right place. Management and the Commission are the lairs of our foes....
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 07:12 PM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
We do need some voices in management that aren't about killing stuff; that's necessary for balanced decision-making, because let's face it, how many sportsfolk could be unilaterally trusted to manage hunting or fisheries? We'd all be tempted to load the dice in favor of our favorite fishery/hunt, right?

After fish runs being in the tank, I think the campaign money working against us is our greatest barrier as a stakeholder group. Most folks at WDFW are great, hard-working people; it's not their fault leadership is rotten. I've had good experiences talking with regional bios and wardens over the years. I think those folks have their hearts in the right place. Management and the Commission are the lairs of our foes....


100%
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 07:17 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
So I should feel guilty for not doing their job? Calling them on their crap when they aren’t willing or able to do it? Yes, I have picked up my fair share of garbage on the river. I don’t leave any (that I can recall, we’ve all probably dropped things). I have volunteered at hatcheries, at least with moving some fish around on more than a couple occasions.

The state doesn’t even have an answer on habitat. Remember when they used to remove log jams? Now they keep putting them in? Which is it? Now if you cut out a sweeper it’s a fine.

They hired a few extra fish checkers for the chehalis (according to the guy I checking the fish my last time coming back to fuller) and why not have them on the tributaries in the winter?

The WDFW has over 1500 employees…how many are just pencil pushers and redundant? Maybe get rid of a few and hire more enforcement, stream walkers and fish checkers? According another guy on here, there are only 5 people out checking redds and spawners….that’s not my fault and I won’t feel any pity on the WDFW for their choices in where to put their staffing budget. It another cesspool of government waste. Far to big but has limited reach.

It’s pretty much useless. Standing by them is just Stockholm syndrome. I don’t care who works there, they are public servants, doing a horrible job serving the public, unless your a lobbyist for the WFC and the humane society and all the other bleeding heart POS organizations that claim to love fish and have never held a fish in their hands.

If you don’t fish or hunt, you shouldn’t be allowed at the table. Period.

Fishing and hunting should not be managed or influenced by hikers and bird watchers.


Many of those things are their jobs, yes. But as fisherman, exploiting a rapidly dwindling natural resource, we should ABSOLUTELY be stewards of that same resource. If not, we’re just along for the inevitable decline. If you fail to see that, I’m sorry, but you are lost.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 07:53 PM

I see it. But I also know that we don’t even crack the surface when it comes to losing these fish. The WDFW has it wrong. The one thing they can control, that cost them nothing but emails and angry fisherman is closing us down.

Don’t think for one second I don’t care about the resource, or the fish in general. I have a passion for the fish, in grays harbor specifically. I want the best for them, but I’m not willing to give up my passion, culture and Heritage when we aren’t the ones who put us here or will be even a contributing factor to the demise of the fish. I’m not an advocate for over harvest or large bag limits, I just don’t buy the junk science the state pedals about mortality. It’s max 3% in almost every case. It’s 100% darn near in a mono gillnet. Birds don’t differentiate. Neither do seals, chemicals or a myriad of other factors that kill far more salmon and steelhead in the chehalis basin, but yeah…let’s get the one user group that kills a few in the grand scheme of things, the one group that wants their to more fish, let’s get them off the water.

WDFW sucks. They suck at everything. The people in the field may be decent people, I’ve encountered many…but they still espouse the same nonsensical bull that the upper level staff do. I imagine if they had opposing views and made that known they wouldn’t be employed much longer or at least not be considered for management at some point.
Posted by: FISH'N BRASS

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/22 08:06 PM

Went to Satsop today for sole purpose of picking up garbage left on river by 100+ "fisherman" opening day. Pleasanly surprised-very little litter on river. Parking lot not so good , but better now except for deer carcass parts left behind-seems to be a favorite place for numbnuts to leave remains! Only fish I saw were boots. 21 trailers at Fuller and over 40 cars. Gate is open on lower Chehalis-no secret as there were at least 10 vehicles at first access point!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/22 06:48 AM

Well day one rain was a bust for sure with 24 hr totals all around .02 and .01 with the upper basin and Olympic sides similar. The Satsop went up a few CFS but nothing to write home about. Next few days it looks like flows will drop back to about where they have been. The rains continue but it is 24th or 25th that the Satsop will begin a gradual increase and achieve average flows around November 1st.

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

Looking at the QIN and NT Commercial numbers it is clear that the large movement of fish was the vast majority of the October fish. Good inland but sure leaves a void in tidewater. The commercial catch numbers have tailed down day by day which validates that line of thinking. The question is where are the Chum? Modeled last week commercial harvest is normally equal Chum and Coho with this next week being two to one Chum over Coho. Chinook numbers are very low as normally they have cleared tidewater.

Lacking a hard bump up in flows it is anyone's guess as to what the fish movement will look like. The NT commercials fish three days starting Monday so that should give us some answers. Sooner or later as flows increase something will happen to be sure as the Chum always move by the first week of November. They bring with them Coho (normally) but it has been a strange year so who knows.

Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/22 08:00 AM

10/22/2022

NT schedule is as Rivrguy says but they only fish 7:00 a.m. -- 7:00 p.m and only gill nets, so fish have a chance if they make it to "just above the log house"....

Wynoochee trap report shows only 59 Coho and 12 coho jacks have made it that far, not looking good for that river.......maybe just late or waiting for more flows to move.....OR sport, NT, QIN, caught Wynoochee Coho in their fishery????
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/22 08:02 AM

A friend emailed me with a question around the posting about counting Chinook redds and if they should be done spawning. No idea here but I have seen different behavior than normal. In the early 90s it was dry and broodstocking we got males but not many females and frankly we were a bit concerned to say the least. Then the Chum came in around the first of November and right with them the Chinook females all at once. Scales set but not colored and mostly a a week or more from spawning. We had to be very careful spawning because when you checked a female it would appear that the eggs had broken loose from the skeins but it would end up with only the back third of the skein or so. They were attached solidly enough that you could not get them free by shaking the skein gently and if you force the issue you get what we called blanks or eggs that would not fertilize.

Scales set indicated that they had been in fresh water for sometime but no color said not a month for sure. Thing is no self respecting Chinook will stay in holding water with Chum males brawling all over it so Chum will move Chinook upriver rapidly. That is why I always watch Chum behavior in dry years as they trigger Coho and Chinook to behave differently than normal.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/22 10:10 AM

One of the fun things about being out there on traps and such is that you see stuff invisible to most observers. In a dry but cold year we had coho sit in a hole for two months and then spawn and die in a week. We had a coho female come upstream and spawn in February. Soos Creek had a couple hundred coho blow by Jan 20 of 1993 when Clinton was inaugurated. We had 400 coho go up the Dungeness in July, ahead of Chinook and pink. And so on.

As Rivrguy says, you need many years of actually handling fish to begin to get an idea of what's going on. And we are in in for a whole new world with drier summers (lower flows) and then bang-on freshets/floods.

As Sam Wright once wrote, the real value and skill of fish (any resource, actually) manager is to evaluate the incoming in-season data and make defensible decisions on the fly. That skill only come by having a long Institutional Memory and up to date data.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/22 03:03 PM

Fished near no-name park this morning. A sea lion was doing quite well, but I think we only saw one fish hooked by an angler. Slow. Boats didn't seem to be catching much either.

From what I have seen so far, I agree with Rivrguy's assessment that the early coho run is pretty much over.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/22 06:31 PM

Will be interested to hear how the netters do this week.

Talking with several on the Hood Canal this past week… it’s been SLOOOOOW out here for them recently.

Seems like everyone and everyTHING is waiting on a good soak.

Went out for mushrooms today…. Absolutely terrible at all the usual spots.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/22 08:36 AM

In the 10 day rain forecast the first three days are not much. Olympics an inch tomorrow then Wen not much and upper Chehalis not much rain to speak of. The next six days really pick up with the Olympics over an inch a day and upper Chehalis 3/4 of the Olympics. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

Satsop will go from around the present 165 cfs to over 3000 cfs the 2nd of Nov. Porter is looking at going from the present 300 cfs to 4000 cfs Nov 2nd. Simple way to say it is somewhere 4, 5 to 6 days out the rivers are going to go mud and likely blow out.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/24/22 09:41 AM

Just talked to a buddy who was talking region 6. They are aiming for Wednesday for an opener on AT LEAST the satsop (but likely the Wynoochee too). I’m hoping so. Will be plenty of water, god knows enough fish moved the last couple days.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 07:56 AM

NOAA has adjusted the forecast a bit and when this rain event is over ( around 10/1 ) the basin will still be below average flows.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 10:12 AM

Maybe 11/1.

Also, this whole shifting of rain events to later in the year and other climate changes that lead to drought and warmer summers may lead us to seeing radical shifts in our salmonid species. We should be losing, or at least significantly reducing, species that ned water in the summer but also enhancing the species that use the streams just for spawning and incubation. So, with good management, we should see more chum, maybe pinks (they like cold water), and Fall Chinook. Springers, coho and steelhead will have a harder time.
Posted by: Swami

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 01:43 PM

The Satsop will be at 700CFM's tomorrow then 1200CFM's by Friday night. I just don't get it?
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 01:48 PM

They are shooting for tomorrow. But again, FLOWS DO NOT MATTER unless they count enough chinook. No chinook, no fishing.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 02:04 PM

No communications yet, so it likely won't be tomorrow. We know they like Saturdays for transition days, so if they DO see the kings they want to see, my guess is Saturday, which beats the living crap out of never! Fingers crossed....
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 02:44 PM

I noticed lately a lot of announcements have come after 3pm. Trying to hang onto some hope I guess…
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 05:27 PM

Guess not. Got word. Going to be Friday-Monday. More moving the goal post. Won’t give actual numbers. They act like they do not have answer to the public. All I was looking for was the CFS, how many chinook or how many inches of rain…REFUSED to give an answer. The sheer amount of superiority complex at work here by the department is mind boggling. They had the audacity to claim fish aren’t moving. So…you didn’t put anyone in the field then? Or they just suck at their job? Are eye exams a thing? I guess I’m not qualified to see fish moving up in the thousands. Those must have been logs going up river…I guess I have to go get a masters to see fish in a river. I’m not worthy of their opulent splendor, surely the WDFW is all knowing and Omnipotent. All now down and worship.

All that money on education just to be dumbasses who can’t even count fish. I guess that’s what you can expect from a department that works on 30 year old “science”. They’re a little slow. The collective IQ at WDFW is 65 and I’m rounding up.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 06:04 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
Guess not. Got word. Going to be Friday-Monday. More moving the goal post.


The only goal posts that are moving are the ones you’ve installed.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 06:16 PM

Dude, I’m sorry you feel like I’m attacking your friend(s) that work at WDFW. A lot of people work at crappy work places for inept management. Maybe they should choose another profession if they don’t want to be apart of the problem.

Mike scharpf has given a different reason why the rivers aren’t open every email. First, snagging, then need to see fish (in general). Says fish are moving but now they are concerned about chinook. Chinook start moving…now says they need more flow and around and around we go.

WDFW sucks at fisheries management. Sorry you can’t see it. They also hate sportsman. All their buddies commercial fishing stayed on the water. They fished yesterday.

WDFW poor management is more responsible for the fisheries going in the shitter more than sportsman. I can’t think of one decision they have made (especially in grays harbor) that has benefitted the fish or the sportsman over the last 10 years. Reducing fish in the rivers have led to river closures…2+2 still equals 4 for me, WDFW wants you to think it’s 5. 5 being “sportsman are killing all the fish, bad sporties!” I haven’t reached a point in my life where I can sink my self esteem down low enough to give them any credit.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/25/22 08:59 PM

2cents

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
and Wisdom to know the difference.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/22 09:54 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

The forecast is moving around a bit, well a lot maybe. This last few days have been a bit of a bust but it is five days out that the bump of any real consequence is to show. One plus inches with Olympics getting between one and two inches.

To use the link just click and the flows show when you place your cursor on a circle (stream). For projected rainfall look to the right side of your screen and click on 240 hours and the monitored sites show inches and cursor on that site breaks it down by days. The
10 day forecast https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi is defined as to the river flows so these two sites are the best to track weather / river flows.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/22 11:10 AM


“WDFW management is more responsible for the fisheries going in the shitter “. More than sport fishing, more than the tribes, more than seals, more than just about anything.

Including habitat restoration, follow on restoration habitat monitoring, and management...
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/22 12:17 PM

While I certainly am no fan or the current WDFW management of anadromous fish, just what can they actually control?

Habitat? That's county and city rules for allowance of development.
Hydro? That's the feds (FERC)
Marine Mammals? That's the feds, too.
Predatory birds? Da Feds again through the Migratory Bird Treaty
Fisheries? Withe the Tribe's concurrence they can control the non-indian fisheries in WA. Tribal, BC, and AK gets back to the feds.

WDFW had very tiny hammers in this game and this is before Tribal donations to politicians get factored in.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/22 03:17 PM

I found this a bit interesting. As you can see, we really need to be panicking this year, as the fish obviously are not moving.


Under the escapement reports.

BINGHAM CR HATCHERY Satsop River- H - 1,108 533 - - - - - -2 1,639 10/19/22

BINGHAM CR HATCHERY Satsop River- H - 750 20 - - 10/19/21

BINGHAM CR HATCHERY Satsop River- H 950 - - 950 - - - -- - - 10/12/20

BINGHAM CR HATCHERY Satsop River- H 450 - - 450 - - - -- - - 10/21/19

BINGHAM CR HATCHERY Satsop River- H 1,000 500 - 1,000 500 - - -- - - 10/26/18
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 09:59 AM

The NT Commercial numbers for WK 44 are up and Coho appear close to model prediction but Chum are not. Chinook numbers are hard to use as they do not show encounters only kept marked Chinook. The expected mortality of released adult Chinook is in the model BUT not in the harvest posting.

Actual Oct. 24-2 WK 44 Chinook 1 Coho 1357 Chum 3914

Modeled Oct. 24-2 WK 44 Chinook 1 Coho 1389 Chum 2523
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 11:31 AM

Looks like chums are overperforming, if I read that right?

If so, that's good, but absent evidence of significant Chinook movement, we're still shut down upstream, right?

The NT gillnetters should be required to report Chinook encounters (not just that they harvested what was modeled), as that information is critical to everyone's fisheries (including their own!).

To be clear, my position is that if there truly aren't enough kings on the gravel, none of us should be fishing. Otherwise, we should be out taking advantage of good coho and chum returns.
Posted by: No More Ice Fishin

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 01:23 PM

Best latest guess on when those OP streams might open, including the GH ones? Trying to figure out when I need to start coughing on calls with colleagues....like to plant that seed a bit in advance before taking a sick day or two.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 03:36 PM

Chum were not before week 44 in the catch but it appears they made up big time in week 44. Chum look to be OK. Coho numbers in the mix look right on for that week. No idea on Chinook.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 04:07 PM

I bet they open it this weekend. Don’t worry…plenty of coho will be around…on 15,000 made it Bingham creek. Still 20,000+ left.

Sums up WDFW in a nutshell. To many fish, fishing will be excellent…close er down boys!
Posted by: satsop_connoisseur

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 05:01 PM

There is 2” of rain expected on Sunday so it better be open on Monday. I was hoping for Sat. Might take a few days to get some fresh ones in the system. A lot of boots and fire engines. Impressive that 15,000 coho at Bingham. We definitely got the shaft on an above average coho year.
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 05:25 PM

Opens Saturday. Got to let one more day of fish swim by.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 07:03 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
Opens Saturday. Got to let one more day of fish swim by.


LOL. Knew it would be a Saturday.

I'm delighted just to hear it's opening. We missed a lot of fish, but there should be plenty more on the way. Lots of rain, too....

But get 'em while you can, because the yet to be announced wild steelhead protection season most likely starts Dec. 1.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: jgreen
Let’s see if they can pivot on opening as fast they can on closing a river. I’d love to be absolutely shocked. Will probably be the 27th at the earliest. They probably have some arbitrary flow they want the rivers at. Like 500cfs for the satsop.

Probably will just wait until November 1st. I’ll gladly eat my words if they make a move before.


So I guess this is you gladly eating your words?
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/22 07:59 PM

Beyond excited for this opening. Potential for some scale busting fish this year based on what I’m hearing from rivers down south! Gonna be a fast and furious month.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/22 07:25 AM

10/28/2022

Just so you know, 11/01/2022, the daily ADULT LIMIT drops to 1, release adult Chinook.

Coho limit can be 1 adult, Hatchery or Wild. Chum, 1 fish.

Stay safe, water levels are going UP UP UP, where you were able to wade, will be a large increase in volume.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/28/22 08:25 AM

I like this map. In the overlay box click on Observations. Then select Display.... Precipitation. You can select hours to view amounts. These latest rounds of rain has finally wet things down. But if you scratch the ground it's still dry shallow.

https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/map/?obs=true&wfo=sew
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/30/22 07:58 AM

Looking at the forecast it has changed a bit and todays update is posted. So take a look https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi and looking to the flows and 240 hr forecast at https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ . ( you need to hit the precipitation 240 hour tab bottom right side of your screen) The upper Olympics are supposed to get over 4 inches with Wynoochee Dam 4.66 inches. The farther South we go the total decreases with the upper Chehalis being 2.5 inches or so.

Bottom line is the Olympic streams are going brown but peak and drop back down until the next round of rain. Flows on the Satsop are projected to go from around 400 cfs to around 2300 cfs. The Chehalis at Porter is looking for a jump from around 400 cfs to to 2200 cfs. With the upper Chehalis water taking a couple more days to reach Elma we are looking at the Satsop up then down and clearing but the upper Chehalis water arriving and if muddy it is likely keep the Chehalis brown out going.

Several days out the forecast is good for fish not so much for fishing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/22 10:59 AM

The hatchery escapement reports are up for Nov 3rd are up. Bingham has had a return of normal timed Coho of 30,108 H and 2533 W. We now have an idea of just how huge the early movement was and Bingham returns say it was huge! Keep in mind that the movement was before the QIN fished so their harvest was well below expectations as were the NT commercials and the inriver Rec was shut down thus Bingham has substantial return for hatchery but wild is lagging. Chum numbers look to be about as forecast by harvest numbers but we have to get the last numbers both QIN and NT to get a clear picture. Chinook numbers look to be down across the board.

The river is in shape now but it is going to blow again with the next two days rain. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi After that event all should drop quickly https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ over seven days. Fall fishing is done in a day or so and it will be winter mode from this rain out.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/22 11:56 AM

We get a really good high flow and all the fish that spawned in the low-flow period in or near the thalweg will be toast.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/22 01:23 PM

I was asked how this years return differed from 2021 wild Coho and I have zero idea. I have asked several times for 2921 numbers and was told there is a data problem. In other words the 2021 wild salmon numbers are not available, go figure.

No idea on the spawners CM and it would be only Chinook that could be at risk. It takes darn near a hundred year flow to cause much havoc with redds.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/22 02:14 PM

If it was real dry when they spawned, in low flows, then the thalweg runs right through it. For wild Skagit Chinook I seem to recall a pretty good inverse relationship between flows and fry production the next spring.

Ya know, back in the Dark Ages before all those fancy computers we had run reconstruction, which included escapements, by late December/early January. I was starting to explore what update models would work in Feb?March using data that included the previous year.

Hell, WDG used to publish publicly the rec catch of steelhead in the fall before the next season got started. Used to.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/05/22 10:21 AM

Well it is Mudville in tidewater but the tribs and Chehalis will clear fast. As always for the lower Chehalis the mainstem clears much slower but the flows on both the Olympic side and upper basin are looking to drop below average flows this day/month. This flow cycle will not continue all that far down the road as once the ground soaks up the rapid up and down flows will be history.

So stay right with fishing as your about to have a week or so of perfect water.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/22 07:49 AM

A gentlemen e-mailed me asking why the Chinook escapement was lowered in Grays Harbor? Well below is a boiled down bit I was provided sometime back. He followed up with then why does the WDFW harvest model predict a Chehalis 8801 W Chinook escapement ( which is below goal ) yet the QIN where to harvest 3566 combined H&W?

Another point he made was looking at the way the 2022 seasons played out is that the QIN are using the combined projected 2022 Chinook natural spawners of 10207 and WDFW only unclipped wild spawners of 8801. I have e-mailed staff for clarification but I do believe he got it right.

It appears the QIN ( and others also ) are counting natural Chinook spawners one way and WDFW another which results in the Non Treaty fishers baring the brunt of conservation that only WDFW identifies as an issue.




Grays Harbor Fall Chinook

Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was reevaluated and changed in 2014. The new natural spawning escapement goal is 13,500 naturally spawning Chinook for Grays Harbor with 9,880 for Chehalis River and 3,620 for Humptulips River.

The Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was 14,600, 12,364 Chehalis River and 2,236 Humptulips River. This goal was adopted in 1979 and was based on available spawning habitat and a spawning density of 36 fish per mile. A level of 24 fish per mile was used for the mainstem Chehalis River and all tributaries upstream of Cedar Creek, reflecting lower productive potential. This goal is defined as a natural spawning escapement goal.

The Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) is to review the biological basis for Chinook salmon management objectives under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PSC, 2009), Chapter 3, Section 2. (b) (iv), The CTC shall “…evaluate and review existing escapement objectives that fishery management agencies have set for Chinook stocks subject to this Chapter for consistency with MSY or other agreed biologically-based escapement goals and, where needed, recommend goals for naturally spawning Chinook stocks that are consistent with the intent of this Chapter…”. The abundance-based management regime for Chinook salmon established by the 2008 Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) is intended to sustain production at levels associated with maximum sustained yield (MSY, measured in terms of adult equivalents) over the long term. Therefore, the escapement goal for Grays Harbor fall Chinook was reevaluated based on spawner recruitment analysis.

The reevaluation of the Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal occurred in 2014. Three spawner-recruit functions were considered (Shepherd, Beverton-Holt, Ricker), and the Ricker model was identified as being the most appropriate form for both the Chehalis and Humptulips datasets. Brood years 1986 to 2005 were used in the analyses. In all analyses, parent generation escapement (i.e., spawners) includes both natural- and hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally. Spawner recruitment, biological based natural spawning escapement goals were developed for Chehalis and Humptulips rivers. Based on the Ricker analysis model, a Chehalis River fall Chinook natural spawning escapement goal of 9,880 was proposed and 3,620 for the Humptulips River. A harbor-wide natural spawning escapement goal of 13,500 was proposed.

On March 18, 2015 posted in the Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 52, NMFS proposes updates to management reference point values for Grays Harbor fall Chinook as recommended By the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for use in developing annual management measures beginning in 2015. These management reference point values are conservation objectives to provide necessary guidance for fisheries management within the guidance of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.


There are four management reference points established in Federal Register V. 80:
1. 13,326 natural area spawners for Grays Harbor (9,753 Chehalis, 3,573 Humptulips) goals.
2. Smsy 13,326 natural area spawners.
3. Maximum Fishery Mortality Threshold (MFMT, generally equal to FMSY), total exploitation rate of 63%. Management all fishery exploitation to 63% or less.
4. Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST, Smsy * 0.5), 6,663 natural area spawners (13,326 * 0.5 = 6,663. If natural area spawners drop below 6,663, stock considered “over fished”.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/22 08:26 AM

The crime in all of this is intentionally managing for a 63% exploitation rate. Dum'fuckery at its finest.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/22 08:31 AM

What used to be....

https://www.ifish.net/cdn-cgi/image/form...23-jpeg.993790/

Posted by: Soft bite

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/22 08:39 AM

The NT harvest compared to the Grays Harbor North of Falcon model harvest is really interesting. Chum came in at 126% of the model but Coho came in at 61% and Chinook came in at 1.9%. I do not know what the correct interpretation is but it looks like the Chinook are in trouble.
Another observation for me was that I usually catch about 85% wild Coho but this year it was more like 15% wilds. Makes me wonder if the wild Coho are in trouble also.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/22 08:53 AM

Over a six week period in the estuary, it started with boat limits of a nice grade of predominantly hatchery coho. By the end, it was largely nothing but small wild runts of 5 to 6 pounds. Fishing literally fell off a cliff the last 4 days
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/22 11:27 AM

Last time I fished one of the tribs (about 4 days ago) we were running into predominantly wild fish. Unfortunately we couldn’t buy a hatchery fish on that specific day. Will be interesting to see how far beyond 30k it’ll go for hatchery fish.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/22 03:57 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Over a six week period in the estuary, it started with boat limits of a nice grade of predominantly hatchery coho. By the end, it was largely nothing but small wild runts of 5 to 6 pounds. Fishing literally fell off a cliff the last 4 days


Jives with what I've seen on the tribs. Lots of chums and a decent number of average-size coho in the tribs last week; this week, it's almost all chum. Consistent with the typical transition between the A and B coho runs, but whether the B run shows remains to be seen....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/22 08:40 AM

Years ago a retired WDFW employee taught me not to hit send when pissed off! So I have been thinking about the 2022 rec season and what happened. Below is my response to Mr. Cunningham's response to my objections. I cannot do the attachments but if anyone wants them just PM me.

November 10, 2022
Director Susewind
WDFW Commission
Kelly Cunningham
James Losee
Mike Scharpf

I am writing to voice my and others’ objections to the manner staff and the Director conducted the 2022 fishing season setting processes for the Chehalis Basin and subsequent actions for conservation.

The agency utilized what has become known as ZOOM and by intent or accident had the outcome of drastically reducing the public’s ability to ask questions. Some citizens were able to work around the refusal of the moderator to recognize them by utilizing group cell text with others to be able for one of them to be recognized. The process resulted in limiting questions without an in-depth look at the proposed 2022 harvest. Some examples are:

1. The public was not made aware that staff was standing down the 3/5 clause limiting harvest if a salmon stock had not made escapement three out of the five previous years. As Region 6 staff have yet to release the 2021 escapement numbers due to what I am told is a data issue one cannot say with certainty but I believe Coho were in what is known as the “3/5 penalty box” Grays Harbor Management Policy (GHMP) is attached. When the GHMP was adopted it was discussed by many participating that Coho could be an issue as the run size can have dramatic ups and downs. This would result in a year such as 2022 with a large run size forecast while previous years had failed to make escapement which is exactly what happened in 2022.

In discussions during the adoption of the GHMP this issue was identified as one of the issues that the adaptive management clause of the GHMP would allow to be addressed. While the use of adaptive management was proper for Coho in 2022 allowing for expanded harvest vs being restrained to the 5% of the natural Coho run size that GHMP 3/5 clause required the failure of staff to clearly outline what actions were being taken in 2022 and why such actions were required was not discussed. To say this failure by WDFW staff was and is completely inappropriate by any measure is true.

2. The public was not made aware that WDFW staff was standing down the 4/3 clause that requires that there be three net free days in a calendar week. This provision is not binding on the Quinault tribal fishers. Grays Harbor Management Policy is attached.

When I objected to the standing down of the GHMP 4/3 clause I received a letter from Mr. Cunningham (attached) with this paragraph.

During North of Falcon, District 17 Fish Biologist Mike Scharpf and Director Susewind compromised on a season structure with the co-managers that follows the intent of the Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy by enhancing the overall economic well-being and stability of Grays Harbor fisheries, providing fair distribution of opportunity across all sectors, and minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. The resulting schedule provides at least three consecutive days without nets in the water each week there are non-treaty commercial days scheduled. During statistical week 43, those consecutive days occur Friday through Sunday. Each of the other weeks in which non-treaty commercial fisheries are scheduled, those days without nets occur Thursday through Saturday.

The Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management Policy provides guidance for commercial fisheries and under Guiding Principle 8 states that we shall schedule a minimum of 3 consecutive days in a given calendar week if possible: “Recreational and WFDW-managed commercial fisheries shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur. If the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week.” Negotiations this year did not make 3 days within a given calendar week possible, and the policy was not violated.

With all respect, Mr. Cunningham this description of the intent of the GHMP is nearly a complete fabrication and at the absolute least a complete warping and misread of the purpose and intent of 4/3. For most of my nearly 75 years salmon harvest was managed primarily as a kill fishery at the Aberdeen 101 bridge. Any inland recreational fisheries were restricted to a small part of the Chehalis Basin and starting in the 1990’s working with the then Deputy Director local volunteers were slowly able to get opportunities inland. The GHMP 4/3 clause was the final peace and 4/3 is not about Rec vs commercial at Aberdeen but rather that the three net free days allowed the “inland Chehalis Basin communities” a reasonable access to harvest and ended WDFW’s discrimination and bias against the inland communities and freshwater fishers. For these communities the Chehalis River has three commercial gillnet fisheries NT Commercial, QIN commercial, and Confederated Chehalis Tribal nontreaty commercial fisheries. For the inland communities a commercial fisher is a commercial fisher and they have long since gotten past the color of one’s skin or ethnicity defining anyone. The words in the GHMP “if possible” are about the Quinault Nation (QIN) as they sometimes fish more than four days thus the river would not achieve three net free days. The words ‘calendar week” were suggested by a retired WDFW staffer to ensure staff did not bookend days to get around 4/3 which Director Susewind is exactly what you and Mr. Scharpf did in 2022. Director this is a return to the old discriminatory practices of the WDF past and have no place in this time and place. Discrimination for any reason or cause is not acceptable and WDFW’s action clearly show it has a way to go to end the discriminatory practices of the past toward the inland Chehalis Basin communities and fishers.

3.The public was not informed that by WDFW calculations natural spawning Chinook would only total 8,801 with an escapement goal of 9,753. Final 2022 Harvest Model is attached.

The failure of staff to explain the rational and how the 8,801 number was created and why in the 2022 model QIN appear to be fishing well into escapement is appalling! When I contacted staff I was told that QIN were allowed to count all Chinook spawning in the gravel as part of the natural spawn be they hatchery or wild origin. (Chinook Escapement change attached) The paragraph below clearly defines the why and how this action is applied.

The reevaluation of the Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal occurred in 2014. Three spawner-recruit functions were considered (Shepherd, Beverton-Holt, Ricker), and the Ricker model was identified as being the most appropriate form for both the Chehalis and Humptulips datasets. Brood years 1986 to 2005 were used in the analyses. In all analyses, parent generation escapement (i.e., spawners) includes both natural- and hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally. Spawner recruitment, biological based natural spawning escapement goals were developed for Chehalis and Humptulips rivers. Based on the Ricker analysis model, a Chehalis River fall Chinook natural spawning escapement goal of 9,880 was proposed and 3,620 for the Humptulips River. A harbor-wide natural spawning escapement goal of 13,500 was proposed.

When one looks at the WDFW 2022 harvest model it shows a predicted 8,801 natural Chinook escapement which is well below the escapement goal of 9,880. If one then adds hatchery broodstock production of 2,147 the 2022 adult natural Chinook spawners the number is 10,207. Simply put it appears the QIN and WDFW are counting Chehalis Basin natural spawning Chinook in two different ways. For a number of us this is problematic as first and foremost the co-managers should not count spawners two different ways. Secondly in administering harvest in this manner it places nearly all conservation requirements on the terminal non-treaty fishers.

4. Item 3 leads directly to item 4 and the closure above Fuller Hill and the tributaries for conservation due to low flows. First off the Chehalis above Fuller Hill was appropriate but not for low flows as that is not an issue with the Chehalis River. It was appropriate due to high water temperatures and this is a known issue known to WDFW dating back to the 1990’s. At that time the Chehalis Tribal & East Grays Harbor volunteers encountered a severe mortality with captured Chinook females. WDFW staff and retired WDFW staff working as volunteers concluded that the stress of warm water and being captured did not allow the female Chinook to recover from being handled. The solution was to suspend Broodstocking until the water temperatures dropped below 60 degrees with 55 degrees being the target temperature. While the closure above Fuller Hill was correct as a catch and release of hook and line ends with the same results as Broodstocking with a tangle net but to mislead citizens with a false narrative as to why a closure was required was not correct in fact was somewhat dishonest to say the least.

When looking at the tributary closures below Fuller Hill the low flows were the rational provided in the press release. When I inquired what and why and provided a video to all of the salmon movement on 23rd (video is attached) it clearly showed a major movement of ocean bright Coho just downstream from Schafer Park. Now to be clear between the 15th to 23rd of September the Chehalis tidewater experienced the largest buildup of Coho and Chinook I have ever witnessed. On the 23rd and 24th of September the massive buildup of salmon moved upstream rapidly to the point that when the QIN started fishing September 25th the vast majority of the early part of the Coho run was upstream above the QIN tribal fishers and into the tribs and the Chehalis Fuller Hill flats. This premise is borne out by Bingham Hatchery having a return of over 30,000 by Nov 3rd and both QIN and NT commercials failing to come close to projected harvest impacts.

The video I provided, which was taken by a third party, clearly shows the movement so in my mind Coho returns most certainly could not be the issue as the video clearly showed the mass movement. Chinook on the other hand were of concern but freshwater rec fishers were limited to catch and release of Chinook with a mortality of bay and inriver recreational impacts of 567 fish. The mortality associated with the number of Chinook encountered (catch and release) is covered by the modeled harvest so what could be the problem is the question? That the preseason forecast was wrong is always possible but how would staff know that before the spawning window closes and redd counts are completed? With 2021 spawner numbers not complete how can 2022 numbers indicate low returns? One cannot use the commercial catch numbers be they Non-Treaty or QIN as they modeled Coho and Chinook were well upstream as previously pointed out.

I suppose one could argue that the combined anecdotal information indicated a possible problem but I am reminded by others of the simple facts outlined below.

2022 Modeled Chehalis Basin Chinook Harvest
Alaska harvest 11,617
British Columbia harvest 4,637
WA Coast Treaty and Non-Treaty marine harvest 291

Terminal returns 14,957
QIN harvest 3,566
Rec impacts bay / inriver 567
Chehalis tribal 257 (charged to state share)

Alaska and British Columbia were modeled for 2022 to take more Grays Harbor Chinook (only WDFW separates the Humptulips and Chehalis rivers) than cross the bar at the mouth of Grays Harbor. The QIN will take a good number with the Chehalis tribal fisheries (which again is charged to the state share) taking a modest number.

It is not that difficult to be concerned about the health of Grays Harbor Chinook but this always comes to mind. I have never been aware of a WDFW Director including Director Susewind or WDFW representatives to the ocean harvest managers objecting to massive over harvest off Chehalis and Humptulips Chinook by Alaska and British Columbia marine fisheries. I am not aware of the WDFW Commission objecting to the destruction of Grays Harbor Chinook. I am not aware of any past or present Governors, state or federal Representatives, state or federal Senators or local elected officials object to utter depravity of the destruction of our Grays Harbor Chinook stocks. With this information how can any citizen be expected to take any part of WDFW management of Grays Harbor Chinook seriously?

If Chinook concerns in 2022 existed in the tributary’s options were available. On the Satsop staff could have made the closure above the old highway bridge as Chinook mostly move above the bridge and below the bridge to the Chehalis is the prime bank fishing area for Coho on the Satsop. The same applies for the Wynoochee as the railroad bridge just down the road from Region 6 offices would have worked for a shut off line and downstream from the railroad bridge the Port of Grays Harbor owns a substantial public access reach of the river utilized by bank fishers.

5. One final item I wish to address to Director Susewind and Mr. Cunningham. In your letter of October 19, 2022 (attached) you stated the following.

Negotiations for the commercial fishery openings in Grays Harbor occurred during the 2022 North of Falcon process and have remained unchanged since they were submitted with the CR-102 filing on May 17, 2022 and finalized by the signing and filing of the CR-103 on June 29, 2022. Planning Model D, which includes the same planned commercial fisheries, was sent both to the distribution list of advisers and the general Grays Harbor distribution list on Friday April 15, 2022, in preparation for the final GH/WB Post North of Falcon salmon fishery discussion held on April 19, 2022.

I cannot find fault with your statement as written as I do believe I and the other former Advisers did receive this information as did the general public but gentlemen you left out an itty bitty detail, you fired us two years ago! You did so without communication, justification, or just plain anything but silence. I found out from a former Willapa Adviser second hand! Whatever your reason was Advisers serve at your pleasure Director Susewind and if you wanted me or any other Grays Harbor Adviser removed it is your privilege sir. That said it is not appropriate for you to fail to acknowledge your actions toward both the Grays Harbor and Willapa Advisers for whatever your reasons were. To misrepresent the issue such as was done in Mr. Cunningham’s letter to imply that the Grays Harbor Advisers were fully functional and well informed is a serious misrepresentation of the facts.

Sincerely

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/22 05:03 PM

A guy I know did these numbers up off the information I provided you all. Anything that is off or not correct?

11,617 (37%) = Harvest impacts in Alaska (primarily commercial)
4,637 (15%) = Harvest impacts in Canada (primarily commercial)
291 (1%) = Harvest impacts on the WA Coast (primarily commercial)
16,545 (53%) = Harvest impacts prior to returning to Grays Harbor

3,566 (11%) = Harvest impacts by the Quinault Tribe (commercial)
567 (2%) = Harvest impacts by the non-tribal recreational community in the bay/river (recreational)
257 (1%) = Harvest impacts by the Chehalis Tribe (commercial)
10,567 (34%) = Total unharvested fish, of which a percentage are wild and allowed the opportunity to spawn
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 09:26 AM

So is the upper ditch open?
1 Fish?
Does it need to be a hatchery fish?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 09:47 AM

Maybe we should support the tribes reopening the "All Citizen" suit whereby any catch in US waters counts as part of the share. That would make AK part of the sharing...
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 09:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
A guy I know did these numbers up off the information I provided you all. Anything that is off or not correct?

11,617 (37%) = Harvest impacts in Alaska (primarily commercial)
4,637 (15%) = Harvest impacts in Canada (primarily commercial)
291 (1%) = Harvest impacts on the WA Coast (primarily commercial)
16,545 (53%) = Harvest impacts prior to returning to Grays Harbor

3,566 (11%) = Harvest impacts by the Quinault Tribe (commercial)
567 (2%) = Harvest impacts by the non-tribal recreational community in the bay/river (recreational)
257 (1%) = Harvest impacts by the Chehalis Tribe (commercial)
10,567 (34%) = Total unharvested fish, of which a percentage are wild and allowed the opportunity to spawn

66% exploitation on Chehalis chinook pretty well in line with the CTT 63% exploitation cited in your earlier post.

80-85% of all the harvested fish are taken BEFORE a single one swims over the bar.



As I said before, the crime in all of this is intentionally managing for a nearly 2/3 exploitation rate. Dum'fuckery at its finest.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 10:49 AM

So is the upper Chehalis open?
1 Fish?
Does it need to be a hatchery fish?

Anybody.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 11:12 AM

Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
So is the upper Chehalis open?
1 Fish?
Does it need to be a hatchery fish?

Anybody.


As this is the Chehalis channel, you should get an answer bite or three here.

If no answer, here’s the latest from the Green. Chum are in, as are the coho, and itz open, so let’s spread out the opportunity as handed too us...

wink
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 11:42 AM

Apparently this is a tough question.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 12:10 PM

Just got this and yes to the question is the upper Chehalis open and below it says two fish only one wild from the 12th to the end of Nov.

Adult coho salmon daily limit increased in the Chehalis Basin
Action: Increases the adult salmon daily limit
Effective date: Nov. 12 through Nov. 30, 2022
Species affected: Salmon
Locations:
1. Black River (Grays Harbor/Thurston Co.) from mouth to bridge on 128th Ave. SE
2. Chehalis River (Grays Harbor Co.) from Hwy 101 Bridge to high bridge on Weyerhaeuser 1000 line
3. Elk River (Grays Harbor Co.) from Hwy 105 bridge to the confluence of Middle Branch
4. Hoquiam River, including West Fork (Grays Harbor Co.) from Hwy 101 bridge to Dekay Rd.
5. Hoquiam River, East Fork (Grays Harbor Co.) from mouth to confluence of Berryman Creek
6. Johns River (Grays Harbor Co.) from Hwy 105 bridge to confluence of Ballon Creek
7. Newaukum River, including South Fork (Lewis Co.) from mouth to Leonard Road
8. Satsop River and East Fork (Grays Harbor Co.) from mouth to bridge at Schafer State Park
9. Satsop River and East Fork (Grays Harbor Co.) from 400' below Bingham Creek Hatchery dam to the dam
10. Skookumchuck River (Lewis/Thurston Co.) from mouth to 100' below outlet of TransAlta WDFW steelhead rearing ponds
11. Van Winkle Creek (Grays Harbor Co.) from mouth to 400' below outlet of Lake Aberdeen Hatchery
12. Wishkah River (Grays Harbor Co.) from the mouth to 200' below the weir at the Wishkah Rearing Ponds and from 150' upstream to 150' downstream of the Wishkah adult attraction channel/outfall structure (within the posted fishing boundary).
13. Wynoochee River (Grays Harbor Co.) from mouth to WDFW White Bridge access site
Salmon rules: Minimum size is 12". Daily limit six. Up to two adults may be retained, including no more than one wild coho salmon. Release Chinook salmon.
Reason for action: The number of coho salmon returning to hatcheries in Grays Harbor has exceeded pre-season forecasts. Evaluations of commercial catch information and trap counts indicate the returns of both natural-origin and hatchery-origin coho salmon to the Chehalis basin are sufficient to meet or exceed management goals. This, coupled with reduced opportunity earlier in the season because of environmental conditions, provides for increased opportunity now.
Additional information: All Chinook salmon are required to be released.
Anglers can be notified of in-season rule changes by downloading the FishWA app or signing up for fishery change notifications by email at https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/lists.
Information contact: Region 6 office, 360-249-4628
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 12:14 PM

Thank you.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 01:13 PM


And a Bay fishery change.

Nov. 10, 2022
Coho salmon daily limit increased in the East Grays Harbor Fishery
Action: Increases the salmon daily limit
Effective date: Nov. 12 through Nov. 30, 2022
Species affected: Salmon
Location: Marine Area 2-2, East Grays Harbor Fishery easterly of a projected line from the mouth of Johns River (Hwy. 105 Bridge) to the Tripod Station on Brackenridge Bluff (46°59.12'N, 124°00.72'W) through channel marker 27 (green).
Salmon rules: Minimum size is 12". Daily limit two, including no more than one wild coho salmon. Release Chinook salmon.
Reason for action: The number of coho salmon returning to hatcheries in Grays Harbor has exceeded pre-season forecasts. Evaluations of commercial catch information and trap counts indicate the returns of both natural-origin and hatchery-origin coho salmon to the Chehalis basin are sufficient to meet or exceed management goals. This, coupled with reduced opportunity earlier in the season because of environmental conditions, provides for increased opportunity now.
Additional information: All Chinook salmon are required to be released.
Anglers can be notified of in-season rule changes by downloading the FishWA app or signing up for fishery change notifications by email at https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/lists.
Information contact: Region 6 office, 360-249-4628
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 04:07 PM

Only one problem in the bay... "increases salmon daily limit"... NOT!

The current season thru Nov 30 in the permanent rule is already a 2 fish bag for any coho. Now it's a 2 fish bag with only 1 wild.

Not that this is of any practical significance in the middle of November. The bay fishery is pretty much DONE... basically fell off a cliff the last week of October.

Just sayin'...
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/22 10:38 PM

11/10/2022

In the 50+ years I've lived here, I don't ever remember a major change to extend the rules......this is a good thing!!!!! Is it perfect ?????? well I really like that sports gets to share in these extra/bonus Coho AND NOT HAVE THEM GO TO SURPLUS.

Thanks to Region 6 personal and WDFW higher ups, that allowed this to happen. Things like this happen in Region 5, Cowlitz comes to mind, where limit increases happen seemingly, very fast.

Enjoy, hope the weather stays good.......brown outs, stay away until 11/30......
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/22 06:50 AM

You do realize the surplus you identified is already in the hatchery so you got another fish that is likely not there. So the odds of getting 1 & 1 are slim day by day. Second kudos to WDFW after they screwed over 90% of the inriver Rec fishers ? I guess if one fishes where this is a benefit it is OK but this is after WDFW took away the biggest part of inriver fishers season for a cooked up rational? I choose not to be a sheep!
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/22 08:24 AM

I think it's a little too late!!!

there probably doing this so when they say no fishing starting Dec 1st they will say we gave u two fish in Nov.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/22 09:04 AM


It is not totally to late but it is site specific ! For the Satsop the vast majority of the normal timed hatchery Coho are up and gone and the late Bingham production is Dec fish mostly and the late Coho smolt release is rather small around 150k if I recall correctly. For the upper basin above Fuller Hill the Skookumchuck mitigation fish are late timed but that is a 300k release so it is somewhat beneficial. Bay and below S Monte it is zip nada nope but for two areas above S Monte to Fuller Hill it can be beneficial for the few that fish that reach with boats.

So yup for some they will benefit ........ maybe. One hell of a trade off, destroy the average Rec fishers season especially the bank fishers and then up the bag for a few boat fishers. Again one hell of a deal!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/22 11:05 AM

Good to know the few still fishing the bay can keep two of the fish that aren't there.

Kind of a head scratcher. Maybe the fisheries management equivalent to "greenwashing?"
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/22 03:32 PM

11/11/2022

Well, 19 more days and most of the salmon fishers will be off the rivers and wondering, maybe, what the 2023 season will look like????

WDFW has done away with public "face to face meeting", now its a "Zoom environment" where they have complete control of the meeting and a set agenda. If a public speaker doesn't follow their rules, push a button move on to the next speaker.

NOF is a sham, gone are the days when WDFW, NT and Sports met 4 or 5 times a year to work on items important to the region and to NT and Sports, it just went away.

I expect it was more convenient for WDFW to not have to answer to members of the public and NT netters, many times the sport and NT netters, had the longevity and knowledge to question WDFW, so now we are "treated like sheep" and follow the model.

WDFW can't say they didn't know the "mass of Coho" wasn't coming, they just didn't have a "good plan B" on how to deal with the amount of fish that crossed the bar, and headed up the Chehalis and many of the tributaries. QIN missed them, NT season missed them, sports got lot's of them if you were lucky enough to have a boat or fished the Mall area, the Fireman Hole or the very limited bank access from 101 Bridge to the Satsop.

Chinook numbers low, again, low water that "might" have been a problem????? Many viewed the 45 second video that showed "fish" moving up the river but what was WDFW to do????? Protect Chinook??? How to deal with Coho numbers that overwhelmed the hatcheries........Oh my, what to do, buy lots of toilet paper, get a Plan B, quickly......tough to get a Plan B going, if you don't have a plan, so let's "shut the tributaries down", not a good plan for the bank bound fishers.

1000's of Coho that might have fed sport fishers and their families, will now be surpluses and feed cats and dogs.......grrrrrrrr
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/22 05:42 PM

Bingham numbers up for the week. H 40,108 W 3054 jacks 3033

Looking at 2021 and 2020 numbers all seem to be blowing away previous two years numbers. Keep in mind the fish got past all the commercials and summer Rec fishers or the numbers would be about half of what they are.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/22 06:22 PM

wonder why the Quins numbers haven't been posted in over a month?
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/22 09:32 AM

It sucked.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/22 11:22 AM

This whole situation of blocks of fish passing the fishery by (to me) cry out for in-season management. Develop in-season updates based on catches in the harbor. It means that catches have to be sampled and posted within a few days rather than weeks but it would allow managers to at least have an idea of what is going on. Auto-pilot management leads to situations like this.

I will add, though, that just because there are wide open fisheries does not mean the hatchery won't have surplusses. Back in the 80s, the Puyallups fished Commencement Bay and the river 7 days a week. There was also the rec fishery in the Bay and river. The hatchery still exceeded its needs by 20-30K. In fairness to the whole story, there eventually was year when the goal may not have been reached. But in that system at that time wide open fisheries still missed fish. But, even then, the managers reviewed the situation daily.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/22 01:14 PM

I have been laid low by the flu bug so a little late with numbers. Formatting stinks but you guys can figure it I think.

QIN 2022 Modeled Harvest Chinook 3566 Coho 27,934 Chum 3566

QIN 2022 Actual
Date Stat
Week Chinook Chum Coho Steelhead White
Sturgeon
Sept. 25-28 40 612 5 4920 5 6
Oct. 2-6 41 280 36 4859 0 17
Oct. 9-12 42 142 205 3559 0 1
Oct. 16-18 43 45 638 1284
Oct. 23-29 (Closed) 44
Oct. 30-31 45 7 3679 617
Nov. 8-10 46 3 835 748
Nov. 13-16 47 0 130 305
Totals
Chinook Chum Coho Steelhead White
Sturgeon
1089 4560 16292 5 24

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/landings#chehalis


NT Commercial 2022 Modeled Harvest Chinook 360 Coho 6208 Chum 4440
NT 2022 Actual Totals
Chinook Coho Chum
3 3516 5550

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/gillnet#grays-harbor
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/22 01:23 PM

Quick, better shut it down, Chum take was too high.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/22 01:55 PM

Somewhat surprised they didn’t pick up a few steelhead on this last week or two of sets.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/22 02:39 PM

Somewhat surprised they didn’t pick up a few steelhead on this last week or two of sets.

they did get steelhead..
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/22 04:00 PM

Looking at weeks 46 and 47. Guessing that you’re implying they simply didn’t report any steelhead in those two weeks? Or am I just not reading those numbers correctly?
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/22 09:42 PM

Most worrisome aspect of those reported catches is chinook.

Nobody caught anything close to the expected number of Chehalis kings... ANYWHERE gear was deployed in their path.

Another escapement failure... another year in the penalty box.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/22 06:20 AM

With the marine harvest outlined below I doubt anything will change other than WDFW pissing on the terminal Rec fisher screaming conservation.

2022 Chinook Harvest Impacts
11,617 (37%) = Harvest impacts in Alaska (primarily commercial)
4,637 (15%) = Harvest impacts in Canada (primarily commercial)
291 (1%) = Harvest impacts on the WA Coast (primarily commercial)
16,545 (53%) = Harvest impacts prior to returning to Grays Harbor

3,566 (11%) = Harvest impacts by the Quinault Tribe (commercial)
567 (2%) = Harvest impacts by the non-tribal recreational community in the bay/river (recreational)
257 (1%) = Harvest impacts by the Chehalis Tribe (commercial)
10,567 (34%) = Total unharvested fish, of which a percentage are wild and allowed the opportunity to spawn
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/22 07:42 AM

"Allowed the opportunity to spawn" Howcome that really doesn't sound right?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/22 09:02 AM

SB did the % bit after I posted up the numbers. Your right does not sound right but after thinking on it a bit I think it captures the true intent.

This thinking thing is giving me a migraine!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/22 10:22 AM

Well, yeah. In a draft steelhead management plan the State and tribes referred to escapement as the fish they are not allowed to catch so that they can fish in future.

I don't doubt that if there was a way to import the necessary eggs that the State and Tribes would love to have a zero escapement goal for management purposes.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/22 11:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
With the marine harvest outlined below I doubt anything will change other than WDFW pissing on the terminal Rec fisher screaming conservation.

2022 Chinook Harvest Impacts
11,617 (37%) = Harvest impacts in Alaska (primarily commercial)
4,637 (15%) = Harvest impacts in Canada (primarily commercial)
291 (1%) = Harvest impacts on the WA Coast (primarily commercial)
16,545 (53%) = Harvest impacts prior to returning to Grays Harbor

3,566 (11%) = Harvest impacts by the Quinault Tribe (commercial)
567 (2%) = Harvest impacts by the non-tribal recreational community in the bay/river (recreational)
257 (1%) = Harvest impacts by the Chehalis Tribe (commercial)
10,567 (34%) = Total unharvested fish, of which a percentage are wild and allowed the opportunity to spawn


Again they are figuring about 31.2K total adult production in the ocean

Pre-terminal is snarfing up 16.5K (80% of the total harvest) and inside is taking 4.4K (20% of the harvest) for an effective exploitation rate of 66% on a run that perennially fails to make its escapement goal.

INSANITY!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/22 12:49 PM

And people still buy licenses and participate in the destruction. So, WDFW's feedback is positive; they still get the money to keep on keeping on.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/22 08:17 PM

A bit off-topic for the current fall salmon discussion, but it deserves a spot here... esp since the Chehalis River is featured in the documentary.

A must watch to better understand the genetic implications for spring chinook conservation and recovery.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.pbs.org/video/the-lost-salmon-8hjf4t/[/URL]
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/22 06:39 AM

It was Aldo Leopold who said something along the lines of "A sign of intelligent tinkering is you keep all the parts." We can't recover ecosystems with only those species which are convenient or most desired by humans. And sometimes, the loss of species/subspecies/race/genetics takes a while to manifest.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/24/22 03:54 PM


This is the next netting schedule on the QIN site posted November 22 2022.

WK 48 Sunday Nov 20 pull Wednesday Nov. 23
WK 49 Sunday Nov 27 pull Wednesday Nov. 30
WK 50 Sunday Dec. 4 pull Wednesday Dec 7
WK 51 Sunday Dec. 11 pull Wednesday Dec 14


http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/30/22 02:18 PM

latest WDF&W but is not on the website at the moment

Portions of the Humptulips and Chehalis rivers will open Dec. 1 to Dec. 16 to provide opportunity for coho salmon fishing while supporting steelhead conservation objectives.

For more information, reference the WDFW emergency fishing rule change webpage.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/22 10:07 AM

ASsof 11/30, if you add the number of coho surplused at Bingham Creek and Satsop Springs hatcheries on the Satsop, the number of coho is over 47,000. Unbelievable. Opportunity lost.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/22 01:03 PM

The opportunity was not lost but rather taken away by over zealous WDF&W harvest managers using the word conservation to disguise their incompetency.
Posted by: FISH'N BRASS

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/22 05:55 PM

In case there are more dumbasses like me who thought the Dec 1-16 extension was an extension of the Nov emergency change which allowed 2 adults-1 that could be wild-WRONG- Dec rules as printed in regs now apply. Was educated this am by game warden who was courteous and polite in the process. No pain-no foul!
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/22 07:04 PM

Whether opportunity on the Satsop was lost or taken away (as RG stated) the result was the same.The trib fishermen got screwed by WDFW as far as coho are concerned. I am a bank angler and I guess we bankies are the "redheaded step children".
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/22 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
Whether opportunity on the Satsop was lost or taken away (as RG stated) the result was the same.The trib fishermen got screwed by WDFW as far as coho are concerned. I am a bank angler and I guess we bankies are the "redheaded step children".


You're more or less right. That said, if you were a fish manager, would you be more hesitant to restrict opportunity for bank fishers or boaters? No question, boaters spend (and generate) more $ when they fish.

To be clear, I'm not saying I like it (I'm generally a bankie, too), but when you govern from a perspective of which user groups generate the most economic activity in a fee and use-based tax system like ours, you must favor that which generates the most fee and tax revenues.....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/22 04:53 PM

In my mind, and what guided me in management, is that you can't call yourself a manager until you can put the needs of the fish and the needs of the ecosystem ahead of your personal preferences. I was am outlier.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/22 05:02 PM

I am not aware of any directives be it legislative or agency that directs WDFW to provide seasons to the citizens of the greatest means, wealth if you prefer. That said one could make a good argument that is exactly what they do.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/22 06:38 PM

I think they believe that they are directed to maintain the economic well-being of the user groups. Can't recall the exact words but I think there is an economic driver to what they do. That is likely one of the drivers for MSY, which is simply a maximize profit model.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/03/22 07:01 AM

Not everyone can afford a boat be it sled or drift boat (me included). But it seems you have to have the means to afford a boat to get a fair shake with WDFW. I remember I attended a meeting on Puget Sound salmon fishing quite a few years ago . The meeting was for ways to enhance salmon fishing in the Sound. Some of the attendees complained about the salmon fishing opportunities in Puget Sound vs the Ocean and how the seasons were much better out on the coast. The fellow from WDFW said that the Puget Sound anglers would just have to buy bigger boats and fish the ocean if they wanted better fishing opportunities. The attendees said not all people can afford a boat to fish the ocean. The WDFW just kind of said too bad.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/03/22 07:33 AM

A guy I went to school with had a discussion with Mr. Anderson years back about the lack of real seasons for Chehalis fresh water anglers. His response was he should go fishing on a charter boat if he wanted more fishing opportunity. It has been a decade or so since that conversation but nothing has changed that I can see.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/03/22 07:36 AM

I had a discussion with a WDFW bio about the proposal to restore coho in the Yakima. A strong coho population would reduce the resident trout. I mentioned that, in that scenario, the fishery would be reduced (and that includes guides, lodging, food) but that the habitat protection requirements would remain; the landowners would just get less fishing. His response was that they could go fish Buoy 10. Personally, that's a bad trade but it does reflect the thought process.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/03/22 10:42 AM

If I remember correctly Anderson owned and ran a charter at Westport. Easy to see his thought process.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/03/22 11:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
I am not aware of any directives be it legislative or agency that directs WDFW to provide seasons to the citizens of the greatest means, wealth if you prefer. That said one could make a good argument that is exactly what they do.


Agreed. There's no legal mandate, but this is America....
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/22 08:22 AM

I remember that + - 15 years ago NSIA (NW Sportsfishing Industry Association) hired a lobbyist to educate legislators, the economic benefits of rec. fishing vs commercial to increase rec. opportunity. If those kind of influences emphasized boaters, which probably was the case, one could argue favoritism leaned toward them. Not sure if they still have a lobbyist on the payroll today.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/04/22 11:14 AM

12/04/2022

Dumb WDFW, allow fishers to fish Chehalis, for Coho, 12/01/ - 12/16/2022. So I thought like many others, a chance to fish, usual and accustom places, with use of my boat.

Portions of 11/30/2022 WDFW announces 2022-2023 coastal fishing season

"The upcoming season is structured similarly to last year's fishery, particularly in the Hoh River and the Willapa Bay tributaries. Some increased opportunity, relative to last season, includes an extension of late season coho fishing in select waters in the Chehalis River through Friday, Dec. 16, and increased opportunity to fish from a boat in the Sol Duc River. The season also includes added protections in the Bogachiel River. "

"Portions of the Humptulips and Chehalis rivers will open Dec. 1 to Dec. 16 to provide opportunity for coho salmon fishing while supporting steelhead conservation objectives".

I think upper WDFW personnel should be made to "bank fish" the Chehalis river for Coho December 1 - December 16 of ANY year and then give a written report on how many WILD steelhead they released and how many Coho they caught and where they even found fishable bank areas, to fish.

Bet, that whole WDFW 11/30/2022 letter, made for some chuckles around the coffee break sessions.

Additional comment.....Hoh River to rivers around Forks must be doing "things right"??????? Liberal rules, allowed boat fishing, in many areas.

WDFW needs to start doing from the Hoh River to the Chehalis water shed, the very same things to get "wild steelhead" back that quickly, 2 years, wow wow wow.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/22 05:13 AM

I was asked to post up the summary for the change in the GH Escapement Goal so here it is. You might notice it it calls for an exploitation rate of 63%.


Grays Harbor Fall Chinook

Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was reevaluated and changed in 2014. The new natural spawning escapement goal is 13,500 naturally spawning Chinook for Grays Harbor with 9,880 for Chehalis River and 3,620 for Humptulips River.

The Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was 14,600, 12,364 Chehalis River and 2,236 Humptulips River. This goal was adopted in 1979 and was based on available spawning habitat and a spawning density of 36 fish per mile. A level of 24 fish per mile was used for the mainstem Chehalis River and all tributaries upstream of Cedar Creek, reflecting lower productive potential. This goal is defined as a natural spawning escapement goal.

The Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) is to review the biological basis for Chinook salmon management objectives under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PSC, 2009), Chapter 3, Section 2. (b) (iv), The CTC shall “…evaluate and review existing escapement objectives that fishery management agencies have set for Chinook stocks subject to this Chapter for consistency with MSY or other agreed biologically-based escapement goals and, where needed, recommend goals for naturally spawning Chinook stocks that are consistent with the intent of this Chapter…”. The abundance-based management regime for Chinook salmon established by the 2008 Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) is intended to sustain production at levels associated with maximum sustained yield (MSY, measured in terms of adult equivalents) over the long term. Therefore, the escapement goal for Grays Harbor fall Chinook was reevaluated based on spawner recruitment analysis.

The reevaluation of the Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal occurred in 2014. Three spawner-recruit functions were considered (Shepherd, Beverton-Holt, Ricker), and the Ricker model was identified as being the most appropriate form for both the Chehalis and Humptulips datasets. Brood years 1986 to 2005 were used in the analyses. In all analyses, parent generation escapement (i.e., spawners) includes both natural- and hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally. Spawner recruitment, biological based natural spawning escapement goals were developed for Chehalis and Humptulips rivers. Based on the Ricker analysis model, a Chehalis River fall Chinook natural spawning escapement goal of 9,880 was proposed and 3,620 for the Humptulips River. A harbor-wide natural spawning escapement goal of 13,500 was proposed.

On March 18, 2015 posted in the Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 52, NMFS proposes updates to management reference point values for Grays Harbor fall Chinook as recommended By the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for use in developing annual management measures beginning in 2015. These management reference point values are conservation objectives to provide necessary guidance for fisheries management within the guidance of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

There are four management reference points established in Federal Register V. 80:
1. 13,326 natural area spawners for Grays Harbor (9,753 Chehalis, 3,573 Humptulips) goals.
2. Smsy 13,326 natural area spawners.
3. Maximum Fishery Mortality Threshold (MFMT, generally equal to FMSY), total exploitation rate of 63%. Management all fishery exploitation to 63% or less.
4. Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST, Smsy * 0.5), 6,663 natural area spawners (13,326 * 0.5 = 6,663. If natural area spawners drop below 6,663, stock considered “over fished”.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/22 07:18 AM

Way back when I looked at PS chum goals. In the 70s, they were based on the average of the highest three years in the data base. Because there was such a consistent difference between even and odd years separate goals were made of the two. Fast forward to the 90s. We had been using this goals for 20+ years and we were coming off some really high returns in the 80s/early 90s.

So, I applied the Ricker Curve to the whole data set for each stock. Interesting results.

As the runs got larger, the calculated MSY goal went higher. Then, as the returns diminished in the 90s, so did the calculated goal. Became apparent to me that the goal reflects the data; if you look at years with smaller returns it certainly won't tell you that you need twice as many fish.

It would not surprise me that if one looked at GH coho and emphasized the recent years of low returns that one would get a lower MSY goal. We are likely to see this sort of analysis out of AK with their Chinook....
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/22 11:34 AM

2/08/2022

Most issues on PP talk about ADULT fish. This posting is about a salmon, that Gill netters, tribal or NT, don't want. A salmon that the vast majority of sport fishermen don't really target.

The Chehalis system, especially the Satsop, seemingly have many "COHO JACKS", that get back to Bingham hatchery. This year the Bingham hatchery, 3,409, has been ONLY exceeded by the Cowlitz, 3744.

The limit has been 6 jacks since I've been in Grays Harbor, 54 years, and even people born and raised in Washington State, can ever remember a limit number different.

WDFW hides behind the "impact number" of adult chinook that might be hooked BUT no number, of impacts, can be provided.

Open the Chehalis and Satsop, to a 12 COHO jack fishery, I'm not asking for a whole State in crease, just those 2 rivers where the COHO jacks are "a targeted fishery" for alot of fishers, male, female, and children. Stop wasting Coho jacks that are "surplused, ie. killed if they reach the hatchery, they are a good source of salmon for the tax paying public.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/22 10:50 AM

Drifter,

There is no biological reason for not allowing a 6 or even more jack coho limit. My guess is that jacks (2 yr coho) count the same as 3 yr coho is the treaty - non-treaty harvest allocations. Maybe WDFW doesn't want to use up coho allocation with jacks?
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/22 11:15 AM

There was an article a few years ago that asked why the limit in one area was lower than the system would allow. The answer was that people feel more satisfied when they get the limit. Allowing a higher limit that was not obtainable by most people would lead to people be unsatisfied. So, the lower limit.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/09/22 02:20 PM

As a younger person I agree that the limit was an important goal. I was certainly more proud to come home with a limit than not.

Now? I want to bring home what I wish to eat rather fresh. I have stopped at a duck or two or a goose or two or even just one salmon. It's enough.

Quality over quantity.

Must admit that I would be happy with higher limit for deer as I have lots of ways to save venison and lots of friends who appreciate it.

I know that when setting limits it was believed that few achieved a larger limit so raising it did not significantly add to catch. Which leads me to think that if somebody wants and can catch 12 jacks go for it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/16/22 01:17 PM

Steelhead are not my thing but I found this in the Daily World that I thought some might find interesting.

The mysteries of steelhead season

The answer to the survival of our steelhead is obvious — turn management over to the Tribes

Pat Neal

Peninsula Daily News

It was another tough week in the news, when the state Department of Fish and Wildlife decided to end steelhead fishing on many of our rivers even before the steelhead season opened — ending an angling tradition that stretches back through the mists of time as long as we can remember.

If you don’t know what a steelhead is, you are probably not from around here.

Steelhead are a rainbow trout that migrate out to the ocean then return to the rivers where they were born much like the salmon.

Unlike the salmon, steelhead do not die after they spawn.

In fact, one female steelhead in the Hoh River was found to have spawned six times based upon an analysis of her scales, which, much like the rings of a tree, can document the life of the fish.

The fact that steelhead are able to spawn multiple times has made them much harder to eradicate from the ecosystem than our salmon, which can only spawn once.

Never fear. Using the best available science, coupled with best available Disney movies, the co-managers of this precious resource have been working tirelessly to transform this magnificent fish from a public resource we could all enjoy into an endangered species.

Through the miracle of the Endangered Species Act, it is hoped that millions of federal dollars will soon become available to study the problem. Meanwhile, just about all we have left of our steelhead culture and traditions have become a distant memory.

Nobody who ever caught a steelhead will forget their first one.

This is my story.

We were camping in the rainforest sometime in the last century. It was raining. And not just a sprinkle. It was pounding on our tent like a thousand little hammers. However, we had a wood stove in the tent, so it was warm but a little moist. Unfortunately, we had forgotten a ground sheet and since we were camping in a meadow, the floor was a wet patch of grass. Once the turf warmed up inside the tent, every bug in the country woke up and sprang out of hibernation ready for a meal.

Outside, flakes of snow mixed with rain. Inside, it was mosquito season as hundreds of bugs filled the tent like a cloud of misery. Somehow, we survived until morning and it was time to fish. We did not catch a thing,




The Tribal section of the Queets and Quinault rivers have the best steelhead fishing in the United States in terms of size and numbers of fish. WDFW

but we saw a guy walking along the river carrying a fish as long as his leg.

Once I caught a steelhead, I was hooked.

Steelhead are not for eating anymore. According to the government, steelhead are now so rare that some rivers, like the Queets, have been shut down to even catch-and-release fishing — causing questions to be asked.

Isn’t the Queets River, protected almost its entire length within Olympic National Park, the most pristine environment this side of Alaska? If the steelhead have become so rare in the Queets, is there something besides the habitat endangering our fish? And isn’t the Queets still open to tribal gillnetting?

The answer to all these questions is yes. The tribes have a treaty right to fish.

Using native broodstock to enhance the runs, they plant more fish than they catch — making the Tribal section of the Queets and Quinault rivers the best steelhead fishing in the United States in terms of size and numbers of fish.

The answer to the survival of our steelhead is obvious.

Let the Tribes manage our steelhead. They are the only ones doing it.

We’ll thank ourselves later if we do the right thing now.

Pat Neal is a Hoh River fishing and rafting guide and “wilderness gossip columnist” whose column appears weekly in the Peninsula Daily News, a sister newspaper of The Daily World.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/22 05:43 AM

I mostly agree with Pat's frustration over our rivers with the best habitat being closed (apparently for good), but if he thinks turning over management to the Tribes will result in him and his clients enjoying better fishing in more places, he's slitting his own throat. An honest look at what the QIN does on the coast will reveal that they produce those fish ENTIRELY so they can harvest them. They don't give a rat's a$$ about sport fishing (except for that which non-members pay to do on their reservations), nor do they care about conservation. To them, a fish is a fish, no matter how many fins, so as long as something swims into their gillnets, they're good. (To be fair, they should not have to; before white people came, nobody took more than they needed, and there was never any question the anadromous fish would return in great numbers; why should the conservation burden fall on them?)

Yes, some tribal programs produce better returns, but it's important to understand that the Tribes don't produce those fish for anyone's benefit but their own, and with that, if they are the only ones in charge, Pat needs to realize that's going to take his guiding business from confined to the Quillayute and Hoh to entirely defunct.

Careful what you wish for....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/22 09:04 AM

On the other hand, who does WDFW produce all those salmon for? It's not for the folks who pay the freight.

Personally, and I don't care who it is, anadromous fish management should be vested on one single entity that is publicly accountable for the results. When either side doesn't get "their legal share" it has to be publicly explained. What the current management regime lacks is accountability; nobody's job is on the line for perpetual failure.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/22 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
On the other hand, who does WDFW produce all those salmon for? It's not for the folks who pay the freight.

Personally, and I don't care who it is, anadromous fish management should be vested on one single entity that is publicly accountable for the results. When either side doesn't get "their legal share" it has to be publicly explained. What the current management regime lacks is accountability; nobody's job is on the line for perpetual failure.


I'm just quoting C'man's post because it is so good it needs to be repeated.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/17/22 08:09 PM

Yup. Hard to argue with that. Well said.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/22 09:24 AM

The weather is about to take a dramatic change and the rivers are going to blow out. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/ The entire basin is going be at flood stage as well as the North Coast.

The rain will start out slow but a week out it is going to get ugly https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi so planning ahead sounds like a good idea.

Almost forgot snow will be around to make a mess out of things before the heavy rains hit. It looks to be a butt ugly 10 days or so !
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/22 10:36 AM

Ugliest flood I worked a trap on was a rain on snow. We had, at sea level, more than a foot of snow. All came off one night. The water pushed so hard on the rack that it actually moved the concrete structure downstream a few inches.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/22 12:37 PM

With a rain/flooding forecast like this, you’d think the Dam operators would be getting ready. @ Howard Hanson on the Green, they are running about 300 cfs outta the dam as of noon today. Which if memory serves, is about 700cfs below average for this time of year...
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/22 02:10 PM

What is the storage behind the dam? What is inflow into the reservoir? 300 cfs may still be drawing down the reservoir. If, by chance, the "overdraw" down and can't refill folks will scream all summer about mis-management. No matter how they operate the dam, folks will complain.
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/18/22 03:21 PM

https://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/dd/common/projects/www/hah.html
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/20/22 09:31 AM

For us on the coast, this storm this morning is going to go right to cold ! Today's temps are 46 / 30 and tomorrow it is 35 / 23 with inch or so snow. With this mix you guys fishing or pulling a trailer watch out for black ice. It will be about elevation, when, where as to how dicey it gets.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/20/22 11:09 AM

12/20/2022

Black Hills will be a bitch.....nothing like the all wheel drives vehicles or 4 Wheel drive, add good tires, add drive within the conditions.

Slow but sure, only way to go BUT if you don't have to go, don't!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/22/22 07:16 AM

So at the moment Thursday 13k have lost power from Raymond North to Taholah and the storm coming in this afternoon is ice/rain/ snow so take care. It is about when and where for ice but the rain is going cut loose starting Friday this weekend from an 1 1/2 inch to 2 inches a day tapering down for a total of 12 inches over 8 days. Olympic side of the basin will get the heaviest rain and upper Chehalis less. No matter what power can get iffy tonight / tomorrow with a full blown winter storm right on its heels and we will go to flood stage rapidly. Xmas celebrations are going to take a hit I think.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/23/22 07:35 AM

We have to be in Everett around 3PM to pick up our son who is flying in from SoCal. His original flight to SeaTac, getting in at 10AM, was cancelled last night. Weatherguesser suggests melt starts around noon. I hope that, at worst, their forecast is on time.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/23/22 07:49 AM

The ground and roads are solid ice here now. Rain freezing has even turned gravel to solid ice. We do have a temperature of 32 so still busy freezing up. Did get to watch the dog's ass pass his head as he took off across the driveway trying to catch up to chipmunk who did seem to have the same traction issues! Chipmunk was happy, dog not so much after he slid into a tree broadside.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/23/22 08:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
The ground and roads are solid ice here now. Rain freezing has even turned gravel to solid ice. We do have a temperature of 32 so still busy freezing up. Did get to watch the dog's ass pass his head as he took off across the driveway trying to catch up to chipmunk who did seem to have the same traction issues! Chipmunk was happy, dog not so much after he slid into a tree broadside.


The lack of like and laugh emojis on this forum is a serious flaw. Your dog and chipmunk story still has me laughing as I type this.

Yeah, gravel driveway and paved road are slicker than deer guts on a doorknob here with ice. No newspaper delivery this morning. Not sure why I risked a pratfall to go out and check.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/23/22 09:40 AM

Our house has mostly wood floors. The cats get no traction on that, which can be funny. Watching waterfowl land on ice is a good one, too.

On a more serious note, though, deer and other ungulates that fall on ice can dislocate their hind legs. Might actually happen to large dogs, too.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/23/22 09:45 AM

Not to throw salt on the cuts, but with 50 degrees and rain measured in inches starting tomorrow, how long before the rivers rise ?

Happy Holidays and be careful y’all.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/23/22 10:06 AM

Probably faster than "normal" as I doubt the ground will thaw fast enough to infiltrate all the water.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/23/22 10:17 AM

Forecast is from about 3000 cfs at Porter now to around 10000 in 48 hours same same for Olympics in 48 hours. Going to peak around the 30th at 20000 cfs. at Porter. Similar pattern on Olympics side.

Raining and 35 degrees on the river so temperatures are rising fast but inland not so much yet.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/22 10:09 AM

Got the usual how you doing with the flooding from folks. Well fine but I am glad it has let up some, the wind that is. Day before yesterday with the storm I got about 8 inches of water in my shop and had to do the usual clean up washing the silt out. Yesterday with flows about the same it was two feet less and not much to worry about. Two feet is a big difference and it is all about the wind holding the bay backing everything up at high tide. Tidewater flooding is about flows, 10 ft plus tide and wind. Had all so it was a mess but dodged the peak flows matching high tide so as my brother said about the snow we dodged the bullet, again!

The river is just plain nasty otherwise. Trees and junk coming down in a constant stream. DW said the river at high tide in Aberdeen had enough trees to start logging. Huge mats of twigs, limbs, junk just everything have been a real pain but not as bad as the big windstorm a few years back.

Did see some humor though. The young bear was on my dock at high tide as my house was an island at high tide and damned if it did not find a way to fall in the river. It was high tide near slack so the current was not severe and it got a grip on the docks bumper beam and pulled itself back up. There it the sat for about 2 hours until land reappeared grunting and wailing away and then scampered off. Frankly it looked like a celebratory dance rather than running. The nearest land is about a quarter mile away in a high tide flood event as my house is more or less in a giant lake. I don't think the little guy will fall for that again!

I hope everyone had a good Christmas and we should all be thankful of the better things as ugly is never far away.




Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/22 01:31 PM

Looking for a better '23, for sure. Fortunately, we are about 40-50' above Budd Inlet so the tide didn't get us. Apparently we have low risk fro a tsunami down here. If one does actually hurt us there will be a whole lot of other folks a whole lot worse off.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/22 04:47 PM

C-Man,

Be careful what you say - the gods are listening, just waiting for a "Gotcha" moment. Earthquakes, etc. I lived in Rose Valley, up the Coweeman River Valley years ago, well above the flood range and any tsunami threat. And then St. Helens blew! Keep smiling!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/29/22 05:26 PM

Oh I hear you Tug. I rode out the '01 quake on 6th Floor of the NRB. That fulfilled my life's need to be in a real earthquake. I have a great fear of the Cascadia Subduction Zone event. I don't think the quake itself will be too bad here in Oly, but the overall regional damage will be unimaginable.

How'd you like to have been at the Toutle Hatchery that morning?? The blast shook our house in Sequim.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/01/23 12:15 AM

01/01/2023

State Tournament high school basket ball was taking place in the Tacoma Dome. What I remember was the lights that were hanging from the ceiling were swinging back and forth......None fell !!!!!!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/14/23 05:58 AM

Just so everyone knows some of us have been trying to get 2021 salmon escapement numbers and now 2022. A bit back I was told that the person that produces this data was having difficulties. It has been a bit so I have asked again and hopefully it will be provided. Best I can do guys.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/14/23 02:31 PM

Gawd. Back in the day, with much more primitive technology, we had many escapements by now. For the previous year.

Kinda like WDG used to provide SH catches and storing numbers in the summer after the winter season ended. Used to.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/07/23 10:38 AM

Hey guys staff has provided the updated escapement spread sheet with 2021 numbers. (2022 are not completed) There is a lot of information for Grays Harbor salmon escapements and some surprises also. An example is 2020 the Wishkah Coho goal is 2788 but only had a Coho escapement of 440 and in 2021 it went up to 839. The Hoquiam escapement goal is 1788 and 2020 was 859 and 2021 was 3051. In 2021 the Satsop was 400% greater than in 2020 so these spread sheets allow one to look at the Chehalis Basin as a whole or by tributaries ( not so with Chum ) so lots to ponder here with the 2023 NOF process just a bit down the road.

If you want the spread sheets e mail me your email address and I will get them to you.

Also big thanks to staff as this information is needed and they take the time to keep us informed, big thanks. JJ I will get the sheets out today, hopefully.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/07/23 01:48 PM

Only Coho and Steelhead have river escapement goals shown for tributaries the Springers, Chum, and Chinook are Chehalis as a whole. Hopes that help JJ.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/07/23 02:09 PM

Might look back at that EDT report. It looked at available spawning area for each major river. I can't remember of they also indicated MSY goals but they might have. Even if those are not management goals, and certainly not what I developed for the CBFTF, they do offer an idea that the State supported for what the stream should host.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/14/23 10:40 AM

Well next up !

NEWS RELEASE

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Feb. 7, 2023
Contact: Dr. Kenneth Warheit, 360-902-2595
Media contact: Ben Anderson, 360-902-0045

WDFW seeks public input on draft co-manager hatchery policy
OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking public comment on a draft policy to guide management of hatcheries in cooperation with tribal co-managers.

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted an updated Anadromous Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Policy in April 2021. As part of that policy, the Commission instructed WDFW “to begin development of a joint policy agreement on salmon and steelhead hatchery programs with tribal co-managers,” which would supplement and supersede the existing Commission policy when appropriate.

After more than a year of collaborative work with technical staff under the direction of a subset of commissioners and tribal policymakers, a final draft policy was developed in November 2022 and presented to the full Commission in December 2022 and January 2023.

Key values of the policy include a commitment to work as co-managers to develop and implement hatchery management plans on a regional or watershed-specific basis, while conserving natural-spawning populations of fish and mitigating the effects of habitat loss and other environmental impacts. The draft policy outlines six guiding principles to support these values.

The public is invited to provide comment on the draft policy through March 1. The full draft policy is available online, and comments may be submitted at WDFW’s website or at https://publicinput.com/ComanagerHatcheryPolicy.
The policy will also undergo an additional State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) public comment period before being considered for adoption by the Commission.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish, wildlife, and recreational and commercial opportunities. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is a panel appointed by the governor that sets policy for WDFW.
Posted by: NOFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/14/23 12:15 PM

Does the invited public comment for these policy recommendations and a response provided to each comment by the Staff get published? I would sure hope so.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/14/23 01:01 PM

Here is the draft that has the do and do not stuff. The devil is in the details so I think we could use some help from former staff here. Read it tell us what you think. The update thing keeps getting tangled up with Adobe so a link is not working here.


https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/policies/anadromous-salmon-and-steelhead-hatchery-policy

Still screwed on a link but copy and paste the address below and it should get you the document.

wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/anadromous_salmon_and_steelhead_hatchery_policy_c-3624_final.pdf
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/14/23 01:13 PM

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/policies/anadromous-salmon-and-steelhead-hatchery-policy

This takes you to WDFW's site to take a look. What is missing is being able to access the documents that go with this thing.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/14/23 02:35 PM

I think they want us to comment on the draft Co-Manager Policy not the anadromous salmon and steelhead policy.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/20221208-fc-proposed-co-manager-policy-11-7-2022.pdf
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/14/23 02:50 PM



I guess both.

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted an updated Anadromous Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Policy in April 2021. As part of that policy, the Commission instructed WDFW “to begin development of a joint policy agreement on salmon and steelhead hatchery programs with tribal co-managers,” which would supplement and supersede the existing Commission policy when appropriate.
After more than a year of collaborative work with technical staff under the direction of a subset of commissioners and tribal policymakers, a final draft policy was developed in November 2022 and presented to the full Commission in December 2022 and January 2023.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/14/23 03:18 PM

It is confusing. Commission adopted the updated Anadromous Salmon and Steelhead Policy already. Instructed staff to develop a Co-Manager piece to it. Provide a link to comment publicinput/ComanagerHatcheryPolicy. But don't provide a one click link to the draft Co-Manager Policy itself.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/14/23 04:14 PM

As read a bit of it, the current adopted policy applies only to WDFW. It does not affect the Tribes or any other agreements (PSMP). They h=now have to develop something the tribes will agree to. Or, the tribes can tell them what the policy is.

One thing I noted in my cursory reading is that hatchery impacts ignore mixed-stock no -selective fishing as being very bad for wild fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/16/23 02:21 PM

Well here is the NOF for GH & Willapa for 2023 and yup they are going to hide with the ZOOM crap.

Welcome to the 2023 North of Falcon (NOF) salmon season setting process.&#8239;WDFW staff wanted to share with everyone some public meeting information that has now been scheduled for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor to discuss upcoming forecasts, management objectives, and fishery opportunities for the upcoming 2023 salmon season.

Our website has been updated with the 2023 NOF public meetings scheduled to-date, which can be found at 2023 North of Falcon public meeting schedule | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife.&#8239; All meetings will be conducted virtually via Zoom for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor except for the March 1 meeting, which will be held both in-person and virtually at the Log Cabin Pavilion, Morrison Riverfront Park, 1401 Sargent Blvd, Aberdeen, WA 98520.

The 2023 Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor NOF public meeting dates are:

Meeting
March 1 6-8pm Joint Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Forecast (hybrid: in-person and Zoom)
March 21 6-8pm Willapa Bay Fisheries Discussion (Zoom)
March 22 6-8pm Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion (Zoom)
March 30 6-8pm Joint Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion (Zoom)
April 12 6-8pm Joint Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Fisheries Package (Zoom)

Other NOF and Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) public meeting dates:
Meeting
March 3 2023 Salmon Forecasts and Fishing Opportunities, Lacey, WA (Puget Sound, Coastal, and Columbia River)
March 5-10 PFMC Webinar, Seattle WA (link)

March 15 North of Falcon #1
March 29 North of Falcon #2
April 2-7 PFMC Webinar to adopt final federal regulations, Foster City, CA (link)



Please check our website for updated information throughout the NOF process using the first link at the top of the page.&#8239;
If you have any questions regarding this schedule, please contact WDFW staff or reply to this email with your questions.&#8239;

Thank you
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/16/23 02:42 PM

Wish more would be held in person, but I’ll plan on being at the March 1st meeting in Aberdeen. Would be nice meeting some of y’all finally. Curious what these forecasts will look like.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/16/23 07:50 PM

Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
Wish more would be held in person, but I’ll plan on being at the March 1st meeting in Aberdeen. Would be nice meeting some of y’all finally. Curious what these forecasts will look like.


I'll see ya there... but make sure to re-introduce yourself because I'm gettin' old and forgetful, esp when I meet someone in a different venue than usual.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/17/23 05:46 AM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
Originally Posted By: seabeckraised
Wish more would be held in person, but I’ll plan on being at the March 1st meeting in Aberdeen. Would be nice meeting some of y’all finally. Curious what these forecasts will look like.


I'll see ya there... but make sure to re-introduce yourself because I'm gettin' old and forgetful, esp when I meet someone in a different venue than usual.


Will do. If it helps, I’m young and forgetful. Will have to fly out there at a pretty good pace after work that day, but I’ll be there.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/19/23 10:05 AM

Projects curbing bank erosion showing success in Chehalis River Basin

The Daily World

Since 2013, the Office of Chehalis Basin (OCB) has invested $98.8 million for 39 projects to reduce flood-related damage and 68 projects to restore aquatic species habitat in the Chehalis River basin.

There are eight other basin projects that have dual flood-reduction and ecosystem benefits. For these integrated projects, OCB has invested $1.6 million to acquire property, develop a streamflow gauge plan, create a demonstration project to test how groundwater and surface waters mix, and manage erosion, according to a news release.

In Grays Harbor and Lewis counties, two completed erosionmanagement pilot projects are:

&#9632; Satsop River Mile 3.5 to 4.0 Erosion Reduction Pilot

&#9632; State Route 508 Erosion Reduction Pilot

Just outside of Brady, along a two-mile stretch of the Satsop River, the Grays Harbor Conservation District has been working with landowners since 2020 on an aquaticspecies restoration project. The project is funded by the Chehalis Basin Strategy’s Aquatic Species Restoration Plan, or ASRP, and involves planting riparian vegetation and installing engineered log jams to increase habitat complexity, connect floodplains, and slow erosion. Due to the large scale of the overall plan, design and permitting can take multiple years until construction is able to proceed. Further construction is expected in summer 2023 and 2024.

Once complete, the ASRP project will primarily benefit four species of salmonids, but the i n c rea sed hab i t a t complexity will also benefit amphibians, waterfowl, and other native fish. Unfortunately, bank erosion in the project river reach has been progressing aggressively for decades, sometimes at more than 100 feet per year.

Since 1991, one of the main project landowners has lost approximately 30 acres of riparian forest and farmland, causing irreversible flood damage to their farm and increasing risk to their home. While the ASRP project will address the erosion, the district developed an erosion management pilot project to begin to slow it sooner.

The $14,600 project, funded by the Chehalis Basin Strategy, created an “instant” riparian buffer using six-foot- to 10-footlong native cottonwood and willow live poles. The 350 poles were installed in two rows parallel to the bank in February 2022 by the district crew and a Washington Conservation Corps crew of five.

The team used a oneperson motorized augur to create pilot holes, and then used a pneumatic post pounder to drive the poles anywhere from three feet to eight feet down.

“We used these techniques so that we could get them as deep as possible, to hopefully get roots establishing throughout the potential erosion zone,” noted Anthony Waldrop, the project manager from the district. “Depth also makes the live poles more resilient to summer drought conditions, as their roots can access deeper groundwater.”

Cottonwoods and willows are used in many river-restoration projects, due to their ability to propagate from live cuttings and establish root systems quickly in highly dynamic river environments. Using cuttings mimics their natural adaptation of colonizing flood-disturbed areas from branches that have broken off from existing cottonwood and willow plants. Due to the rate of erosion on this property, the district decided to use larger and longer live cuttings. Installing them deeper than a typical live-cutting project has also helped to more quickly jumpstart erosion reduction.

Over the course of almost a year, the project continues to be monitored closely. As of September 2022, about 80% of the installed poles have survived. Live-cutting survival, according to Waldrop, was largely driven by access to water.

“All of the poles did well initially during the wet spring, but as the soil dried out, those that were only driven three feet into the ground had trouble surviving during the summer drought. Poles that were deeper, however, were able to thrive with access to water all summer long,” he said.

Poles driven at least four feet into the ground were the most successful at surviving and thriving. Some poles were quite vigorous, putting on close to 10 feet of new growth in one season.

Poles were able to compete with aggressive non-native weeds such as reed canary grass, without any maintenance needed.

“A key takeaway,” Waldrop said, “is that, so far, this is a cheap and effective technique for rapidly establishing a vigorous riparian forest without maintenance or watering. Additional time is needed to determine if the added root-cohesion is enough to significantly slow erosion in this reach.”

Maintenance and monitoring of this pilot project will continue through spring 2023.

In March 2022, the property on state Route 508, near




In March 2022, the property on state Route 508, near river mile 18.5, was identified as a high priority because of its proximity to the South Fork of the Newaukum River.


Just outside of Brady, along a two-mile stretch of the Satsop River, the Grays Harbor Conservation District has been working with landowners since 2020 on an aquatic-species restoration project. COURTESY PHOTOS / CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN

river mile 18.5, was identified as a high priority because of its proximity to the South Fork of the Newaukum River. Aggressive erosion had been threatening damage to the home. Also known as the MacBryer Project, OCB worked with the Lewis County Conservation District on a plan to act fast to save this home.

“We looked at seven sites, and three of them were determined to be in imminent danger for different reasons,” said Bob Amrine, project coordinator for Lewis Conservation District. “One site had encroachment on the septic system, one site was where the river was right next to state Highway 508, and the other site was the MacBryer site, where the house was determined to be in imminent danger,” he said.

According to Amrine, the South Fork of the Newaukum River had moved 15 or 20 feet in the last year and had moved over 100 feet in recent years, encroaching on the home.

Homeowner David MacBryer noticed the issue a couple of years ago. “The bank started disappearing,” he said. “We’ve lost over 40 feet in six years.”

During the March 2022 site assessment, OCB identified the primary causes of the erosion and targeted potential mechanisms to deflect erosive flows and trajectory for future flows and erosion. Starting in April and continuing through the summer and fall, we approved a project design, secured $168,000 in funding, obtained the necessary permits, and completed construction.

OCB offered the Lewis Conservation District a grant to get a conceptual design, final design and permits, and to construct the project, Amrine said.

In September and October, contractors and engineers constructed engineered log structures known as “cribwall jams” with tree trunks and timber piles that were embedded 8-11 feet; regraded the upper bank of the river; installed erosion-control coir fabric and live willow fascines; and prepared the site for vegetative plantings.

With the Lewis County Stream Team, the district planted 25 potted willows, 25 red osier dogwoods, 10 western red cedars, 10 Douglas firs, and 100 willow stakes in November 2022.

This fast-paced project is complete and is now in the monitoring stage.

“We are watching it close during high-water events, and the log cribwall seems to be functioning as designed,” Amrine said. “We have a 10-year agreement with Mr. MacBryer, and if he sees anything that looks like the project is in danger, he will call us, and we will attempt to assist at that time. Hopefully, this does not happen.”

MacBryer has been keeping an eye on the project site, noting that the firs are taking, and the willows are sprouting, but the cedars are struggling.

“We [recently] had that one major rainstorm, and we never got any water up on the land at all,” he said.

Regarding his overall feelings about the project, MacBryer said, “It was very satisfactorily done.”
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/20/23 05:47 PM

Bit of a side note here..

As I am hearing lots of questions about creel data and why it's not up to date on the wdfw website, I have no idea. But yea it's super annoying.

You can access all state data thru the website linked below(use the search bar at the top)... you can look up the creel data and other pieces of information like even my Survey data for our local GH tribs.
Hope this helps people on the quest for this info.

wdfw open source data website
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/23 09:37 AM

REMINDER FOR EVERYONE:

It is North of Falcon time and the first meeting this year will be a public meeting at the Log Cabin Pavilion, Morrison Riverfront Park, 1401 Sargent Blvd, Aberdeen, WA 98520. Which is just as you drop down from the bluff entering Aberdeen to your left. The meeting will be about projected returns and not the final season, which will be only Zoom meetings. Here is the address for the complete NOF schedule for 2023.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings

WDFW Press Release:
Welcome to the 2023 North of Falcon (NOF) salmon season setting process; WDFW staff wanted to share with everyone some public meeting information that has now been scheduled for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor to discuss upcoming forecasts, management objectives, and fishery opportunities for the upcoming 2023 salmon season.

Our website has been updated with the 2023 NOF public meetings scheduled to-date, which can be found at 2023 North of Falcon public meeting schedule | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife; All meetings will be conducted virtually via Zoom for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor except for the March 1 meeting, which will be held both in-person and virtually at the Log Cabin Pavilion, Morrison Riverfront Park, 1401 Sargent Blvd, Aberdeen, WA 98520.

The 2023 Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor NOF public meeting dates are:

Meeting
March 1 6-8pm Joint Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Forecast (hybrid: in-person and Zoom)
March 21 6-8pm Willapa Bay Fisheries Discussion (Zoom)
March 22 6-8pm Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion (Zoom)
March 30 6-8pm Joint Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Fisheries Discussion (Zoom)
April 12 6-8pm Joint Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Fisheries Package (Zoom)

Other NOF and Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) public meeting dates:
Meeting
March 3 2023 Salmon Forecasts and Fishing Opportunities, Lacey, WA (Puget Sound, Coastal, and Columbia River)
March 5-10 PFMC Webinar, Seattle WA (link)

March 15 North of Falcon #1
March 29 North of Falcon #2
April 2-7 PFMC Webinar to adopt final federal regulations, Foster City, CA (link)

Please check our website for updated information throughout the NOF process using the first link at the top of the page.&#8239;
If you have any questions regarding this schedule, please contact WDFW staff or reply to this email with your questions.

Thank you
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/23 12:27 PM

Time to groom and bathe the pup and get the horse new shoes.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/23 06:48 AM


Here is the Grays Harbor preseason salmon forecast. Formatting is off as I had to convert it to word which throws things off a bit. Last night preseason forecast meeting was a productive one I think but I did notice one thing, damn we are getting old! Those who attended were the same folks that followed and participated in NOF for years. You know on this thread and in general lots of bitching but the bitchers didn't participate. If one thinks a email to staff saying I want to kill a fish is as good as actually participating in the process you would be wrong.


SUBJECT: 2023 Grays Harbor Pre-Season Forecasts-Spring Chinook, fall Chinook, Coho, Chum

Grays Harbor Spring Chinook: 1,232 terminal runsize
Forecast is based on the geometric mean for three-year-old brood year count by age for the last 10 years along with last 10 years average not adjusted for brood performance for the four-, five- and six-year-olds. All are unmarked.

Brood Year 3 yr – 2020 4 yr – 2018 5 yr – 2017 6 yr – 2016 Total
Chehalis 352 817 61 1 1,232


Grays Harbor Natural Coho: Ocean Age three recruits 102,841 (Chehalis River = 92,432 and Humptulips River = 6,212, South Bay Tribs = 4,197
An Ocean Age 3 (OA3) Coho marine survival prediction is applied to Grays Harbor smolt production estimates. The OA3 marine survival prediction uses QDFi prediction of Queets coho January Age 3 marine survival and divides it by the natural mortality rate of 1.23169. The Chehalis wild Coho smolt estimates was developed scaling the 2022 Queets River natural Coho smolt production to the Chehalis River production based on the relationship between the Backward FRAM January Age 3 ocean abundances of Queets and Chehalis natural Coho adult abundances during the past 15 years. Humptulips and South Bay tributary smolt estimates are based on recruit densities scaled from Clearwater and Chehalis basins, respectively.

Grays Harbor Hatchery Coho: 111,430 Ocean Age three recruits (Chehalis River = 80,672 and Humptulips River = 26,073, Grays Harbor Net Pens = 4,685

Forecasts were based on recent 3-year average terminal return/smolt release rates scaled by current hatchery rack returns per release compared to the past five-year average, expanded to Ocean Age 3 recruits based on Bingham Creek hatchery tag recoveries for broodyear released 2013-2016 (most recent full complement of tag code recoveries)(9.81% of the tags recovered per-terminally).

Total Marked Total Unmarked
Chehalis 76,694 3,978
Humptulips 25,935 138
GH net pen 4,685 0


Grays Harbor Fall Natural Chinook: 15,006 terminal runsize (Chehalis River = 10,828 and Humptulips River = 4,178)

The forecast is based on a five-year average geometric mean returns for age 3s, 5s, and 6s, while age 4 forecast is based on a linear relationship of recruits per spawner of age 2 plus age 3s to age 4 recruits per spawner. Humptulips age 5s is based on a 10-year average linear relationship of recruits per spawner between age 4s to age 5s.

Brood Year 3 yr – 2020 4 yr – 2019 5 yr – 2018 6 yr – 2017 Total
Chehalis 1,872 6,942 1,967 47 10,828
Humptulips 631 2,364 1,176 7 4,178

Grays Harbor Fall Hatchery Chinook: 5,922 terminal runsize (Chehalis River = 1,196 and Humptulips River = 4,726)

Hatchery forecasts for both stocks are based on the same methods. For age 3, a ten-year average recruits per release is applied to the 2020 smolt releases. Age 4 returns are based on the age class relationships determined from log linear regressions for 4-year-olds returns per release to 2- and 3-year-olds returns per release for broodyears 1991 to 2019, applied to the 2022 age 2 and 3 return value. Age 5 method is similar to age 4 but uses the relationship between age 5 returns per release and age 4 return per release for broodyears 1991 to 2017 than applied to the 2022 age 4 return value. Forecast for age 6 fish is based on the most recent mean 5-year return per release for 6-year-olds adjusted by brood performance of the most recent age 5 return per release as it relates to the previous 5-year average return per release.

Chinook Marked / Unmarked Information

Chehalis River
Brood Year 3 yr – 2020 4 yr – 2019 5 yr – 2018 6 y – 2017 Total
2023 Forecast 378 518 299 1 1,196
Mark Rate 0.983 0.998 .953 1.00
Marked 372 517 285 1 1,175
Unmarked 6 1 14 0 21

Humptulips River
Brood Year 3 yr – 2020 4 yr – 2019 5 y – 2018 6 y – 2017 Total
2023 Forecast 824 2,868 1,032 2 4,726
Mark Rate 0.994 0.993 0.992 0.993
Marked 819 2,848 1,024 2 4,693
Unmarked 5 20 8 0 33




Grays Harbor Chum: 53,519 terminal run size (Naturals 51,976 hatchery origin 1,543)

The wild chum forecast utilizes the relationship of recruits per spawner for 3-year-olds (Broodyears 2000-2019) to the NPGO (Jan-March) 2000-2019 to predict the 3-year-old component. Selection to use NPGO over last year’s use of the Upwelling Anomaly was due to a more consistent model performance over time. The 4-year-old component in forecasted using the last five years average recruits per spawner applied to the 2019 escapement.
Sibling relationship between 3-year and 4-year-olds is poor and model performance using ocean variable was inconsistent. The 5-year-old component is predicted using a 5-year average recruits per spawner adjusted by brood performance of 4-year-olds. There is a survival relationship between 4-year-old chum and the following year 5-year-old that is not seen between the 3s and 4s. The use of marine variables was not as consistence over time as a sibling based forecast model.
Hatchery component forecast is based on the most recent 5-year mean return/release.

Grays Harbor wild and hatchery forecasts
Brood Year 3 yr – 2020 4 yr – 2019 5 yr – 2018 Total
Wild 19,658 30,990 1,328 51,976
Hatchery 422 894 227 1,543
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/23 07:46 AM

The disgruntled angler has the right to bitch. Mismanagement of salmon/steelhead seasons and 30,000 surplus coho is a pretty good reason to. But keep planting those fish that we will never get to fish for, that will eventually be rotting on the banks of the Elma ponds.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/23 08:02 AM

Hatchery fish are raised for harvest and paid for by the license holders right? If so, you guys collect your eggs and let us collect our fish. Not a heaping pile of fish but you know what i mean.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/23 09:25 AM

I think this opinion article is relevant at this time.



Salmon management must build on the lessons of the past 50 years

Ed Johnstone

Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

One year from now, in February 2024, we will mark the 50th anniversary of federal Judge George Boldt’s ruling in United States vs. Washington, which affirmed tribes’ treaty-reserved rights to harvest salmon outside of our reservations.

The court case was brought about by the Fish Wars of the 1960s and ’70s, when state authorities arrested tribal fishermen violently — often with tear gas — for exercising the fishing rights we reserved in the Stevens treaties of the 1850s. The state confiscated our boats, our nets and our fish. Racism against Native Americans seemed to be at an all-time high.

Now, despite the co-management relationship we have developed since then to manage salmon harvest with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), some elected state leaders seem determined to set tribal fishermen up to endure that kind of racism again.

Gov. Jay Inslee recently asked state legislators to pass a bill banning commercial gillnets on the Columbia River. He knew this would put a target on our backs because he offered to include $500,000 for fish and wildlife enforcement to prevent the expected increase in harassment of tribal gillnetters.

Member tribes of NWIFC, Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission and Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians formally opposed this legislation, but Inslee’s senior policy adviser implied at a senate committee meeting that, because the governor’s office held several meetings with tribes, we had been consulted. These meetings were not in the spirit of government-to-government consultation. True consultation requires tribes’ free, prior and informed consent to policies affecting our treaty-protected resources. The governor’s office disregarded our concerns.

Fortunately, this bill did not make it out of committee, but we shouldn’t even be having these conversations. While the proposed legislation would not have applied to tribal fisheries, this discourse endorses the misconception that the gear used in tribal fisheries is somehow harmful to salmon recovery.

Tribes use gillnets because they are selective by time, place and mesh size. Nets are the most efficient way for us to harvest salmon while causing the least amount of impact on other species.

Tribes already have reduced their chinook salmon harvest by 60-95% since the 1980s, at great cost to our way of life. If recovering salmon were as easy as taking tribal nets out of the water, we would have done it by now. The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians hasn’t held a commercial chinook harvest

in decades, and yet low numbers of Stillaguamish River chinook continue to constrain state and federal harvest allocations each year.

If conservation were truly their goal, elected leaders would do the hard work of protecting and restoring salmon habitat. Preventing landowners from degrading and destroying habitat. Ensuring our streams and rivers are protected from the high temperatures and low flows exacerbated by climate change. Amending legislation to allow for the management of marine mammal predation of salmon. Increasing funding for hatchery production for harvest and to protect endangered runs that lack sufficient habitat to sustain their populations. These are the areas we need to focus on.

Tribal governments and WDFW have worked too hard to reach our current level of co-management to be undermined by calls to ban gillnets. For the first decade after the Boldt decision, the state continued to work against us. During a meeting with tribal leaders in the 1980s, Bill Wilkerson, then director of the state Department of Fisheries, turned his attention to the technical staff that were resistant to work with the tribes.

“I don’t want to hear that anymore,” he told them. “If you’re going to keep going down that pathway, just walk right out the door.”

Tribal and state co-managers have learned a lot of lessons since then. We all need to work together — not against each other. It’s what we have to do if we hope to have salmon to harvest for another 50 years.

Ed Johnstone is a member of the Quinault Indian Nation. As a statement from the NWIFC chairman, the column represents the natural resources management concerns of the treaty tribes in Western Washington.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/23 11:14 AM

Mr. Johnstone says "the co-management relationship we (Tribes and WDFW) have developed" Really? His definition of co- management and mine are definitely not the the same. His definition of gillnets being selective is another bone to pick.When the tribes continue to kill wild salmon and steelhead and the the burden of wild fish conservation is always on the rec anglers.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/23 02:36 PM

The tribes have learned alot. Not so much for state officials.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/23 05:19 PM

LOL
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/23 10:30 AM

Ed Johnstone, or his ghostwriter, wrote: "These meetings were not in the spirit of government-to-government consultation. True consultation requires tribes’ free, prior and informed consent to policies affecting our treaty-protected resources. The governor’s office disregarded our concerns."

It's nonsense to hold that consultation requires ". . . tribes' free, prior, and informed consent . . ." before adopting a policy. Mr. Johnstone clearly doesn't expect that the Quinault Indian Nation needs the "free, prior, and informed consent" of the state before adopting a Tribal policy. I can't help but conclude that Mr. Johnstone is blind to co-management actually being a two-way street.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/23 10:34 AM

Amen, Salmo. The Tribes want, and have been given, veto power over non-Indian fishing. I believe the reason for this is Boldt II. Habitat. The State is rightfully afraid that their actions have **cked the fish and Boldt actually guarantees fish to catch and not just water to drag gear through. So, essentially, WA traded fish for land and development. And Casino Gambling.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/23 11:47 AM

3/04/2023

WDFW and QIN bad feelings started a long ago.

Wynoochee River, Dam and major fish hatchery in the area just below the dam. To many meetings, to many groups involved, to slow to spent the "original monies", so Federal's took the monies back, and spent it on the Afghanistan war effort.

Just think, major hatchery, water right from the lake, cool no major heating problems in the summer time, less problem with diseases that have been a problem at Lake Aberdeen. Could have been a Spring Chinook, Coho, Fall Chinook, steelhead(winters and summers), maybe even searun cutthoat. Gone, gone, gone, but of indecisions by WDFW.

2nd Phase.....Holding ponds, in same area......never got done

then the 2.4 million "Wynoochee Mitigation", meetings by bucket full, presentations before the Full Commission, WDFW personel told to "get that Wynoochee taken care of".....QIN wanted it taken care of, most sports also...still to this day, 30+ years......not done!!!!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/23 03:00 PM

I was very involved in the rearing ponds, having contributed to the pollution abatement design. I do know that some in WDFW wanted the money spent on wild fish/habitat regardless of the fact that it was mitigation for a specific number of fish. To them, habitat was the "warm and fuzzy"; didn't have to actually produce the lost fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/23 03:39 AM

About 77,100 lower Columbia River “tule” Chinook are expected to return this year, a reduction from the 2022 return of 87,542 fish. Approximately 213,200 total Columbia River tule Chinook, comprised of lower river and Bonneville Pool stocks, are forecast to return this year. These fish make up a sizeable portion of the recreational ocean fishery. Chinook returns to Willapa Bay and the Chehalis and Humptulips rivers are also expected to decline slightly in 2023

This is from the last WDFW press release and you have got to love the word smithing WDFW does. Decline slightly in GH & Willapa is what it says but a better way to say it absolute disaster! Nearly 50% of the fall Chinook run will be taken by the massive marine harvest in BC & AK . Nobody objects including the QIN. WE have become a bit like sheep being sheared.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/09/23 09:52 AM

Through the history of salmon management AK is treated differently. A US Commissioner to PST once asked if AK and the US could agree on a point. Nobody but them catches their fish so nobody has a hammer.

Notice that for many listed fish down here NOAA bases management on "Southern Exploitation Rate". That would be south of BC; north they get a pass.

AK has, or had, an outsized political pressure they can wield in Congress, The fish pay for it while we all head north to catch them before they "count".
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/23 02:39 PM


Larest from NOAA that a Friend sent it to me but here is the entire press release and it is mostly south.

Inseason Actions in 2023 Ocean Salmon Fisheries, South of Cape Falcon Recreational & Commercial
NOAA Fisheries has taken inseason action in the Pre-May 16, 2023 recreational and commercial salmon fisheries south of Cape Falcon (SOF). Modifications are needed to conserve SOF impacts on Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon and Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon.
The following fisheries have been modified by inseason action:
Oregon
• The commercial salmon fishery from Cape Falcon to the Heceta Bank Line (latitude 43°58&#8242;00" N), OR, previously scheduled to open on March 15, 2023. The fishery is closed starting 12:01 AM March 15, 2023, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The commercial salmon fishery from the Heceta Bank Line (latitude 43°58&#8242;00" N), OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR, previously scheduled to open on March 15, 2023. The fishery is closed starting 12:01 AM March 15, 2023, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The commercial salmon fishery from Humbug Mountain to the Oregon/California border (Oregon Klamath Management Zone), previously scheduled to open on March 15, 2023. The fishery is closed starting 12:01 AM March 15, 2023, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The ocean salmon recreational fishery from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain, OR, previously scheduled to open on March 15, 2023. The fishery is closed starting 12:01 AM March 15, 2023, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
California
• The commercial salmon fishery from the Oregon/California border to Humbolt South Jetty, previously scheduled to open on May 1, 2023 through the earlier of May 31, 2023, or a 3,000 Chinook salmon quota. This fishery is closed starting May 1, 2023 12:01 AM, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The commercial salmon fishery from the area between latitude 40°10’ N and Point Arena, CA (Fort Bragg management area), previously scheduled to open on April 16, 2023. The fishery is closed starting 12:01 AM April 16, 2023, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The commercial salmon fishery from Point Arena, CA, to Pigeon Point, CA (San Francisco management area), previously scheduled to open on May 1, 2023. This fishery is closed starting May 1, 2023 12:01 AM, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The commercial ocean salmon fishery in the area from Pigeon Point, CA, to the U.S./Mexico Border (Monterey management area), previously scheduled to open May 1, 2023. This fishery is closed starting May 1, 2023 12:01 AM, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The ocean salmon recreational fishery from the Oregon/California border to latitude 40°10’ N, previously scheduled to open on May 1, 2023. This fishery is closed starting May 1, 2023 12:01 AM, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The ocean salmon recreational fishery from latitude 40°10’ N and Point Arena, CA (Fort Bragg management area), previously scheduled to open on April 1, 2023. This fishery is closed starting April 1, 2023 12:01 AM, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The ocean salmon recreational fishery from Point Arena, CA to Pigeon Point, CA (San Francisco Management Area), previously scheduled to open on April 1, 2023. This fishery is closed starting April 1, 2023 AM, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.
• The ocean salmon recreation fishery from Pigeon Point, CA to the U.S./Mexico border (Monterey Management Area), previously scheduled to open on April 1, 2023. This fishery is closed starting April 1, 2023 AM, through May 15, 2023 11:59 PM.



Please refer to the Final Rule for the West Coast Salmon Fisheries 2022 – 2023 Specifications and Management Measures for additional regulations and supporting materials.
The 2023 – 2024 Specifications and Management Measures currently in development will be posted here.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/23 03:00 PM

Ya think NOAA is finally waking up to the "problems" our salmon are having? Or has the lawsuit saying they need to pay attention to SRKWs actually opened their eyes?

They are also getting hammered rather hard by the trawl bycatch in AK.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/23 06:10 PM

For 2023, Sacramento, Klamath Chinook are forecasted to be in the dumpster. This closure was in recognition of that as this early spring season was set at last year's PFMC meeting. The PFMC ocean alternatives for the rest of the year are for no troll or sport fisheries (except a little starting Sept 1) for Chinook and only coho fisheries for sport south of Cape Falcon. The final ocean season package for WA, OR, CA will be decided in April PFMC meeting.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/23 11:12 AM

03/12/2023


WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia, WA 98501

wdfw.wa.gov


March 10, 2023
Contact: Kyle Adicks, 360-902-2664
Media contact: Mark Yuasa, 360-902-2262

WDFW seeks public input on 2023 proposals for Washington's ocean salmon fisheries


The options for 2023 include the following quotas for state recreational fisheries off the Washington coast:


Option 1 42,500 Chinook and 168,000 marked coho.


• La Push and Neah Bay (Marine Areas 3 and 4):&#8239;June 17-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.&#8239;No Chinook retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line beginning Aug. 1. A tentative La Push Chinook-only bubble fishery opens Oct. 3-7 in the La Push Late Season Salmon Area.

• Westport (Marine Area 2):&#8239;June 24-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.

• Columbia River area (Marine Areas 1):&#8239;June 24-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.


Option 2 37,500 Chinook and 155,400 marked coho.


• La Push and Neah Bay (Marine Areas 3 and 4): June 24-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.&#8239;No Chinook retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line beginning Aug. 1.

• Westport (Marine Area 2): July 1-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.

• Columbia River area (Marine Area 1): June 24-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.


Option 3 32,500 Chinook and 142,800 marked coho.


• La Push and Neah Bay (Marine Areas 3 and 4): July 1-Sept. 24 Chinook and marked coho fishery.&#8239;No Chinook retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line beginning Aug. 1.

• Westport (Marine Area 2): July 2-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery. This area would be open five days per week (Sunday-Thursday) under this alternative.

• Columbia River Area (Marine Area 1): June 26-Sept. 24 Chinook and marked coho fishery.


The Email from WDFW was much to long to post in 1 posting. There was nothing about "conservation" or the impacts on the release of "Wild Coho".






[size:17pt][/size]
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/23 02:59 PM

So the proposal, as written above, allows harvest of any Chinook. Shouldn't the give us a Stilly Sea Run fishery.
Posted by: OLD FB

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/23 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
So the proposal, as written above, allows harvest of any Chinook. Shouldn't the give us a Stilly Sea Run fishery.
Sure would be nice to get any type of fishery on the Stilly these days!
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/23 06:44 AM

It is always dumbfounding to me that you can keep a wild chinook in the ocean off Westport but no chinook retention(wild or hatchery) whatsoever in the Chehalis system. I guess money talks.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/23 10:10 AM

03/13/2023

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
It is always dumbfounding to me that you can keep a wild chinook in the ocean off Westport but no chinook retention(wild or hatchery) whatsoever in the Chehalis system. I guess money talks.


I agree....what's even more amazing to me. Oregon and California cut way back on commercial and sports because "they see a major problem", but not WDFW. off the coast.

WDFW managers only see their areas of assignment, I will give them credit on the hatchery only Coho. IMO, Chinook should be a "hatchery only" until the Chinook numbers, in the Chehalis system make escapement numbers, X numbers of years in a row.

The ocean season, needs to have the seasons shortened, more on the backend so more fish can cross the bar.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/23 10:35 AM

It's called "siloing". You work in a silo (military surplus nuclear-proof silos) and have no contact outside the walls. Showing an interest outside your silo can be career shortening. I was ordered, one time, to be concerned only with what was happening within my Area.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/23 12:10 PM

I was looking that run estimates for 2023, and I am a bit confused about how the numbers work. Looking at the Skokomish, it appears that only 350 native kings are expected to return (Skokomish Total, 25540 Natural 350). with numbers like this, it seems that the run would be on its last leg. Yet there is a massive tribal fishery. The Stillaguamish shows a return with a total of only 1210, but 710 natural.

The Nisqually, with all its pressure, is only expected to get back 739 naturals.

These are terminal run sizes, so from definition they would include escapement, freshwater fishery mortalities, and fishery mortalities in terminal fisheries. I take this to mean the numbers are before the terminal fishery takes place. Am I missing something, even if they are escapement, can 350 be a sufficient number for a river the size of the Skok.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/13/23 12:31 PM

It's called Bullchit!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/14/23 09:41 AM

Yeah, the terminal run size is supposed to be the number of fish that enter the "terminal" area which is generally the bay the river feeds into. That number is, again, "supposed" to include all the mortalities accounted for in the bay and river. This would be escapement, catch, release mortalities, and (at least back in the day) net drop-out. Back in time there was a piece added for pinniped predation on fish in nets. can't speak for what is included now but it tis obvious from the Skok example and maybe even the Nosqually that recovery of wild Chinook is not a value shared amongst the managers.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/23 12:35 PM


Staff has sent out to its mailing list the first harvest model with Grays Harbor 2023 forecast with all 2022 seasons. For those who did not get it PM myself or R6 staff a request for it.

What the model shows is that the QIN 2022 seasons do not meet 2023 escapement requirements. Also as to the NT Commercials as you can see below the 1% this model has does not meet the 0.8 as the Rec impacts are modeled at 3.36. In other word the NT Comm need to give up impacts. In 2022 the last model showed an 2% NT nets impact which screwed us over, in particular with that low flows rec shut down that was total BS. With ZOOM as used last year a real look at the numbers was simply limited by not be able to access information.

Hopefully this year is different ........... I would not recommend doing that as your likely to expire.

3) The following guidelines describe the anticipated sharing of fishery impacts in the Grays Harbor Basin between WDFW-managed commercial, marine recreational, and freshwater recreational fisheries. Variation from these guidelines may occur if it will result in fisheries that more closely achieve the stated purpose of this policy.

a) WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin shall have the following impact limits:

Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook when the impact of the recreational fishery is equal to or greater than 4.2%. The impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery may be less than 0.8% when conservation concerns for natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook result in a less than 4.2% impact rate in the recreational fishery.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/15/23 02:19 PM

I like the weasel words. Impact "may" be less than 0.8%.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/23 10:37 AM

Grays Harbor is so far beyond its "use by" date, the state of Chinook is pitiful. WDFW should discontinue raising hatchery Chinook in the basin. That would end having any excuse for scheduling NT gillnet fishing in the harbor. Time to stick a fork in GH gillnetting and call it done.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/23 11:56 AM

We have to keep NI gill netting so the Tribes won't be the only ones using them. That was the argument that apparently persuaded the House to kill the anti-NI gill net bill for the Columbia.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/23 05:17 PM

There are no hatchey chinook planted in the Nooch and only a small plant in the Satsop. Maybe a small chinook plant at lake Aberdeen. Not sure of the numbers of hatchery chinook in the Humptulips.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/23 05:28 PM

The egg take numbers for hatchery chinook I saw on the WDFW website for this last fall were :
Humptulips 280,000 eggs
Lake Aberdeen 68,500 eggs
Satsop Springs 104,000 eggs
Pathetic numbers.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/16/23 05:35 PM

wdfw is figuring only 1,196 hatchery chinook for the chehalis.. now thats pathetic!!!!!
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/23 06:22 AM

With the small number of hatchery chinook planted in the Chehalis system I have to wonder if this somehow justifies having a NI gillnet fishery on the Chehalis. With those numbers it sure isn't benefitting the rec fishery much.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/23 08:46 AM

With about 1200 hatchery Chinook, that's a pathetic justification for a NT gillnet fishery. WDFW is pissing taxpayer's money down a rathole to maintain a "fishery" that defies justification.

We don't need a NT gillnet fishery. It hurts taxpayers. It hurts wild Chinook. It doesn't provide enough recreational fishing to justify the cost. So what if the Indians are the only ones using gillnets? The tribes are gonna' do their thing no matter what, and they have had the court of public opinion on their side for years, so it's not like they'd be risking anything.

If WDFW was interested in ecosystem management of the Grays Harbor basin, they would manage it for what it is best suited for under contemporary environmental conditions. I think that would be wild coho, chum salmon, cutthroat trout, and some steelhead. A few wild Chinook will likely persist because it's difficult to wipe out a fish species entirely. But if WDFW continues with NT gillnet fishing in the Harbor, they just might succeed.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/23 09:12 AM

WDFW sucks Butt.
They are a pathetic government agency sucking the life out of "Our" resources.
Netting fish in this day and age is ridiculous.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/23 09:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
With the small number of hatchery chinook planted in the Chehalis system I have to wonder if this somehow justifies having a NI gillnet fishery on the Chehalis. With those numbers it sure isn't benefitting the rec fishery much.
absolutely
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
With about 1200 hatchery Chinook, that's a pathetic justification for a NT gillnet fishery. WDFW is pissing taxpayer's money down a rathole to maintain a "fishery" that defies justification.

We don't need a NT gillnet fishery. It hurts taxpayers. It hurts wild Chinook. It doesn't provide enough recreational fishing to justify the cost. So what if the Indians are the only ones using gillnets? The tribes are gonna' do their thing no matter what, and they have had the court of public opinion on their side for years, so it's not like they'd be risking anything.

If WDFW was interested in ecosystem management of the Grays Harbor basin, they would manage it for what it is best suited for under contemporary environmental conditions. I think that would be wild coho, chum salmon, cutthroat trout, and some steelhead. A few wild Chinook will likely persist because it's difficult to wipe out a fish species entirely. But if WDFW continues with NT gillnet fishing in the Harbor, they just might succeed.
indeed.
Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
WDFW sucks Butt.
They are a pathetic government agency sucking the life out of "Our" resources.
Netting fish in this day and age is ridiculous.
absolutely.

Time to hand the keys over to somebody that will use logic to fix the mess in gh. In all of western wa at that.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/23 09:52 AM

Could it be to many NT gillnetters $$$ floating around????
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/17/23 02:33 PM

Hey guys the models with the harvest numbers have been around ( provided by staff ) for a bit. First the QIN do harvest Chehalis Chinook but it is a targeted wild fishery as the marked fish are prodigy of Broodstocking to stabilize the Satsop Chinook. No separation by genetics or run timing. Second it is the marine fisheries in AK and BC that limit terminal harvest by taking as many fish as enter the harbor. The QIN or any other terminal harvester are not the issue as terminal Chinook harvest is not the driver. The idea of wiping out a Chinook stock that I seen a bit back which is mostly native is appalling and how that could be suggested is mind boggling!

The simple fact is a Rec targeted Chinook fishery would blow through the NT share in a few days taking us off the water until late October or later. The NT Comm seasons are set to avoid Chinook and that fishery has the least impact of any harvester.

I am not a fan of nets but one should bone up a bit on numbers before posting up things that are not true.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/23 08:31 AM

every fish in a gill net is dead.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/23 08:43 AM

the hand out they gave at the meeting at the log pavilion says 1,196 hatchery chinook for the chehalis.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/23 09:54 AM

Rivrguy,

I'm trying to make sense, not make trouble. I don't advocate for a recreational Chinook fishery and believe that recreational fishing should be focused on coho. What good is the NT gillnet fishery? I mean, with the abundance of treaty tribal fisheries in WA to supply the commercial fish markets, what is the point of having NT gillnetting?

I think we should stop raising hatchery Chinook for the simple reason that it creates the illusion, or guise, for targeted Chinook fishing at the expense of remaining wild Chinook. Look at Puget Sound where NT gillnetting of Chinook is a thing of the past. Why should GH be any different?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/23 10:52 AM

Salmo, I suspect that the Chinook are produced for two purposes. One is to give QIN fish to catch. The other is to put marked fish into the ocean. For the NI netters, the Chinook are probably targeted as bycatch which allows the "surplus" to be taken in (probably) the coho fishery.

I agree that WA needs but one commercial fishery and that would be tribal. It would also be an improvement since the tribal fisheries tend to be terminal or extreme terminal. And, WDFW certainly does not need to be producing many of the stocks they raise. But, since Boldt II guaranteed dead fish in the boat are the continued hatchery programs there to keep the state out of court and continuing rampant development? And oil spills in teh Swinomish Channel??
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/23 11:39 AM

SG I am in total agreement on NT Commercials. Once the courts gave the tribes fishing rights that should have been the end of NT Comm but both WDG & WDF refused to change. In pioneer days the tribal fishers supplied fish to towns and settlers but when canneries came along there was money to be made ( lots of it and canned salmon was marketed as the safe and cheaper alternative to other meets ) so the tribal fisher got shoved out.

The first attempt at a hatchery was down low on the Satsop and I do not know much about it. The second was near what is now Schafer Park and was a Chinook Hatchery with pumped water. The records show one year a transfer of 5 million eggs from the Satsop to the upper Chehalis. Satsop Chinook were back then primarily Summer Chinook and really suffered in the WDF gillnet fisheries to the point it was about run everyone off the water and the Rec fishers had to fight for any opening. The Satsop program was about Broodstocking and rebuilding and stabilizing the East Fork Satsop Chinook run. Nothing in the intent was for a rec fishery as frankly it would be impossible to manage on the Satsop. In the years since it is now AK & BC the are massively over harvesting our Chinook.

One last bit, for everything in the world of harvest in particular the marine fisheries it is Grays Harbor Chinook not Chehalis Humptulips.

Here are the projected 2022 harvest numbers for Grays Harbor. Formatting is a mess but I am a bit busy today but I think you all can put it together. Also remember the QIN are entitled to half of what enters Washington waters.

PRIORS Wild Hatchery Total
SEAK 7,588 4,028 11,617
CANADIAN 3,046 1,588 4,633
SUS NON-TREATY 126 65 191
SUS TREATY 66 35 101

IN-RIVER
TREATY 4,137 1,537 5,673
NON-TREATY 1,088 2,513 3,602

TOTAL TREATY 4,203 1,572 5,774
TOTAL U.S. NON-TREATY 8,803 6,607 15,409









Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/23 11:52 AM

I thought of something else. While Chehalis Chinook are what could be considered native in many cases not so. Years back WDFW transferred the Humptulips hatchery Chinook production and raised them to yearlings and released them. How many years I am not sure but the last one I was present. Little data exist and that is my fault as when we got returns we simply cut the snout of and did know to use the colored slips. Montesano said no slips no good so discard them which we did. Well I was told the hatchery ops damn near expired when told that his data had been destroyed. My first education on how the different divisions of WDFD spent substantial time screwing each other over.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/18/23 01:10 PM

Having spent time in both harvest management and hatcheries there was a truly huge amount of ignorance (purposeful) about how the other operated and why. There there was habitat that ignored both. The silos they had, and still have, are designed to withstand a direct hit by a nuclear missile.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/19/23 08:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Salmo, I suspect that the Chinook are produced for two purposes. One is to give QIN fish to catch. The other is to put marked fish into the ocean. For the NI netters, the Chinook are probably targeted as bycatch which allows the "surplus" to be taken in (probably) the coho fishery.

I agree that WA needs but one commercial fishery and that would be tribal. It would also be an improvement since the tribal fisheries tend to be terminal or extreme terminal. And, WDFW certainly does not need to be producing many of the stocks they raise. But, since Boldt II guaranteed dead fish in the boat are the continued hatchery programs there to keep the state out of court and continuing rampant development? And oil spills in teh Swinomish Channel??


C'man,

Boldt (fed. judge in fed. court) may have guaranteed tribes fish to catch, but that same federal gov't promulgated the treaties for the purpose of white settlement and development. If there must be fish for treaty fishing, let the feds produce them. I'm not convinced that WA taxpayers are obligated to produce hatchery fish for treaty fisheries. I don't think that's been litigated.

And none of that begins to touch the reduced ocean survival, which is the over-riding and proximate factor causing drastically reduced productivity. Neither Boldt nor any part of the fed. gov't. could have anticipated this eventuality.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/19/23 11:53 AM

I think a lot of the problem in the ocean has to do with other fisheries, but climate change is a biggie, too. I was not specifically referring to hatchery production but to the continued degradation of natural production through habitat destruction. I believe the State is scared spitless about the Tribes winning something broader than the culvert case. Like meaningful water pollution controls, floodplain restoration, intelligent logging (an oxymoron) and so on.

It would be nice for somebody to take the Feds on for their responsibility for fish production. I think, though, given the current slate of Supremes, that neither the State nor the Tribes want to get a definitive answer.

Seems that without the Tribes there would be no wild fish conservation (what little there is). You'll remember that the State argued before the Supremes that they could totally destroy a run for "progress".
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/23 06:45 AM

Heads up time and tonight is the Grays Harbor Zoom 2023 salmon season bit. https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings

I have not received any models or other information yet either.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/23 11:40 AM

03/22/2023

I listened in on the Willapa meeting, for about an hour, S.O.S as per most NOF meetings.

WDFW, read to us,,,,, rules to follow for meetings, gave some numbers, normal time fillers.

2 commercials talked, same ones that talk all the time, 1 on the sports side, and he talks all the time, 1 person couldn't get hooked into Zoom.

Meeting started late.....I left 7:00 p m. I had no idea how many were "zoomed in", or who they were...... xhit way to hold meetings!!!!!

Grays Harbor tonight, 3/22/2023... 6 p m to ?????
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/22/23 04:36 PM

Quality Public Outreach
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/24/23 09:13 AM

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings

The link is to the materials and presentation utilized for the March 22nd NOF Grays Harbor ZOOM meeting. Option2 is my choice but others may feel differently. Keep in mind the QIN do not set the tribal schedule until the ocean seasons are finalized and everything you see so far is 2022 schedule overlaid on 2023 forecast. It don't fit for Chinook escapement so I imagine there will substantial changes as the QIN move harvest substantial Coho forecasted which means expanding in the last two weeks of Oct which will crash right into the NT Comm. time so the best way to say it is proposed Rec seasons meet all requirements but commercial be it tribal or NT cannot use 2022 seasons in 2023. Something has gotta give comes to mind.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/28/23 09:58 AM

And the last NOF for GH & Willapa. The link gets to the sign up page for WDFW.

MARCH 30

Joint Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor fisheries discussion

Additional discussion of management objectives and preliminary Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor fishing opportunities for 2023.

Join a public meeting:
6 to 8 p.m.
Join Zoom webinarJoin https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/31/23 08:22 AM



The spread sheets and information from last nights WDFW NOF ZOOM presentation are available. A lot of information there but due to scheduling difficulties the QIN and NT Comm. Seasons are not set. Option B still looks best but staff added a 3 Coho bag modeled which is about the Dec shut down of Late Coho fishing last year. Staff provided some insight from creel work that verified what the Rec fishers have said, there are very ( and I mean few ) Steelhead present in Dec. My suggestion was rather than loose Dec from a Steelhead harvest that is almost non existent simply do release ALL Steelhead in Dec. Problem solved as there is no reason to loose a prime month, particularly in the upper basin, for a Steelhead harvest that could be counted on your fingers!

The QIN and NT Comm. Seasons are not set due to scheduling conflicts and as soon as they are set and modeled I will get them out.

Now something happened in the ZOOM meeting that should not have happened. As the presentation was winding down the moderator announced “I see no hands” which was absolutely NOT true. During the meeting Mr. Loosse stated that when failing to make escapement just a couple of fish could drive a shut down of Rec fishing. As always I had a group text going on my cell and it went nuts so I waited until the end to bring this up and no hands goodnight. This happened last year and again this year. So I will object to this behavior by whoever is moderating these meetings. I apologize JJ and yes you said they would do this again and they did. I will follow up and let everyone know the outcome but I need to follow Harry’s rule, never hit send when angry!
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/23 09:09 AM

The 3 fish limit on hatchery systems is an interesting idea. As i commented on the call, I would rather have a prolonged opportunity with the standard limit of fish. More days on the water is all that matters to me. Would have been curious to see what the modeling would have shown for a 3 fish bag, only 1 wild, as eyefish kind of mentioned in the call.

Just really hoping we get better rains in the late summer leading up to October 1st. Can’t imagine the mess the hatchery workers had on their hands with that enormous coho surplus last year.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/23 09:47 AM

Hatchery chinook retention or did we give up on that again?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/23 10:09 AM

The manner in which adult spawners are counted changed when the QIN got the escapement goal reduced and WDFW did not oppose the reduced escapement goal. So it is the number of Chinook spawning in the gravel regardless of origin. Even counting the broodstocked returns ( clipped ) we do not make escapement under current modeled harvest. So the QIN will have to adjust their harvest or not. Still up in the air and staff said should be ironed out next week.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/23 10:27 AM

If we go back to Hoh v. Baldridge the NI fishery (ocean?) would have to be closed before QIN would be subject to what used to be called a conservation closure. If there are any harvestable fish entering US waters they need to be split 50:50 between state and Tribes. That would mean that a tribal ocean troll fishery could cork the QINs. If there are no "harvestable" entering US waters and the NI takes some then the practice has been to let the tribes take as many (balance allocations) and let the escapement take it in the shorts.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/01/23 02:25 PM

The "fish until catches are balanced" was popular with the tribes because it guaranteed a fishery regardless of run size, until it was a severe conservation concern which was, as I recall, never really defined. So, they will support the ocean harvest to guarantee the inside.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/23 12:34 PM


I thought this opinion by Mr. Johnstone was a interesting read and it gives one a glimpse of QIN thinking.


BEING FRANK

Hatchery salmon hold the ecosystem together

Ed Johnstone

Chairman Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Salmon are a keystone species in the Pacific Northwest — a central part of the food chain and our way of life.

Throughout the region, salmon runs are imperiled by the cumulative effects of habitat degradation and a changing climate. Tribal and state co-managers are working tirelessly to keep them from going extinct, and that depends heavily on our extensive hatchery system.

In 2022, tribes released more than 39 million salmon from 24 hatcheries, 15 rearing ponds, five marine net pens and two remote site incubation facilities.

These fish provide harvest opportunities for everyone in the region. Without them, none of us would be able to fish. Hatchery fish are treaty fish. For tribes, losing the ability to harvest salmon not only deprives us of our traditional way of life, it also is a violation of the rights we reserved in treaties with the U.S. government in the 1850s.

In spite of this, hatcheries continue to be targeted by frivolous lawsuits that threaten salmon recovery and the health of the entire ecosystem. The groups behind these lawsuits misrepresent the risks of hatcheries in scientific literature while ignoring the ecological benefits. Divisive legal strategies squander our collective strengths at a time of unprecedented urgency for our region’s salmon. We should be working together to attack the causes of habitat loss and salmon predation, not one another.

We shouldn’t have to rely on hatcheries. We would rather have a properly functioning ecosystem that supports natural salmon production. But with uncertain ocean conditions and warming temperatures, we need hatcheries more than ever. They mitigate for lost spawning habitat and help preserve and recover populations listed under the Endangered Species Act.

There’s a significant misunderstanding that if we take the hatcheries away there would be a miraculous recovery of wild salmon, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. If the lawsuits were successful in shutting down our state’s hatcheries — removing this keystone species from the ecosystem — the effects would be catastrophic.

Salmon contribute to more than human sustenance and ways of life. They nourish species as small as plankton and as large as orcas. Dwindling salmon runs are thought to contribute to the poor health of southern resident orcas and a statewide task force recommended increasing salmon hatchery production significantly to help feed the struggling killer whales.

The nutrients that adult salmon bring back from the ocean contribute to the life of the entire ecosystem in the watershed where they return. When salmon carcasses decay after spawning, insects, terrestrial birds and

Got opinions?

We want to print them. Send your letters or possible guest columns for consideration to: Editor, The Daily World, P.O. Box 269, Aberdeen 98520; or email them to letters@thedailyworld.com.

other mammals feed on them. Salmon recovery plans often include the distribution of carcasses from hatcheries into the watershed to help recover invertebrate populations essential for the health and survival of juvenile salmon. Even trees benefit. Numerous studies have shown increased growth in trees near rivers where salmon have died.

The tribes and our state co-manager operate hatcheries based on the latest, best available science to make sure the programs do not interfere with salmon recovery. Hatchery facilities have as minimal of an impact on the environment as possible because of how carefully they are monitored. Several Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission member tribes have their own water quality standards regulating discharge. Overall, the discharge released from the facilities where fish are raised is well below what is released from other operations with discharges, like wastewater treatment plants.

Right now, the majority of chinook salmon that return to our region come from hatcheries. Orcas and the multitude of other species that rely on salmon as part of their diet do not distinguish between hatchery and natural-origin fish.

If we didn’t have hatcheries, not only would tribes lose their treaty-protected rights to harvest salmon, but the ecosystem would suffer as well. We must acknowledge and protect the ecological benefits of hatchery programs as we continue salmon recovery efforts and stand against any legal threats to curtail them.

Ed Johnstone is the chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and a member of the Quinault Indian Nation.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/09/23 12:43 PM

To my mind there are at least two reasonably separate threads here.

We know the problems that hatcheries cause. Certainly genetic issues. Certainly mixed stock fisheries issues. From those aspects, they are not good for wild fish.

We also know that without hatcheries we wouldn't have anywhere near the fisheries we have now, whether it is salmon or trout. If we are going to fish at anywhere near the level of harvest we seem to demand we will need hatcheries, even if we recover the ecosystems. There is simply too much demand.

We also need to look at the entire ecosystem and food web; which we aren't.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/23 08:06 AM

Ed's point of view is anything but holistic. I think his article is grabbing at every point of interest that supports the Tribe's continued harvest, which is priority number 1. It's true that hatchery salmon contribute to the ecosystem, but wild salmon contribute better by dispersing in watersheds far more than any hatchery run does. As for nourishing orcas, the Puget Sound hatchery Chinook salmon have become so small in body size, and so narrow in their timing window, that their overall contribution to orca, or specifically the Southern Resident Killer Whales, recovery is negligible, unfortunately. Managing for abundant hatchery salmon has been just as much a killer of wild salmon as loss of habitat has been. Hatchery salmon are not holding the ecosystem together. Hatchery salmon are supporting the harvest of salmon more than anything else. And that's not a bad thing when we clearly want harvestable salmon. We ought to at least be honest about our wants and intentions.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/23 10:00 AM

Agree 100% , Salmo. I was thinking the same thing when I read Johnstone's thoughts. He was just worried about having enough salmon for the tribes to harvest. We know they don't distinguish the difference between hatchery and wild fish. A fish is a fish to them.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/10/23 01:00 PM

I am reminded of a Lummi official who was asked about the really small population of wild coho in the Nooksack, as there was a huge hatchery program. "Wild fish are nice but the people gotta eat." 'Bout sums it up.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/11/23 08:20 PM


Just got this around 3:30 and is about all I know.

To Grays Harbor salmon fishery interests:

A friendly reminder of the combined Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay salmon fisheries discussion will be held tomorrow Wednesday April 12th from 6 pm to 8 pm via ZOOM. If you have not registered for the meeting, click the “Zoom webinar” link: Join Zoom webinar

The attached excel file is the planning model that was used to develop the proposed 2023 Grays Harbor salmon fishery package and the attached Word file includes the tables from the “2023 Summary Table” tab in the attached planning model.

Hope you can attend tomorrow’s meeting,


Kim Figlar-Barnes
Fish Biologist - Grays Harbor
WDFW Fish Program – Region 6
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
360-249-4628 ex 235
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/23 06:17 AM

My email was busy last night after the 3:30 PM yesterday release of the NOF GH meeting tonight information so this.

Yes the model shows combined NT & QIN nets in for 5 days in weeks 42 and 43.

Yes the model shows this results in 1497 below the Chehalis Chinook escapement goal.

Yes the model shows an 1.1 NT Comm harvest rate and yes the GH Policy and the model shows .08 is the required NT Comm impacts.

And finally yes it appears staff have chosen to ignore policy guidelines. Why I do not know but with the changes in Olympia with the departure of Mr. Warren and Mr. Lossee's arrival in Region 6 it appears the GH Policy is now just window dressing.

Last but not least the QIN will net 5 days a week starting 11/5 ( wk 45 ) through wk 53. You upper basin folks are screwed and that is about the best face I can put on it.

Yup it looks like old fashion 1970's management which nearly destroyed the Coho in the 80's.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/23 06:43 AM

Sheesh, five days a week? How many hours are nets typically set on their open days?

Huge impact on those late season hogs.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/23 07:07 AM

QIN always start at noon Sunday and pull at noon on whatever day they pull. NT fish normally 12 hour days or daylight hours. WDFW sometimes shortens it a bit and will piggy back half a day behind the QIN pull.

Upper basin folks this schedule DOES NOT include the Chehalis tribal fisheries who are a non treaty and are part of the states share. So it is likely you will see lower basin nets 5 days and in the mix netting by the Chehalis tribal on the same days or even not resulting the possibility of nets 6 to 7 days a week with the combined lower and Chehalis tribal fisheries at Oakville.

And yes the fisheries modeled in prior NOF GH had the NT Comm at the required.

FROM GH POLICY:

a) WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin shall have the following impact limits:

Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook when the impact of the recreational fishery is equal to or greater than 4.2%. The impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery may be less than 0.8% when conservation concerns for natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook result in a less than 4.2% impact rate in the recreational fishery.

When the terminal run of natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook reaches an abundance of 18,793, the impact rate of the WDFW- managed commercial fishery shall linearly increase from 0.8% to a maximum of 5.8% at a terminal run of 25,000 natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/23 08:40 AM


Gee this is fun....not! Ok to understand thee numbers you need the model just sent out NOT the previous ones. The Summary tab provides the totality of all projected fisheries. A box that is RED means failure to comply with the GH Policy or make escapement and it shows all three salmon species.

The New NT Schedule will show you the days the NT Comm fish by week and that information is on the left side of the spread sheet. The Rec season by Tribs and areas of the Chehalis are listed and scrolling down below the Rec season you find the NT Comm.

The QIN seasons by starting day of the week are in the Treaty Schedule tab. The season is listed by week and QIN always put in on Sunday at noon.

The Total Exploitation tab will show the harvest in the ocean AK & BC and others.

So to get it all down write down the week or weeks ( 40 / 41 ect. ) then put the QIN down by week then do the same for NT Comm and by week add the QIN &NT Comm then by week add the numbers for the week. Do that and you will see that weeks 42 and 43 are combined QIN NT Comm 5 days a week. Week 44 3 days NT Comm then QIN 5 days a week through week 45 through week 53.

That is about as simple as I can explain it.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/23 11:09 AM

At some point folks might wonder the value of working with WDFW to create plans and policies to move forward with.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/12/23 10:29 PM

Somewhere along the line I misplaced my copy of "Field Guide to Monkeywrenching." I'm pretty sure it would recommend dumping chlorine into the water supplies of the hatchery Chinook programs. As long as there is the slightest possibility of a harvestable Chinook returning to Grays Harbor, WDFW and QIN will schedule enough fishing to ensure that wild Chinook continue to fail to meet escapement goals. Seriously friends, what's the point in continuing the hatchery Chinook program? It only serves to justify over-fishing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/23 07:04 AM

Well it is a done deal you will see nets 5 days a week and inland above Oakville likely 7 days a week. Simply put staff said that the QIN “aggressive schedule” did not leave any netting time for the NT Commercials. In fact they made a big deal several times that the NT nets got two days less than last year. Frankly I kind of bit my tongue as I and most people could care less about the race or ethnicity of a commercial fisher be it tribal or NT a gillnet is a gillnet. Simply put the two comanagers do not like each other and WDFW has never got over having to deal with the tribe.

From what I witnessed the so-called ZOOM meeting was a world class load of BS! Couple folks atta boys for staff, one objection about the exploitation rate and myself. How many people I have no idea and no model put up to see and understand. Also staff put forth that they were officially counting all Chinook spawning in the gravel in the wild escapement regardless of origin. The meeting will be put up on the agency’s web site so you can listen to it yourself.

What I will say is several staff changes have been out and about for a while. First the present Director came to WDFW, then MR. Warren retired, several jobs in harvest managers division Olympia changed hands in Olympia and Mr. Lossee arrived in Region 6. Wella GH Policy thrown under the bus to chase the abundant Coho. To understand how WDFW and the QIN are managing think no GH Policy and 1978. GH Policy has been tossed; conservation is not a thought unless you fish inriver then staff has concerns but no concerns when you allow nets 5 days a week.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/23 07:38 AM

It seems that WDFW and QIN have no intention of changing until a listing occurs, or maybe multiple listings. As to Salmo's idea I did work on killing a whole hatchery due to VHSV. After chlorinating the whole building the chlorine was dumped into the outfall. I was down at the trap where we were dechlorinating the water before it went to the sound. The whole concrete trap area just exploded with fish; it was a great way to get rid of the Chinook. Sounds like a great idea.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/23 07:45 AM

Salmo the manner Chinook are counted came about when the QIN petitioned to have the escapement goal for Chehalis Chinook lowered. It was approved by the Fed managers and WDFW did not manage the Chinook that way or a better way to say it they counted fish two different ways. Sorta put the hurt on the NT side so when the crunch came this year and they needed impacts for the commercials wella change to the QIN counting method.

One more thing I could see your thoughts on the marked broodstock prodigy except for one itty bitty thing, AK & BC are modeled to take 12091 Chehalis Chinook leaving only 10828 crossing the bar. Conservation my ass! All WDFW does terminally is use the low Chinook numbers to limit Rec fisheries particularly inriver. I understand your frustration but the failure to make escapement resides in the marine harvest not terminal.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/23 07:50 AM

So it wasn't just the third glass of wine that inspired my post last night. I swear, fish conservation won't come to GH until there isn't a single harvestable hatchery fish left. And I'm not even opposed to hatcheries, just opposed to hatcheries that are used to justify killing off wild salmon populations. Oh, and hatcheries that benefit AK and BC but not WA recreational anglers.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/23 11:50 AM

It's getting so the only hatcheries that benefit WA rec anglers are the trout and warm water operations. Anadromous are (apparently) designed to benefit others. Move on to that fourth glass of wine. In vino veritas.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/13/23 10:40 PM

Salmon and steelhead hatcheries sure aren't delivering the benefits they were originally intended to. One would think that WDFW would re-evaluate and adjust. But that would be contrary to the axiom of bureaucracy.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/14/23 05:32 AM

After receiving the latest model showing Chehalis Chinook NOT making escapement I felt compelled to object to the Director, Commission, and staff.


Morning,

After reviewing the model it is clear that when I asked at the last ZOOM NOF Grays Harbor with all out effort to cram more NT Commercial time would we make Chinook escapement staff replied yes. Adding both wild and hatchery numbers it is clear you have an problem. The escapement goal is 9754 for wild Chinook an adding in the expected hatchery escapement the model shows 9066 Chinook to the gravel. In other words you were not truthful and I will stick with untruthful but others may choose other words. Director Susewind this thing with the Quinault Nation has been going on for a long time. Many times I have been present when agency employees refer to the non-treaty gillnetters as “our commercials”. Director Susewind we have three commercial net seasons in this basin. They are Chehalis Tribal non treaty, treaty Quinault Nation, and the state non treaty commercial fishers and frankly most folks could careless about the race or ethnicity which WDFW keeps inserting into the conversation simply by their actions. This needs to end!

In the last two years Region 6 staff have literally violated the GH Policy on harvest sharing in about every way possible, attacked the inriver fisher for using catch and release for Chinook which is legal, and shut down huge portions of the Rec fishers for conservation under premise of low flows stacking the fish up ( I provided a video showing this was untrue ) which by the manner you did so placed the so called conservation burden on the bank fishery who are usually folks who cannot afford a boat or are simply poor. The bias in Region 6 toward the inriver Rec fisher is simply appalling. The continuing whatever between the Quinault Nation and WDFW staff needs to end as the fish and the Chehalis communities cannot afford it any longer.

Director and Commissioners I urge you to find a third party to bring both the Quinault Nation and WDFW staff together to moderate a discussion to put and end to this ongoing issue between the two parties as it is clear they lack the will, desire, or ability to do so on their own.



From: Grays Harbor (DFW) <graysharbor@dfw.wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 3:34 PM
Subject: Updated 2023 Grays Harbor planning model B

To all interested Grays Harbor parties,

Please see the attached updated 2023 Grays Harbor planning model B. The model you received on Tuesday, March 11th has been updated to reflect the changes in the commercial schedule that were discussed at yesterday evenings meeting. This change was made after the commercial sector reviewed the model and asked staff to reduce the fishery by one day in week 43 and allow for the use of 6.5” mesh net. Also, the attached Word file includes the tables from the “2023 Summary Table” tab in the attached planning model.

Please let staff know if you have any questions.
Posted by: skyrise

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/23 12:01 PM

and then there is the Absolutely Stupid regs this year for Snohomish/skykomish summer chinook with an estimated return of 7,500 fish but WDFW will only allow 3 days in may and 2-3 days per week. When the Wallace gets 5,000 hatchery fish back each and every year easily.
Sport fishing is being driven out from this state as fast as they can push it.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/16/23 12:15 PM

The Tribes certainly and the State probably prefer that salmon fishing by NI occurs in the Ocean and Straits. In a push, Puget Sound would be ok. Ideally, nothing in bays or rivers; that's Indian Country.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/23 06:57 AM


I and several others put together our thoughts and objections to the 2023 NOF process and seasons. Few folks participated in the ZOOM portion or rather should I say spoke out. Bay fishers were more than happy to toss the inriver Rec under the bus for C&R bait fishing while praising the bay fishery which is the LARGEST C&R Chinook on the coast. Few Recs spoke and even less the inland inriver fishers but to be honest I am not sure it would have made a difference. WDFW has gone old school we are WDFW you are peons!


April 15, 2023

WDFW Commission
Director Susewind

Commissioners my name is Dave Hamilton and I wish to object to the manner WDFW Region 6 conducted the Grays Harbor NOF in 2023. When my 30 years as an WDFW enhancement volunteer ended at the request of others I turned my attention to harvest issues and I was shocked by Region 6’s conduct. WDFW Region 6 staff kept the public from Adviser meetings, refused to release the harvest models and meeting minutes or provide basic documentation. After several Public Document Requests failed I took legal action to get WDFW documents and the issue was settled out of court. WDFW then reformed the Grays Harbor NOF process and at Mr. Warren’s request I agreed to become a Grays Harbor Advisor, meetings became open to the public, harvest models made available to all, and soon after WDFW reformed Grays Harbor NOF the process to be more inclusive and the WDFW Commission adopted the Grays Harbor Policy (GHP).

Fast forward to 2023 and oh how things change. WDFW ended the use of Grays Harbor Advisors, public participation in the harvest NOF process is at an all-time low, and NOF negotiations between the Quinault Nation (QIN) and WDFW are dysfunctional from the general public’s perspective. The ZOOM process that Region 6 implemented due to the recent concerns over the virus and public health has had a chilling effect on public participation to the point where few make any effort to participate.

2023 NOF public meeting seemed to start off well as did the first ZOOM NOF and then staff went to California to finalize the 2023 commercial seasons with QIN due to scheduling issues with the QIN. Imagine our surprise when staff returned and stated that due to the QIN aggressive harvest for the 2023 season that WDFW was going to stand down the GHP because Region 6 staff felt the 2023 QIN seasons did not allow for a reasonable state nontreaty commercial fishery resulting in the loss of two fishing days when compared to the 2022 season.

When I asked at the last ZOOM NOF Grays Harbor that with the all-out effort to create more NT Commercial time would we make Chinook escapement staff replied yes and as the final model showing the changes were not provided to the public until after the last NOF ZOOM the explanation was accepted. After receiving the model it was clear something was not right. Adding both wild and hatchery escapement numbers it is clear we have a problem. The escapement goal is 9754 for wild Chinook and adding in the expected hatchery escapement the model shows 9066 Chinook to the gravel. In other words staff were not truthful and I will stick with not truthful but others may choose different words. Director Susewind this thing with the Quinault Nation has been going on for a long time. I have been present when agency employees refer to the non-treaty gillnetters as “our commercials”. Commissioners we have three commercial net seasons in the Chehalis Basin. They are Chehalis Tribal nontreaty state, treaty Quinault Nation, and the state nontreaty commercial fishers and frankly most folks could care less about the race or ethnicity which WDFW keeps inserting into the conversation simply by their actions. This needs to end as for the fish and inland communities a gillnet is a gillnet and it matters little who owns it! The overarching goal of the co-managers to achieve conservation goals is simply ignored.

In the last two years Region 6 staff have violated the GH Policy on non-treaty harvest sharing in about every way possible, attacked the inriver fisher for using catch and release for Chinook which is legal and used in nearly all WDFW managed fisheries, and shut down huge portions of the Rec fishers for conservation under premise of low flows stacking the fish up. I then provided a video of salmon movement to staff showing this was untrue. The manner WDFW implemented the restricted recreational season placed the conservation burden on the bank fishery who are usually folks who cannot afford a boat or are simply poor. The bias in Region 6 toward the inriver Rec fisher of limited means is not acceptable.

Commissioners I realize the present Commission were not part of the process that created the GHP but simply put it is a conservation-based policy that provides guidance to WDFW staff and defines how non-treaty harvest is to be shared. It does not address and is not binding for tribal fisheries dictated by past court decisions for either the non-treaty Chehalis Tribal or treaty QIN fisheries. It has many provisions but for the inland communities it is what is known as 4/3 provision that is critical. This requires that at least three days in a calendar week be net free if possible which is not always possible if the QIN fish more than four days in a calendar week such as this year. That said the state nontreaty commercials seasons are not supposed to violate the 4/3 clause or the designated 0.8 nontreaty commercial exploitation rate simply to get more commercial harvest which Region 6 did in 2022 and 2023. The GHP does have an adaptive management clause to allow for modifications to harvest guidelines but when this was discussed during the process creating the GHP and staff assured all that this clause would only be used for issues of “extraordinary circumstance.” The GHP has a clause that limits harvest known as 3/5 that limits nontreaty impacts if a salmon species has not made escapement 3 out of 5 years. For 2022 this clause was in play for Coho when the preseason forecast showed substantial numbers of harvestable Coho. 3/5 was stood down and seasons set minus the 3/5 requirement limiting nontreaty harvest. I thought this was an appropriate use adaptive management and “extraordinary circumstance” but the expansion of the nontreaty commercial above the .8 Chinook exploitation rate in 2022 was not! To make things worse for 2023 staff utilized the loss of two days in the modeled 2023 nontreaty gillnet season from the 2022 NT commercial season which was only created by violating the GHP in 2022.

The 4/3 clause was included in the GHP because prior to the GHP WDFW managed harvest in the Chehalis River, which is the second longest watershed in the state, for commercial fishing at Aberdeen at the mouth of the river limiting the inland recreational fisheries and Chehalis Tribal fisheries. It took years of effort by local advocates for the inland communities to get reasonable salmon seasons for recreational fisheries. Additionally as a former commissioner said 4/3 had the unexpected benefit of providing a safety net for wild salmon escapement, primarily Chinook and Coho, which have failed make escapement even after the Chehalis Chinook escapement goal was reduced a few years back.

The continuing whatever between the Quinault Nation and WDFW staff needs to end as the fish and the Chehalis communities cannot afford it any longer. This thing where post Boldt decision WDFW has continued resent the imposition of co-management needs to end! If the QIN are harvesting more than the court mandated share then WDFW needs to forcefully address it but standing down conservation guidelines of the GHP for the states share is not the appropriate remedy.

Commissioners I urge you to find a third party to bring both the Quinault Nation and WDFW staff together to moderate a discussion to put an end to this ongoing issue between the two parties as it is clear they lack the will, desire, or ability to do so on their own.

If any have questions feel free to contact me and the final 2023 Harvest Model, GHP are attached.

Sincerely

Dave
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/23 03:11 PM

Waiting anxiously to read the reply (or replies) but expect them to be spinning faster than a high-speed top.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/23 04:04 PM

Yup but unlike last time where we let the word smithing go by this time several people helped me and we will tear it down line by line. R-6 does not get any more free passes.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/21/23 04:30 PM

It is way past time when we held WDFW, and all agencies, to actual concrete performance and not platitudes.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/23 09:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
It is way past time when we held WDFW, and all agencies, to actual concrete performance and not platitudes.


As if that will actually happen here in Washington. What you see now, is what you got...
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/22/23 12:12 PM

What we see now is what we allow ourselves to see.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/23/23 08:14 AM

It will be interesting to see if there is any kind of serious reply, usually these are ignored or fall on deaf ears. I personally don't understand how R6 can get away with the smoke and mirrors corruption for as long as they have. No oversight or accountability to higher ups, or the corruption goes farther up.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 04/23/23 01:35 PM

Since the people in R6 are appointed by the folks in HQ, they (HQ) must support what they are doing, right? I mean, they can't be that dumb. Can they?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/02/23 10:24 AM


Could not figure out where to post this so just put it up here. https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/comanager-hatchery-policy is the link to the WDFW website info. Frankly considering the situation in R^ and the QIN I imagine it will go in the dust bin like the rest of WDFW's plans.


May 1, 2023
Contact: Ken Warheit, 360-902-2595
Media contact: Ben Anderson, 360-902-0045
WDFW seeks public input on environmental analysis of co-manager hatchery policy

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is asking for public comment on an environmental analysis of a draft policy to guide management of hatcheries in cooperation with tribal co-managers.

In April 2021, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted an updated Anadromous Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Policy, and instructed WDFW "to begin development of a joint policy agreement on salmon and steelhead hatchery programs with tribal co-managers," which would supplement and supersede the existing Commission policy when appropriate.

After more than a year of collaborative work with technical staff under the direction of a subset of commissioners and tribal policymakers, a final draft policy was developed in November 2022. Following presentations to the full Commission, the draft policy was released for general public comment in February 2023. Results of that public comment opportunity were presented to the Commission in April.

The draft co-manager hatchery policy is now undergoing a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) public comment period; the SEPA determination, draft policy, and supporting documents are available on WDFW's website. Members of the public can submit comments on the SEPA determination online, by email, or by mail to:

Lisa Wood, SEPA/NEPA Coordinator
WDFW Habitat Program, Protection Division
P.O. Box 43200
Olympia, WA, 98504
Comments, including mailed comments, must be received by 11:59 p.m. on May 26, 2023.

The draft policy includes commitments to work as co-managers to develop and implement hatchery management plans on a regional or watershed-specific basis, while conserving natural-spawning populations of fish and mitigating the effects of habitat loss and other environmental impacts. The draft policy outlines six guiding principles to support these values.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish, wildlife, and recreational and commercial opportunities.
Posted by: OncyT

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/02/23 03:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
The draft policy includes commitments to work as co-managers to develop and implement hatchery management plans on a regional or watershed-specific basis, while conserving natural-spawning populations of fish and mitigating the effects of habitat loss and other environmental impacts. The draft policy outlines six guiding principles to support these values.

This draft "policy" has so many wiggle words in it, it really should not be considered any kind of policy. Lots of suggestions for actions, worded "should be considered" (or similar) rather than any commitment to actions, other than saying that habitat conditions require on-going hatchery mitigation. Since the statement about mitigation is without any additional qualifiers, I can only assume that it means everywhere.

I read nothing in the "policy" committing the co-managers to conserving natural spawning populations of fish. In fact that term is not used at all in the policy (that I could find). When there is a reference to natural spawning populations (several bullets under Principle #4), the terms "should consider" or "should strive" are always used. That's an easy one to get around as in "we considered it, but decided not to do it," or "we strove for it, but just couldn't accomplish it." This appears to be the perfect policy to accomplish nothing new in regard to hatchery programs, so I guess the perfect hatchery policy.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/23 08:20 AM

Good summary OncyT. Looks like the "new" co-manager hatchery policy is "We'll ad hoc it just like we've always done," and call it new.
Posted by: OncyT

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/23 11:10 AM


It's too bad Salmo g. The WDFW staff was given instructions "to begin development of a joint policy agreement on salmon and steelhead hatchery programs with Tribal Co-Managers that has similar development and joint commitment provisions to those in “The Salmonid Disease Control Policy of the Fisheries Co-Managers of Washington State.” The disease control policy is very well thought out having very specific standards for 1) surveillance of pathogens; 2) fish health monitoring; 3) hatchery sanitation; 4) transfer of gametes and eggs, fish, carcasses, and water; and 5) site specific pathogen containment plans. These are specific to three levels of risk, i.e. transfers within watersheds, within fish health management zones, and across fish health management zones. These include almost 20 pages of technical specifications that have to be followed EVERYWHERE to protect fish health. You don't just get to decide what you want to do in any one particular watershed. If this template, which was suggested as an example of a successful co-management policy, was followed (suggested by Jim Anderson, past Executive Director of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission), they might have actually developed something useful.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/23 03:36 PM

Funny you should mention the Co-Managers Disease Policy. Back when I worked in WDFW hatcheries there were parts of the agency working against the policy; their Program had apparently never heard of it.
Posted by: OncyT

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/23 04:37 PM

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if there were parts of WDFW's hatchery program working against the policy. It put limitations on some things that could be done, and it required additional effort to do other things. Plus, any affected co-manager could object to a proposed transfer that wasn't going to be consistent with the policy. Can you image? Needing to be careful to prevent fish diseases from being spread around the state!!!...
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/23 04:52 PM

I was talking about programs outside Hatcheries fighting the agreement. Inside was a whole other story.

Some pf the folks didn't care about disease, especially if it clobbered the hatchery, so long as wild fish were "helped".

Just my personal view is that there needs to be a whole lot more cooperation on what we do with our resources, inside and outside individual agencies.

Were you around when the late 80s VHSV hit? That was Goat Roping 101.
Posted by: OncyT

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/23 05:57 PM

I understood what you were saying about programs outside the hatcheries. And these people didn't think that spreading diseases around would ultimately effect wild populations? They must have never heard of horizontal virus transmission. What I was suggesting is that the new policy put some limits on what the ops managers could do. They always liked doing exactly what they wanted.

Yeah, I was around during the VHS stuff. People "knew" it came from importing Atlantic salmon. We also "knew" that all fish on the hatchery sites had to be destroyed, that is until VHS was discovered at one of WDFW's hatcheries. Then they just had to be quarantined. (Just an observation from someone that was outside of WDFW smile .)

Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/04/23 07:18 PM

Before we figured out that this wasn't European VHSV but was native I was working on a proposal to sanitize the whole watershed at the Makah Hatchery. I helicoptered over the whole watershed and was pretty sure that would be pissing in the wind to try and get all the bugs, if they were there.

Yeah, there were a couple of Ops who did whatever they wanted, regardless of what was agreed-to or set out.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/23 06:44 AM

The fish disease policy is likely a model of co-manager cooperation. I don't think that can happen now, given that the treaty tribes effectively run WDFW's anadromous fish programs. I'm supportive of treaty fishing rights, but I don't care to have the tail wagging the dog. Some of the tribes (at a minimum) have a very different view of hatcheries than I do. I'm not anti--hatchery, but I'm enough of a realist to accept that hatcheries cannot deliver the recruit performance that they did in the past. This makes them uneconomic, but we're still ripping off taxpayers to continue hatchery programs that don't pencil out. I oppose that, and that makes me a bit of an outlier. I would have the co-manager hatchery policy inject a reasonable dose of economic reality into the equation. Along with the disease policy, of course.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/05/23 10:44 AM

Couple things I have seen with the Tribes, and lots of folks here, is that a fish is a fish is a fish. The ecosystem knows differently, but it doesn't vote. If you look north of the border you will see some FN's saying that steelhead conservation needs should not constrain their salmon fisheries and it appears DFO rather agrees.

I support a triaged approach where watersheds reasonably intact are kept that way and managed for ecological levels of wild fish. Other (compromised) watersheds, like the Columbia, are managed with "replacement" fish.

The big "but" in my idea is that fisheries are still terminal as the wild fish have shown they can't absorb marine mixed stock fisheries.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/07/23 06:25 PM

Everyone should read Court Chinook thread just started. SE Alaska were modeled to harvest 7928 Grays Harbor Chinook so this means the preseason forecast is now incorrect. Did I get this right? anyone? So now what do WDFW & the QIN do. Should be interesting.

The Columbia and Willapa would be in the same boat.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/11/23 07:22 PM

Remember that the way things go now, every fish listed in the pre-season plans as "catch" must be killed. If the Co-managers take a shot at what his saved by the closures we will add more must-kill fish to the mix. I suspect there will be lots of pressure from users to catch those fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/17/23 06:05 AM


Some of us have been comparing notes on the river conditions this year. To be honest other than the one high water event last fall the river flows have mostly stayed below average CFS. The weather was awful though in fact this winters weather was just ugly cold windy and wet. We did get a bump in flows about the time the salmon out migration happened which helped as low clear water is to the predators advantage not the fish.

So now we have summer at last which is great but the fish are likely to have a difficult time of it. Flows are already well below average at about half way between record low and average. You can take a look at it here https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/. How much of an effect it will have on the juvenile rearing areas is yet to be seen but just normal rainfall from this point on means trouble for the fish.

I imagine if the extended weather forecast holds one should be prepared for the usual panic on flows in Sept. and fishing. One should keep in mind that the low flows have little effect on adults other than slowing upstream movement unless it does not rain in the first part of Nov then it can create difficulties for the returning adults.

So I imagine it will be the usual routine and inland fishers will want the Sept rain river bounce bring the adults upstream. Tidewater and bay will want not to have a river bounce but the fish will do what they want as the massive early movement last year showed us.

All that said one should be prepared for the usual fire drill over flows out of Olympia such as last year. The reality is for the juveniles in the rearing areas this summer looks to be just plain difficult. For the fall returning adults it will be most likely just business as usual unless it does not rain at the end of Oct. or first week of Nov. Now what all the government agencies do should be interesting to say the least!
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/17/23 08:07 AM

Interesting analysis RG. As far as outward spring smolt migration goes, I have always tried to note the spring weather conditions for future reference of return survival. Whether it be rain, or early spring melt runnoff, I alway hoped for one of the 2 to dirty up the rivers to help the smolts out.
My home river, the Puyallup, has a large cormorant problem. They show up around the 1st of April and stack the lower river, anticipating the smolt migration. They leave when the river gets turbid. The lower Puy. is like freeway. Man made dikes, no or little cover, and staight as an arrow to Puget Sound. The cormorants capitalize on this, are smart visual hunters, and smolts have little chance in low clear water. I have watched them in action. I don't know for sure, but logic tells me if the water gets dirty it is more difficult for them to see to hunt, aiding smolt survival.
I remember reading the early pit tag tracking results for Winter Steelhead on the Puyallup and other South PS rivers. Results displayed missing fish at the 1st PS pit tag reading station. I think that station is located in Seattle? A large majority of tagged smolts went missing before this 1st station, and were all missing by the time they got to the last station in the Straits. Obviously, and it makes sense, is they got eaten or died before then. Researchers probably could find those pit tags in cormorant and pinniped feces.
Anyway, this spring the Puyallup got turbid early from rain and now is puked from glacial melt, cutting short the slaughter.
I never got a correlation between early spring turbidity and greater fishing success years later. Currently, the South PS rivers are closed for Winter Steelhead and it's been years since I've fished them.
I know lots of factors are at play for smolt survival, but I think the cormorants and pinnipeds are guilty more than researchers think.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/17/23 09:08 AM

It is interesting to say the least. The thing is the Chehalis is mostly rain fed run off and not snow which makes it nearly totally different than snow fed streams for out migrants. This bit of hot weather shows how. Hit the link I provided and look for the yellow and green dot streams and they are at beginning flood stage from the snow melt. As you said RG water conditions make a big difference and in the snow fed streams warm weather speeds up the melt which reduces the normal flows later on. Everything is connected one way or another it is just the same but different everyplace. Either way if the long range forecast holds this will be a bad year for juvenile salmon in the rearing areas.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/20/23 08:30 AM

Back when WDFW was looking at Cedar River sockeye and releasing fry from the hatchery at Landsburg they got much higher survivals on release during high flows. They blew past the the sculpins and other predators.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/26/23 10:07 AM

This and more is likely coming. The fact that the Feds and states have managed for marine harvest is coming home to roost big time. As to the Chehalis WDFW provides the prior intercept for Fall Chinook and Coho but every time I have asked I was told the information on AK & BC harvest of Chehalis Spring Chinook was not available.

From Daily World:

Fed protection sought for coast spring Chinook

Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers files petition to safeguard salmon in the Chehalis, Quinault, Queets, Hoh and Quillayute river basins

The Daily World

The Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers filed a petition Tuesday to protect Washington coast spring-run Chinook salmon under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The safeguards would apply to salmon in the Chehalis, Quinault, Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute river basins on the west coast of the Olympic Peninsula, according to a news release. Spring-run Chinook, who are distinct from fall-run salmon, return in the spring from the ocean to freshwater rivers, staying for many months in deep pools until fall to spawn.

“Spring-run Chinook are truly king salmon, magnificent fish prized for their size and taste and impressive for their arduous migrations into upper river reaches,” said Jeff Miller, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “But early returning salmon are in trouble all along the West Coast, and it’s clear they require protection under the Endangered Species Act to stop their slide toward extinction.”

Washington coast spring Chinook have declined significantly and are now at a fraction of their historical abundance, with an average of only 3,200 adult spawning fish returning annually to Washington coast rivers.

Remaining spring Chinook runs are threatened by habitat degradation due to logging and roads, water diversions and migration barriers that block suitable spawning habitat and prevent upstream and downstream migration. They’re also threatened by existing dams and a proposed new dam in the upper Chehalis River, harvest in ocean commercial fisheries and climate change, according to the



Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers.

“It’s clear that spring Chinook salmon, treasures of the Pacific Northwest, are in serious trouble in many of their home rivers,” said Pacific Rivers Board Chair Mike Morrison. “Springrun salmon numbers on Washington’s West Coast have declined steeply over decades and are now perilously low. We did not take the filing of this petition lightly, and carefully considered the facts and science before making the decision to seek legal protections.”

Spring-run Chinook have unique habitat requirements for migration, spawning, juvenile rearing and adult life in the ocean. Suitable spawning habitat is in mainstem rivers and tributaries and requires cold water, cool resting pools, clean spawning gravels, and optimal levels of dissolved oxygen, water velocity and turbidity.

Deep cold-water pools are essential to spring run fish survival because of their early entrance to freshwater and dependence on cold water through the heat of summer. Adult Chinook migrate upstream in a stressed condition and rely only on stored energy to complete their journey, leaving them highly susceptible to additional environmental stressors.

Several Washington coast hatcheries propagate fall-run and spring-run salmon, and hatchery raised salmon are released or stray into every major river basin on the Washington coast. Hatchery fish can harm wild spring Chinook by competing with them for food, preying on them and transmitting disease.

They also interbreed, producing hybrid spring run and fall-run Chinook, often called summer-run fish. Hybrid salmon are not fit for long-term survival in natural habitats and are likely contributing to the disappearance of spring Chinook.

History of springrun Chinook

The Chehalis River basin historically supported an estimated 27,000 spring-run Chinook, but adult spawning returns from 2011-2020 averaged just 1,600 fish.

Over the past decade, the Hoh River basin averaged around 1,000 springrun, the Queets River basin around 500, and the Quinault River basin only around 100 fish.

Early return salmon and steelhead in Oregon and California are also imperiled, leading to Endangered Species Act listing petitions for populations in the Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast, and Oregon Coast.

In 2021 the California Fish and Game Commission unanimously voted to list Upper Klamath-Trinity spring-run Chinook under the state Endangered Species Act. In January 2023 the National Marine Fisheries Service determined that Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Chinook salmon populations may warrant Endangered Species Act protection.

Traditional ecological knowledge acquired by the peoples who are indigenous to the Olympic Peninsula over thousands of years made distinctions and identified differences between spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. Recent scientific studies show that spring-run fish are genetically distinct from the more abundant fall-run Chinook.

The evolution of early returning fish occurred in both salmon and steelhead millions of years ago; this difference in spawning-run timing is highly unlikely to occur again if these distinct populations are lost.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.7 million members and online activists.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/26/23 11:06 AM

About time. I would add, though, that the listing of any species is the result of failure/choice by the designated managers.
Posted by: OLD FB

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/26/23 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
About time. I would add, though, that the listing of any species is the result of failure/choice by the designated managers.


You are 100% correct!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/27/23 06:32 AM

"The Chehalis River basin historically supported an estimated 27,000 spring-run Chinook, but adult spawning returns from 2011-2020 averaged just 1,600 fish."

I was waiting to see if anyone else caught this soooo, 27,000 Chehalis Springers? Maybe pre settlers but not in my 75 years or my parents. One should always remember that everything you read is not necessarily true. The Chehalis Spring Chinook escapement goal is 1400 so I find the 27,000 number problematic but not the over harvest issue. That I believe resides with the AK and BC fisheries but lacking any information from WDFW it is only my opinion.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/27/23 08:00 AM

Want me to generate an Ecosystem-based Escapment Goal for those Springers? Think I did once and it was pretty high. 27,000 could easily get lost in the watershed. The 1,400 "goal" is a crime against the ecosystem but is obviously higher than the managers are willing to reach. I include here all the managers.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/27/23 09:14 AM

If 27,000 spring Chinook in the Chehalis was ever real, it could never happen again because the environment of the springer spawning areas is forever changed. Skookumchuck, Newwaukum, and upper Chehalis are all commercial tree farms. Springer habitat needs old growth forest ecology here on the west side of the state.

The 1400 escapement goal looks like those Chinook escapement goals set by WDF in the late 1960s, early 1970s, where they took the average escapement of the preceeding 10 years and set that as the goal. Talk about a system that never set the bar too high, that one is perfect!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/27/23 12:54 PM

In the document that set PS Chinook escapement goals WDF noted that the goals they set did not come close to providing fish for the available habitat but that it was ridiculous to try and fill the habitat.

I another documnet, from the late 70s, they noted a "problem" with excess fish at Soos Creek hatchery because they couldn't harvest the hatchery fish without overharvesting the co-migrating wilds. The solution? Lower the wild goal. They called it "good management" to do this as they reduced the surplus.

Don't tell me did fish were ever a priority.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/28/23 10:50 AM

WDF certainly didn't want to do anything ridiculous. So they adopted the entirely rational action of over-harvesting nearly every single wild salmon population to avoid the embarrassment of hatchery surpluses.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 05/28/23 11:23 AM

Bingo. And called it "Good Management". Did keep them out of negative press though. What surprised me a bit is what they wrote down and published.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/23 12:42 PM

And yet more than 10 years later, somehow this GD project still has legs... YGTBFKM, right?

https://www.chronline.com/stories/lewis-countys-concerns-funding-continue-hand-in-hand-for-pe-ell-flood-retention-proposal,320175?

W T F ?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/05/23 02:41 PM

There is more money and votes in the areas impacted by floods. Who amongst them really cares about fish? Heck, we can build a hatchery as mitigation and harvest at hatchery rates. A win win. If you're not a wild fish or reasonably dependent on an intact ecosystem.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/23 08:29 AM


And another dam just not so big from the World.


Hoquiam dam removal ?

Salmon, water supply to benefit: City probing for alternate water source, further funding before moving ahead with project

Clayton Franke

The Daily World

The most imposing physical obstacle for salmon and steelhead entering the Hoquiam River lies 11 miles upstream from the river’s mouth. There, for the last 70 years, fish have met a wall of concrete and whitewater, to which first they are drawn and attempt to jump over, but after a tiresome effort yield to the right, where a series of ascending stone troughs might help them pass the dam to prime spawning grounds. But West Fork Hoquiam fish of the future may not face the same challenge as previous generations.

The West Fork Hoquiam dam, listed by the state as one of the most harmful barriers to fish passage in the entire Chehalis Basin, could be removed in the coming years, potentially connecting downstream habitat with a dozen more miles of precious egg-nurturing gravel.

The city of Hoquiam, the dam’s owner, has eyed its removal for years. The city must first figure out how to put to rest the aging infrastructure the city relies on to capture some of its drinking water.

Last week, local government leaders, fish biologists, project



The West Fork Hoquiam dam, constructed in 1956, diverts water to the city of Hoquiam’s treatment plant, accounting for about 10% of city drinking water supply. The city is searching for an alternate groundwater source so it can remove the dam and restore fish habitat. CLAYTON FRANKE / THE DAILY WORLD


engineers and representatives from salmon conservation groups met for a tour of the West Fork Hoquiam dam, hosted by the Chehalis Basin Partnership.

In December 2022, the city received a $1.2 million grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for two purposes: to find out what tearing down the dam might look like, and to determine if another water source in the area can replace it.

After the feasibility study is complete, some of the construction costs could come from $4 million federal funding through the offices of U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer and U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell. The project is included in their funding lists, and Hoquiam City Administrator Brian Shay said he is “confident” the money will come through.

For the city, removing the dam is a priority not only to improve fish habitat, but to improve the long-term sustainability of the city’s water system, Shay said.

The dam spans the West Fork Hoquiam river a few yards east of U.S. Highway 101, just north of the town of New London. Currently, the city diverts water at the dam and pumps it underneath U.S. Highway 101 to its water treatment plant a few miles south. The road poses inherent water quality risks, while the aging dam, which was built in 1956, needs significant improvements to comply with current regulations.

In addition, a pattern of warmer, drier spring and summer conditions will mean lower summertime flows and inconsistent water availability. Removing the dam will also keep more water in the stream.

Water is diverted from the West Fork dam at two cubic feet — or sevenand- a-half gallons — per second, which accounts for only about 10% of the city’s supply. The majority of drinking water comes from a dam on Davis Creek (which also ranked highly on the state’s priority list), just north of the water treatment plant. That means the city needs to find one-tenth of its water elsewhere.

“This is a big part of the feasibility of the dam removal because if we can’t get water that the city needs that would replace the source, it’s hard for the city to justify getting rid of the dam if they don’t have an alternative source,” said Kelsey Mach, a project geologist with Aspect Consulting, the city’s contracted engineer for the project.

This summer, as part of the recent NOAA grant, Aspect Consulting will drill two test wells to probe an aquifer they’ve identified in the area of the water treatment plant. In a pilot study conducted by the city 10 years ago, two wells on the grounds of the plant brought water to the surface.

The key is finding the “sweet spot” — a blend of sand gravel to naturally filter groundwater, deep enough to avoid surface contamination but not quite down to the hard bedrock, said Jill Van Hulle, a water rights specialist with Aspect Consulting.

“Our exploratory drilling is going to give us a very, very good understanding of whether or not we’re going to get the kind of capacity that the city wants,” Van Hulle said.

If the test drills discover an adequate aquifer, Van Hulle said, it will justify the cost of improvements to the city’s water treatment plant. The two test wells could then be converted to functioning wells pumping water into the plant.

But tapping into an aquifer also means applying for a brand new water right. The city currently holds surface water rights for the West Fork Hoquiam River, but not for the water held in gravels deep underground. Van Hulle said Aspect filed that application last year through the Department of Ecology and is currently in the department’s “laborious” process.

The city’s current grant will also pay for some designs, cost estimates, and the massive amounts of permitting required for the project. Aspect and the city will have to do something about the heavy silt settled in the slow-flowing water behind the dam. When the dam breaks, that silt will flow downstream, potentially causing adverse effects for fish.

Curt Holt, a fish biologist with the Department of Fish and Wildlife who worked for years on the West Fork, recalled a time when silt from the dam washed downstream, smothering and killing salmon and steelhead.

Starting in 1985, Holt spent many hours standing in the fish ladder on the West Fork Hoquiam. A fish biologist for the Quinault Indian Nation at the time, Holt needed to nail down a reliable method for fish counting, and the West Fork was his testing grounds.

The 1974 Boldt decision upheld tribal fishing treaty rights by finding that half of all available fish harvested in traditional rivers could be taken by the tribes. That meant it had to be determined how many fish were in rivers and streams. But, given their environment, counting fish can be difficult.

In their study, Holt and a fisheries crew used the West Fork dam’s dividing power to their advantage. When fish passed through the ladder, Holt scooped them up, measured and tagged them, took scale samples, recorded their sex, and released them above the dam. Then they swam upstream to spawn.

There, John Bryson traversed the banks of the river, searching for round gravel nests in the streambed

DAM from page A1 to A6

From left: Hoquiam water treatment plant operators Rob Sobolesky and James Kruger, Grays Harbor County Commissioner Kevin Pine, WDFW fish biologist Curt Holt, and Kirsten Harma, watershed coordinator for the Chehalis Basin Partnership, listen to Holt give a presentation on fish use of the West Fork Hoquiam River on May 24. CLAYTON FRANKE / THE DAILY WORLD


John Bryson, left, looks down at water flowing from the West Fork Hoquiam dam. He spent 30 years working in fisheries, including participation in a study on the West Fork in the 1980s and ’90s. He is now on the Quinault Indian Nation tribal council. CLAYTON FRANKE / THE DAILY WORLD

— salmon redds. Based on the number of redds in the stream, Bryson formulated a number of total returning salmon, and, at the end of the season, compared it to the exact number of fish counted by Holt in the fish ladder.

For the most part, they were spot on. They went on to use the redd counting method in other Olympic Peninsula rivers. The study carried on for 16 years, and Bryson, who worked in fisheries for 30 years and is now a Quinault Indian Nation council member, spent many hours on the West Fork.

“There’s some really nice habitat for the fish above here (the dam), and I think when we remove this dam it’ll be utilized even more,” he said.

Depending on the species, dam removal will open anywhere from two to 13 miles of spawning habitat for salmon and steelhead. For fall Chinook, about one-third of total spawning grounds in the Hoquiam basin are located upstream of the West Fork dam.

About 1% of the total fish in the Chehalis Basin travel above the West Fork dam to spawn. That number, while small, is still crucial, Holt said.

“Every fish counts,” he said.

Throughout his long career in fisheries, Holt said he never expected he would see the dam come out, or even a proposal to do so.

Ultimately dam removal will be followed by stream restoration through planting native vegetation. The result is greater stream complexity: a messy, meandering river. The more wood in the stream, the better for fish, Holt said, adding that the name Hoquiam is derived from a Native word meaning “hungry for wood” — a testament to the debris that once cluttered the river.

Contact reporter Clayton Franke at 406-552-3917 or clayton.franke@thedailyworld. com. -
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/23 08:45 AM

The Chehalis flood control dam proposal is far more than 10 years old, even more than 20 years. The state continues to throw money at it because the local politicians have forged alliances with others in the Legislature, mostly people who I assume aren't aware that the project does not meet the qualifications for Corps of Engineers federal funding. (The B:C ratio is less than 1.0.)

I was surprised a few years ago when the project details came out that the best flood reduction it could do is reduce peak flood elevation at I-5 by 1.5 feet. So even with the dam, it would be necessary to dike or raise the road elevation. Why not just raise the freeway elevation and be done with it? It would be much cheaper and not screw up the watershed.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/06/23 08:50 PM

stop building in the flood plain
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/07/23 08:20 AM

The flood control is a local issue to be sure but the longevity of this proposal is about I-5. A more accurate way to describe it that it is about Puget Sound and what happens when food and similar things cannot use I-5 for 5 to 10 days.

Somewhere way back I was around a discussion on raising I-5 and it is way more difficult than one would think. The thing I recall that stuck was the bridges upgrade, material cost, small stream drainage in the area, and the cost as now adays the permitting process described was way past awesome.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/07/23 08:58 AM

The thing about I-5 is way over blown IMO. The extreme case, which has never occurred, is estimated that I-5 could be out of service in that limited area for UP to 10 days about once every 10 years. The total number of days that I-5 has been out of service in the Chehalis area would be 65 days since I-5 was built if that extreme case were true. I-5 has only been closed a hand full of days over the entire history of the freeway, and most importantly, there are viable alternate routes for those few days that the interstate is closed. It adds a few hours to delivery schedules for trucks coming from LA or the Central Valley. No one goes hungry. Vegetables still get to the grocery store. Lettuce might cost a dime extra for that week, worst case scenario.

Raising I-5 would be expensive, but feasible from an engineering perspective. Not so feasible is how to manage Salzar Creek (the small stream drainage). It drains all the floodwater from the hills of Chehalis onto the floodplain, and that water needs to get to the river. If it's impeded by dikes, gates, or other obstructions, it floods all the area that hasn't been filled along the freeway over the last 20 years. That fill never should have been allowed, but the movers and shakers around Chehalis want to be like California, where water flows uphill toward money.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/23 01:29 PM

California, Nevada, and Arizona need the water. Just install some really big pumps and send it south. We can solve any problem with enough money and engineering.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/23 02:10 PM

Plant fish and log it all.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/23 03:22 PM

And the fish are going to survive un the logged watersheds how?
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/08/23 09:18 PM

I still think a diversion of the water to a large holding area would be the best approach. In the best of worlds, the water could be then used to recharge some of the deleted water sheds.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/09/23 09:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Krijack
I still think a diversion of the water to a large holding area would be the best approach. In the best of worlds, the water could be then used to recharge some of the deleted water sheds.


This would require changing the laws of physics, gravity, specifically. It's not like we can dig a gravity fed hole in the ground to store floodwaters. The reason being that a big enough hole that is also deep enough would exposed the groundwater table and fill with water long before the flood even happens. I applaud you for thinking about the issue, and a lot of people have studied flood issues for a very long time.

What the agency leaders seem reluctant to say is the clear, but not so obvious truth about flood water. That truth is: "The key to flood management is to divert the flood water away from my property onto your property." In other words, flood water has to go somewhere, and generally there is no place for it to go that won't negatively impact someone. If there were easy answers, the engineers would have identified them long ago.

People won't stop building in flood ways and flood plains. So they want flood control dams (i.e. move the water off their property onto someone else's). They are dumbstruck that the cost of those dams is too high to meet federal C.O.E. cost:benefit requirements where every dollar of cost must provide at least one dollar of benefit. So the perceived Chehalis dam solutions seems to be to build it with OPM, also known as "Other People's Money." That would require special Legislative or Congressional action since most taxpayers don't want to shell out their money for an uneconomic public works project.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/09/23 01:40 PM

The Central Valley in CA has some neat bypasses. When the Sacramento River reaches a certain height the water is diverted into the floodway (bypass). Essentially the dig a new and miles wide channel that rejoins the river down in the delta. The bypasses are protected by levees so the water stays in. The land is used for farming with lots of crops grown. Don't know who owns the land itself but I think a lot of it is privately owned. Can't have permanent structures in the bypass. Problem up here is that trees would likely want to grow in all that low-lying ground.

But, you could rather easily protect I-5 and and other current structures by setting the diversion wier at the right level. Probably would also mess up fish migration.
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/09/23 03:15 PM

I drilled all of the Geotechnical holes all the way around hoquiam and into aberdeen last summer. The purpose of our portion was to collect soil samples to provide to the engineering firm that is putting together the design build of a new wall that will provide flood protection from the hoquiam and chehalis rivers. Major flooding issues as I'm sure you all are aware of. But what got me is why they are collecting water from open source for drinking instead of having a well field and withdrawing from an aquifer. Cost? Water rights? They withdraw water from the wynoochee at the spill way too, correct?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/10/23 07:46 AM

Probably the first reason is pumping costs. Gravity is cheaper. Treatment of surface water to human health standards is probably more expensive that treating groundwater. They may also have not found groundwater in sufficient quantity.

They might be able to do what was done on the Elwha where they created what were called infiltration galleries next to the river. I think in the floodplain. I believe it was pumped from the galleries but it already had some filtering of the sediment at least.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/19/23 05:31 AM

I got one for you guys. For about a two weeks several substantial schools of fish ( think bait ball ) have been hanging out around and below Higgins island. Some balls 50 to 60 feet in diameter but others cover as much as an acre as far as I can tell. They are in shallow water and seem to just stay in one spot for some time before moving with the tide as water deepens. Not hard to see them as the water has that boiling look on steroids! No idea what they are but the Kingfishers are beside themselves with joy pigging out!


MS thought that there are a couple of possibilities, maybe peamouth or redside shiners. Both can tolerate brackish waters and typically spawn in May through July and will gather in schools before moving the spawning areas, graveling river edges. I wouldn’t think they’d be spawning down there though; they prefer freshwater. May be amassing before heading to spawning areas. If the fish are 6 to 10 inches, probably peamouth, if they are 3 to 6 inches, maybe redside shiner. Those are some pretty larger groupings of fish. You should try to catch one and take a picture. My first thought was shad, but than you mentioned the kingfishers, most shad are a little larger for those guys.

With my boat in the shop no way to catch them but judging by what I could see in the Kingfishers mouth they are not all that large. The bird gets airbourne easily enough.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/19/23 09:13 AM

6/19/2023

Originally Posted By: eswan
I drilled all of the Geotechnical holes all the way around hoquiam and into aberdeen last summer. The purpose of our portion was to collect soil samples to provide to the engineering firm that is putting together the design build of a new wall that will provide flood protection from the hoquiam and chehalis rivers. Major flooding issues as I'm sure you all are aware of. But what got me is why they are collecting water from open source for drinking instead of having a well field and withdrawing from an aquifer. Cost? Water rights? They withdraw water from the wynoochee at the spill way too, correct?


There is not a "withdraw water", at the dam.....Maybe you are thinking about the "water intake", which has been taking water from the Wynoochee River, and is controlled by the City of Aberdeen. I'm not sure who currently uses this.....so many major companies are "shut down or long gone"
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/19/23 09:41 AM

The industrial pipeline used to be a solid pipe above and below ground from the noch intake to Hoquiam and y's to cross the Chehalis to Cosmopolis. The wooden section across Aberdeeen Lake was removed and it flows into the lake and water is then pumped from the lake near the hatchery. I am not sure that water coming from the lake is suiteable for humans and in the summer fish have problems with it.

Years back prior to the dam the Daily World had pictures of Wynoochee being nearly dry below the intake in dry years and a bit down stream the ground water brought back some flows. The dam releases insure that will not happen anymore but if used to full water rights the flows below the industrial intake would not look like what exist now.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/23 06:11 AM

As summer comes on some of us are watching the river conditions and right now they are on a rather poor track. Record low flows for this point in a year at Porter is somewhere around 400 cfs and average for years is about 810 cfs. We had a bump with the rain that came through but the Chehalis at Porter is pojected to be at 572 cfs by July 1st and the lower tribs are performmming in a similiar manner. That is the good news as the Chehalis at Doty is at record lows now as is Chehalis at Gand Mound. The water quality has been fine in tide water and nothing much out of the ordinary except for the schools of rather small fish I posted about earlier.

Looking forward I imagine we will hear a lot about flows but frankly for adults returning it is a normal thing for the Chehalis Basin. For the juvenile rearing areas not so much. Unless something dramatic happens they are going to get hammered with the low flows, high water temperatures, and low DO.

So our late spring and summer so far has rather nice for us land lubbers and not so much for the fish. Long range forecast ( taken with some optimism ) is July cooler than normal first to weeks and warmer than normal last two weeks. August little wet cooler than normal and Sept mostly dry / warmer than normal with some cool spells.

So summer for us OK but for the rearing areas not so much.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/23 07:50 AM

Ahh, but again today, mucho snow at Paradise !

Wet and cold she be in the mountains.

Have a great Solstice.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/23 10:56 AM

The Chehalis watershed is, I believe, primarily a rain-driven system. They'll dry out a whole lot sooner. The snow-melt driven systems will maintain higher flows until the snow is gone. The glacially fed streams will flow higher until the ice is gone.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/21/23 05:21 PM

Rivers like the Puyallup will actually clear up if we get a day or two of lower temps, with or without rain. I had one day in August a few years ago when we had a few cold days and I was able to go out and catch a few that could see the bait and bit. Most of the times I avoid it as visibility is down to less than an inch.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/23 05:09 AM


The north Sound rivers (snow melt fed) are not faring much better than the Chehalis. While not at 2015 lows the current conditions are concerning. This morning flows on the Sauk at Sauk was 2800 cfs (36% of the historic mean - 7,760).

Things are sitting up for both salmon fry straying and steelhead redd dewatering. All ready seeing fry trapped in dewatered channels. Steelhead peak fry emergences still more than a month away and the river is currently 3.5 feet lower than when the peak spawning occurred.

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/23 07:15 AM

That doesn't bode well.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/23 09:15 PM

Thank goodness the SE Alaska troll fishery is back on, so all those salmon can get humanely harvested before they have to return to to our low, warm rivers....
Posted by: OLD FB

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/22/23 09:36 PM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Thank goodness the SE Alaska troll fishery is back on, so all those salmon can get humanely harvested before they have to return to to our low, warm rivers....
Great news tonight!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 06/28/23 06:44 AM

Well the 90 day forecast is out and it is for above average temperatures July through September and very little rain. The hot then cool cycle we have been in appears to be going away and just the usual hovering below or above average thing. Flows are staying with the same pattern with the Chehalis at Doty near record low flows.

Some folks have been out and about fishing lately. With the closure of night sturgeon fishing things really have not been the same. In the last 20 years the number of fishers I see have drastically declined. Sign of the times I guess but I always enjoyed night sturgeon fishing and until the last few years there was always lights up and down the river with the ocasional period of shouting and hollering. This was ocassionaly followed by a boat kicking free of its anchor and spot lights flying around trying to stay out of the snags and brush.

Things change I guess but not for the better on the Chehalis are my thoughts.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/01/23 07:40 AM

Even though this is Willapa I find this interesting. If you are at Friends Landing on the Chehalis near Montesano and look at the ridge directly across the river at the top of the bluff it is the edge of the North River drainage. Just down the ridge is Little North River which when I was young was one of the best cut fishing spots on the coast but not now. In fact North River was famous for Searun Cutthroat and folks traveled there to fish for them. It was so popular that several companies and individuals had house boats moored up river in tidewater.

For whatever the reason that fishery and the fish are greatly diminished so from my persepctive this is a good thing long overdue.

June 29, 2023
Contact: Nick Vanbuskirk, Montesano (Region 6), 360-490-9372
Media contact: Mark Yuasa, 360-902-2262

WDFW asks anglers to release "stitched" sea-run cutthroat trout in Willapa Bay waters

OLYMPIA – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) biologists are asking anglers to release all sea-run cutthroat trout with a suture on the belly in rivers and marine waters of Willapa Bay now through spring of 2024.

WDFW is conducting a study to better understand the pattern of movements as sea-run cutthroat trout in Willapa Bay transition from freshwater to marine water.

Each fish has an acoustic tag inserted in their belly. Anglers are asked to look for stitches on the belly to determine if the fish has a tracking tag and release it immediately. Around 200 adult sea-run cutthroat trout will be captured and tagged in Washington and British Columbia now through spring of 2024.

Studies in areas like Hood Canal suggest migration patterns are restricted to their natal fjord. Other locations such as southern Puget Sound and the Columbia River revealed more distant migration. These conflicting results and an absence of information for the Washington coast are important for management of this native salmonid.

"The study this summer aims to identify inter-habitat (freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore) movements, and the role temperature, salinity, tide, and barriers (dams and culverts) play in determining movement patterns," said Nick Vanbuskirk, a WDFW fish biologist. "Regional biologists will also be exploring fine scale movement of fish in the nearshore marine environments with a focus on improving fishing opportunity."

Anglers who catch and release a tagged sea-run cutthroat trout, should call WDFW at 360-490-9372. For fishing regulations in various Willapa Bay rivers, go to the WDFW webpage.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/01/23 02:45 PM

Those acoustic tags are neat. In the 70s I did research on Cutties in a couple small OP streams. We had one smolts out of a Discovery Bay creek and the overwinter in a Sequim Bay creek.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/19/23 12:54 PM


Considering Grays harbor and the Chehalis Basin have fallen victum to every fruit loop bio's idea that has left the twin harbors ( Willapa also ) hatchery system in shambles I thought this was relevant.


Washington needs to OK co-managing fish hatcheries with tribes

Lisa Wilson Vice Chair

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission needs to adopt an agreed-upon Co-Manager Hatchery Policy with the state’s tribes and not be influenced by outside groups trying to derail it.

After nearly 15 years of the state taking unilateral actions on salmon hatchery policy, state and tribal experts developed this proposed policy together, reaffirming our commitment to co-manage our shared resources.

The state Commission supported this two-year effort and should not be influenced now by antihatchery groups. One such group is on record saying the only hatcheries they support are “closed hatcheries.”

These views are scientifically unbalanced and ignore more significant issues that salmon face. They also conflict directly with treaty rights and tribal sovereignty. The state’s economy and population have grown at the expense of tribal communities and salmon.

We now must rely on hatcheries to prevent salmon extinction, preserve fishing opportunities for non-tribal citizens, and exercise the treaty rights that maintain our cultural identity. Hatcheries also are critical to the ecosystem.

Orcas and the multitude of other marine, aquatic and terrestrial species that rely on salmon as part of their diets do not distinguish between hatchery and natural-origin fish. Yet increasingly we see hatchery fish wrongly implicated in the decline of naturalorigin salmon and steelhead populations. A poor understanding of fisheries science and hatchery management proliferates these misconceptions.

The modern management of hatchery programs is supported by geneticists, veterinarians and statisticians. Fisheries biologists closely monitor salmon and steelhead populations, and the staggering volume of data they collect guides decisions on how to integrate hatcheries with other facets of natural resources management.

Hatcheries are an integral part of salmon recovery. They mitigate the historic and ongoing loss and degradation of salmon habitat caused by non-tribal entities and exacerbated by climate change. These are the primary causes of the decline of salmon. Meanwhile, hatcheries provide the vast majority of salmon that return to our region.

Those hatchery fish are treaty fish. We were promised in our treaties that we would always have salmon to harvest, and treaties are “Supreme Law of the Land,” according to the U.S. Constitution. Tribal members depend on salmon for ceremonial, subsistence, spiritual and commercial purposes.

Protecting salmon fisheries is paramount to ensuring treaty-reserved harvest in perpetuity, and the preservation of our heritage. We are salmon people and salmon are sacred to us. They are at the heart of our way of life.

While it is decades overdue, completing this first joint Co-Manager Hatchery Policy will be a strong signal that the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission affirms its legal obligations to co-manage the shared resource, as established in the 1974 Boldt decision and the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan that followed. It is a step forward in salmon recovery using the best available science.

True co-management requires us to work in lockstep on all technical, policy and legal fronts to effectively manage and conserve salmon in perpetuity for all.

Lisa Wilson is a member of Lummi Indian Business Council and vice chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/19/23 01:29 PM

then buck up some cash to help pay to raise the salmon
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/23 08:31 AM

The treaty tribes don't financially support the state's WDFW hatchery system. Therefore they shouldn't enjoy co-management status of the system. Treaty tribes have the same right to provide input to WDFW regarding hatchery management as every other stakeholder and interested party, and that is as it should be. Allowing treaty tribes to co-manage a state-owned and state funded public resource is an example to allowing the tail to wag the dog, meaning treaty tribes, which number less than 2% of the state's populations, would have 50% of the influence on hatchery management.

While federal treaties reserve the right to harvest up to 50% of the allowable harvest of salmon, there is no legal nor logical extension of that right to manage hatcheries that contribute to providing fish to harvest. Ms. Wilson's editorial makes some allegations as fact that reflect her biased interpretation of the facts and are not equally shared as such by everyone. That is something the WDFW Commission needs to consider before adopting the NWIFC recommendation. And in my opinion, the Commission should not adopt the co-manager hatchery policy.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/20/23 09:35 AM

Although my memory is likely faulty I remember that the original Boldt Decision reserved responsibility for conservation to the State. The Tribes could manage their fisheries but within on conservation standard. Bill Wilkerson gave away that conservation responsibility and allowed it to be shared. How's that working out?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/23 12:46 PM

The Port has this work coming to FL. Should be nice improvements.

Friends Landing Boat Launch $117,500

The Port of Grays Harbor will use this grant to design, engineer and permit the redevelopment of the boat launch at Friends Landing, just outside of Montesano. The port’s plans call for construction of a concrete boarding ramp in the existing boat launch parking area and paving of the existing parking area for boat trailer parking.Friends Landing was developed as the first of its kind, universally accessible, outdoor recreation facility in the early 1990s. It is used as a boat launch for recreational boating and fishing in the Chehalis River.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/23 01:07 PM

I find this more than a little interesting and good read.

PAT NEAL: The new fishing regulations
By Pat Neal
Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:30am

OPINION:


IT WAS ANOTHER tough week in the news. The good news is the 2023 Washington State Sport Fishing rules came out. The bad news is the 2023 Washington State Sport Fishing rules came out.

I have spent years studying our fishing regulations in an attempt to translate them into English. To understand our fishing laws, it might be helpful to understand how they are made in the first place.

The fisheries resource is divided between competing groups of tribal, commercial and sport fisheries who can only agree on one thing: banning the other guy’s gear.

This is done with a cabal of bought-and-paid-for biologists and the plundering rhetoric of greed-bloated lobbyists who stack the deck for a self-serving staff of anonymous career opportunists, who don’t fish themselves.

The end result is an erosion of our fishing opportunities.

For example, on page 2 of this year’s regulations, there is an update that says that fish requiring a punch card and all shellfish now require a license to be harvested on Free Fishing Weekend, June 8-9 in 2024.

These species could previously be harvested without a license on Free Fishing Weekend.

In other words, the Free Fishing Weekend is no longer free.

What if you are fishing for cutthroat on the Free Fishing Weekend, a species that does not require a punch card, and accidentally hook a steelhead, a species that does require a punch card? Are you in legal jeopardy?

It might be a good idea to consult an attorney before you risk fishing.

You may need a legal opinion to decipher the fine print in our fishing regulations.

Did you know that from Sept. 4 to Oct. 17, the Quileute River is closed on Mondays and Tuesdays, and also closed Sept. 27, Oct. 4 and 11? Did you know that the Hoh River, a stream only 50 miles long, is divided into eight different zones, each with its own seasons, gear restrictions and catch limits? None of these zones are on a map. There are few signs that would indicate what zone you are in.

If you cannot afford an attorney, you probably can’t afford to go fishing. Fishing, as a recreational activity, has been compared to throwing your wallet in the water.

It gets even more expensive when you are ticketed for breaking a law you did not know existed.

For example, Washington’s green crab regulations are insane.

We are not allowed to possess this invasive species. Green crabs are trouble. They can dig down 6 inches and eat 40 half-inch clams a day.

While they can’t crack open a mature oyster, green crabs can kill the small ones while digging up the eelgrass beds that are critical habitat for our seafood — from salmon to Dungeness Crab.

In January 2022, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee declared war on the green crab.

The state Legislature forked over almost $9 million to fund a committee to study the problem.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife admitted it was “counterintuitive” to not allow people to collect, remove and eat green crab on their own.

They insisted people in Washington are too ignorant to tell the difference between a green crab and a Dungeness crab.

Oregonians are a whole lot smarter than Washingtonians.

In Oregon, it is illegal to return green crab to Oregon waters.

They let you keep 35 a day.

Oregon suggests cooking green crab.

It appears that the goal of Washington’s fishing regulations is to limit fishing opportunities, while funneling money into bureaucracies for gratuitous studies and boondoggle projects that do nothing to protect and preserve our angling heritage.

_________

Pat Neal is a Hoh River fishing and rafting guide and “wilderness gossip columnist” whose column appears here every Wednesday.

He can be reached at 360-683-9867 or by email via patnealproductions@gmail.com.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/21/23 06:15 PM

There was a time when Washington's fishing regulations were purposefully complex in order to maximize opportunity following ESA listing. The simplest reg is "closed" if a threatened or endangered species is present. I do agree that what seems to be going on with "management" now is to drive anglers out of state or out of country.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/24/23 05:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


In January 2022, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee declared war on the green crab.

The state Legislature forked over almost $9 million to fund a committee to study the problem.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife admitted it was “counterintuitive” to not allow people to collect, remove and eat green crab on their own.

They insisted people in Washington are too ignorant to tell the difference between a green crab and a Dungeness crab.

Oregonians are a whole lot smarter than Washingtonians.

In Oregon, it is illegal to return green crab to Oregon waters.

They let you keep 35 a day.

Oregon suggests cooking green crab.

WAIT... I thought the average Orygoogan wasn't smart enough to pump their own gas? SO confused....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/24/23 08:24 PM

Most Washingtonians think you should use Kwell to kill Green Crabs.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/25/23 08:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Well the 90 day forecast is out and it is for above average temperatures July through September and very little rain. The hot then cool cycle we have been in appears to be going away and just the usual hovering below or above average thing. Flows are staying with the same pattern with the Chehalis at Doty near record low flows.

Some folks have been out and about fishing lately. With the closure of night sturgeon fishing things really have not been the same. In the last 20 years the number of fishers I see have drastically declined. Sign of the times I guess but I always enjoyed night sturgeon fishing and until the last few years there was always lights up and down the river with the ocasional period of shouting and hollering. This was ocassionaly followed by a boat kicking free of its anchor and spot lights flying around trying to stay out of the snags and brush.

Things change I guess but not for the better on the Chehalis are my thoughts.


Rivers bumped a little from yesterdays weather. I can't remember when the last time that happened this time of year. Might get some fish moving early?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/26/23 07:18 AM

Timing was off is my guess. Springers are up out of tide water into staging areas and to early for fall Chinook. Another three weeks down the road I think you might have something. It had to help in the rearing areas though but low summer flows are the norm for the Chehalis Basin. The Satsop bounce was a good one but the upper Chehalis not so much and at Porter the river is forecast to break the record low flows by August 4th. Nice summer for us but not so much for fish.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/26/23 08:27 PM

Gonna be a bad summer for juveniles for sure.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/28/23 07:11 AM

I took a look and the October forecast is changing. September is just 7 days with showers / rain and not much to the rain thing. October looks for 14 days of showers / rain and maybe several actual rain events. Nightime temps above average but several hot spells but mostly around average highs.

From my seat in the bleachers long range forecast day to day are mostly guesses but I do pay atention to patterns. October looks to be where this warm dry summer turns to a wetter period. It would be nice if that happens!
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 07/30/23 05:10 PM

I was screaming it from the roof tops about our low flows during my last week of steelhead surveys, rivers have gone nowhere but down since then.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/23 08:50 AM

A couple of folks asked if we have any fishing going on in the Chehalis and yes as Sturgeon fishers have been out. Bit spotty I was told but if you’re in the right spot at the right time it has been interesting. I watched one guy duel it out for about a half hour before it got loose. Judging by the splashing I observed it certainly was not a keeper for sure.

Searun not much around here. When they joined the two agencies the new WDFW dumped all the Searun programs that old game had developed so it is a limited thing now. Some of the guys still fish for them and do all right but it is specific locations. Being of somewhat sound mind the locations they fish are best left being somewhere in the basin!

As to flows most tribs and mainstem are at or near record lows. Keeping in mind that the Chehalis is rain driven not snow it is ugly but not unusual in the historic sense. 50cfs in the mainstem of the Chehalis or tribs is nothing to the big picture. Now water temperatures and DO is another thing all together. The stress on the fish is substantial and will not get better any time soon. It will more than likely raise hell with the early part of the fall Chinook but it just depends on what the fish do. In the very dry early 90s the males came a little late but the female Chinook did not leave the bay until November. It is the wait and see thing.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/23 10:54 AM

Pre-merger WDW had 14 bios who specifically worked steelhead and SRCT. Post merger it was 0. If it's not a salmon it's not **it.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/23 11:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Pre-merger WDW had 14 bios who specifically worked steelhead and SRCT. Post merger it was 0. If it's not a salmon it's not **it.


Well, once they convinced the state and local governments that the Steelhead would be named the Wa State “Fish”, the study, protection and management of said fish was complete, and further dept support was no longer an issue...
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/23 02:33 PM

Remember that when steelhead were important they were managed by a separate agency. Merger screwed them over.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/23 02:54 PM

there not important anymore cause the only ones making money off them are the tribes..and im sure the sate isn't getting any of it!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/23 04:23 PM

I doubt the Tribes are making much off of steelhead. They just get in the way of salmon fisheries, here and in BC.

Probably the only place where we could have a decent steelhead fishery any more is on a stream with no Spring Chinook, a rather late Fall Chinook, and stock summers that can be 100% removed from natural spawning. Say, the Deschutes if it doesn't get too warm in summer.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/07/23 08:19 PM

On 1/29/13 Doc started this thread and I have tried to keep it all things fish in the Chehalis. A friend suggested I cut and paste my first comments so we can all ponder how much has changed and how much has not. I was told years ago that the agency resist changes by waiting for you to give up or die. Well my brother is gone but I damn well am not and some of the team ( sometimes referred to as the old gezzer group ) that has worked together off are still here. I think we still have one more good fight in us and when the GH Policy comes up renewal we will not be backing down.

My first post:

The credit for the website videos goes to Tim the site administrator. ( who recently passed away ) I am the gopher / teacher / traffic cop here as I lack the skills to do the videos. Good match really as I have 30 years around fish and the agency and some of the team have even more. The thing about it is this. I am in this for one reason, to break the continuing institutionalized discrimination of WDF&W toward the inland communities and inriver sports fisher. Hopefully in the process help the fish.

Agree or disagree to our views but I think we all can agree on this, the destruction of the resource for the benefit of 22 gillnetters and denying the tax paying citizens of the inland Chehalis Basin communities reasonable access to salmon harvest must end. The failure to allow additional fish to reach spawning areas to utilize revitalized, under seeded, restored habitat must end. The destruction of one species to harvest another must end. Simply put " the Big Lie " that WDF&W manages for anything but commercial harvest must end. It is " game on ".
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/08/23 07:51 AM

Hadn't heard about Tim; sorry to hear of his passing. He was fun to work with. I remember in '81, when I was first in WDF, that I was wanting to see a pink fishery in the Dungeness. The mindset was you fish salmon in saltwater and leave them alone in fresh, even if one could easily catch them. Not much has changed.

Guess we'll just have to saddle up and keep tilting at those windmills.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/09/23 08:51 AM

Some of have been talking the weather and in the mix some things came front and center, volanoes! Why is this important one may ask? Well most do not know but Tonga near Indonesia went off underwater in 2022 and it was a biggy or class 5.7.

Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°C of Warming. The underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai sent megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming over the next 5 years.Mar 16, 2023

In 1815 a similiar event happened with a volcano named Tambora but it was a island volcanoe above water class 7 and it resulted in 1816 being called the year without summer. Tambora's ash caused a cooling of the norther latitudes in Europe and North America along with huge disruptons in weather pattern world wide.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/05/26/year-without-a-summer-1816-mount-tambora/84855694/

https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/tonga-volcano-eruption-warmed-planet-oppenheimer

As the link provided Tonga was different as it put an unbelievable amout of water vapor into the upper atmosphere which results in a warming not cooling. As in all things enviro it is difficult to sort through the political climate BS but from what I can cleam out of it in Jan. 2022 Tonga went off and our wether patterns are going to be completely screwed up. So this warm period we are in is likely to last until 2027. Everything I have read said weather patterns in the land mass first ( for the coast and Chehalis warm ) but the effects oceans trail the land.

The opinions are all over the board but Tambora similiar in size cooled with dust. Tonga was similiar in size but underwater and put up water vapor 35 miles up and it will cause a planetary temperature bump. I was hoping for a wetter summer pattern but it looks like warm and dry summers.

This is important for fish because this 4 year window remaining is likely to be just terrible for salmonids. If it effects the Nino's like some say I think a friend of mine from the 70's enviro movement captures it with "salmon have a sh-- storm coming".

Little history: https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth...ecorded-history
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/09/23 10:22 AM

I'll have to look that up. Have a friend that thinks a lot of our recent more or less local issues in the ocean are due to the volcanic vents along the coast.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/09/23 12:04 PM

Sorry to hear of Tim's passing (may he rest in peace). We lost one of the few, remaining advocates for salmon there, and he being your brother, well, Sir, I can only express my deepest condolences.

Thanks again for all you and your late brother have done for the cause. I know I'm not alone in expressing my fondest gratitude....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/09/23 01:26 PM

I would like to add about Tim that he was the first person I have worked with who truly put the fish first. He wasn't there to catch more fish, he was there to have more fish. On the Grounds. It was a pleasure trying to help him out with that.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/10/23 08:16 AM

Many did not understand Tim but I think you guys captured it. Many did not understand him most certainly in the Willapa processes but it really is simple to grasp what pushed him down the road. You see he was one of the pesky idealist who really believed if it was said fish come first that is what happens. Well now in Willapa the fish come first seldom if ever comes to pass but he never gave up! That is the problem with idealist they just do not ever give up and to the very end he would not except the duplicity of WDFW. Yes you can say he wore the moniker "pesky idealist" with pride!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/10/23 09:56 AM

One thing that struck me while in management of fish is that you really can't call yourself a manager until you are willing to work against the fishery you prefer. Tim pushed for that.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/23 09:19 AM

As summer goes on it is good to see some of the guys getting boats out of storage and swing by on the river, good to see you guys! Otherwise the flow thing is stable be it really low flows across the board tribs and all.

Now for something different. All spring and into summer it was different with birds otters everything just not being around like they normally are. In the last 10 days or so that has changed dramatically. Herons, crows, geese, flocks of small birds, otters, seals even a seal lion or two have been all around the island at the house. No idea why all were mostly missing for several months but something sure changed! The river is a bird watchers paradise in the mornings to say the least. Otters and the dog have been at about every day over just who owns the dock! In fact I have darn near walk right up to them to get them to move and then they pop out of the water chattering away at me and as soon as I go back up the ramp they are back on the dock and it is dog vs otter all over again. Also I have seen summerun jumping which is unusual also.

Whatever is going on the birds and critters are loving the river right now and that is rather nice after the miserable spring and early summer!

Almost forgot the above average temperatures are supposed to continue through September and into the first part of October. Not much rain in the forecast but forecast are always a crap shoot. We will have to see how the fish and rain timing works out but if anything like the last three years who knows.

Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/23 12:47 PM

This summer has brought a few surprise rains. Hope it's got more in store, because if not, my not-so-brave prediction is closed tributaries on opening day, with openings occurring only after the majority of the fish are safely above harvest areas... you know... like last year.

As always, I'm hoping I'm wrong, because if I am, I'll be able to go fishing, which shuts my trap and makes me a much more pleasant person to be around in general. I was kind of a jerk to some undeserving people after we got shut down last year. I don't like being that person, but I guess I might as well admit that not being able to fish makes me a jerk. I'm preparing myself for the worst, in hopes I'll handle the news (if and when it comes) more gracefully this year....
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/13/23 02:20 PM

One of the best posts here -

Well put and two thumbs up to the FleaFlicker’s last one !
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 03:33 AM

Oh FF I would not beat yourself up that much. The shut down last year was the most poorly managed thing I have seen in R-6 in many years. We had a huge staging of Coho & Chinook in tidewater that took place over 10 days then just in mass moved upstream just prior to the QIN starting to fish. I was given a video of the Coho moving up the East Fork Satsop like a parade that I provided to staff and fishers. The shut down was about Chinook supposedly stopped / stuck and some folks targeting them for C&R. The Chinook were not stuck due to flows but simply moving and stopping moving and stopping like they always do.

Now it is true that this created a greater inriver C&R oportunity than normal but that is acceptable under the rules. The states share of Chehalis Chinook in 2022 was 2313 and total NT impacts were modeled at 616. Now that the fish moving in mass presented well above normal oportunity and was a draw for many anglers is true. All that said using the models mortalities for C&R for all NT Rec fisheries combined would have to encounter and release nearly every Chinook that returned to the Chehalis basin to exceed the states share of Chehalis Chinook with C&R mortalities! That cannot happen period put a fork in it!

Last years shut down was about the complete lack of understanding by WDFW R-6 of how salmon move in the early fall and freshwater Rec fisheries. Then this the bias in WDFW toward freshwater fisheries is always present. AK & BC take nearly half of returning Gray Harbor Chinook in any given year, the QIN tribal harvest impacts vastly exceeds NT impacts Rec & Commercial combined, and R-6 is concerned about conservation? The Rec freshwater fisher that is the villian?

FF you should not beat yourself up as inriver fishers had every right in the world to come unglued! They got screwed over by the continueing bias in WDFW toward freshwater fishers. That simple that ugly!
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 08:19 AM

The first sentence of the third paragraph says it all rvrguy. So what happened with the understanding of how fish move in years past. Whole group of brand new workers or what? Shouldn't that information be known from day one?
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 08:35 AM

The days of this ditch are over.

Soon to be a destination bass fishery.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 09:31 AM

Yes / No I broodstocked Chinook for over 20 years and they have patterns but when where how is a moving target. 2020 2021 it was rain that pulled fish up early but last year the darn critters just did on thier own in a manner seldom seen! In the dry early 90s Chinook males came in normal timed but not females. When the Chum moved with time not water here came the females all at once with the Chum. For instance for years in tidewater Coho stoped at the pump house down to the Landing red fish all over everyone waited for incoming tide for FRESH fish or biters they were called. Then the location moved upstream to South Elma down to below the Satsop not staging mind pausing before going upstream to stage as the vast majority of Chehalis Coho stay below Porter staged up until it rains .

So it is always the same but different but if you know the fish and are on the river fishing you catch on to what the pattern is in any given year. That is how you know where to fish for heavens sake. One does not set and fish where a few are you go to where the fish are and now adays it can will be crowded!

Once salmon stage up waiting for rain they do not bite all that well if at all. When doing the move stop bit sure they bite but that is why you drift a stream or power boat around to find the fish. One thing the fish are not is trapped or stuck in the river no matter what the flows. What they are if you know where they are stopping headed up stream is catchable. Finding them is called fishing but how dare the fish provide real oportunity to inriver fishers!

In days back the managers had to know the fish and not on paper but what the river said. Now we manage with laptop computers and data. Like I said I am old but anyone should understand the real difference between the two. Also enforcement really does not care for inriver fishers. Lots of people with many lacking a real understanding of fishing etiquette, the rules, noisy, and the vast majority detest WDFW. None of that leads to a good outcome.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 09:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Oh FF I would not beat yourself up that much. The shut down last year was the most poorly managed thing I have seen in R-6 in many years. We had a huge staging of Coho & Chinook in tidewater that took place over 10 days then just in mass moved upstream just prior to the QIN starting to fish. I was given a video of the Coho moving up the East Fork Satsop like a parade that I provided to staff and fishers. The shut down was about Chinook supposedly stopped / stuck and some folks targeting them for C&R. The Chinook were not stuck due to flows but simply moving and stopping moving and stopping like they always do.

Now it is true that this created a greater inriver C&R oportunity than normal but that is acceptable under the rules. The states share of Chehalis Chinook in 2022 was 2313 and total NT impacts were modeled at 616. Now that the fish moving in mass presented well above normal oportunity and was a draw for many anglers is true. All that said using the models mortalities for C&R for all NT Rec fisheries combined would have to encounter and release nearly every Chinook that returned to the Chehalis basin to exceed the states share of Chehalis Chinook with C&R mortalities! That cannot happen period put a fork in it!

Last years shut down was about the complete lack of understanding by WDFW R-6 of how salmon move in the early fall and freshwater Rec fisheries. Then this the bias in WDFW toward freshwater fisheries is always present. AK & BC take nearly half of returning Gray Harbor Chinook in any given year, the QIN tribal harvest impacts vastly exceeds NT impacts Rec & Commercial combined, and R-6 is concerned about conservation? The Rec freshwater fisher that is the villian?

FF you should not beat yourself up as inriver fishers had every right in the world to come unglued! They got screwed over by the continueing bias in WDFW toward freshwater fishers. That simple that ugly!



Of course, I agree with all of that, but I should clarify that I was not disappointed in myself for how I treated the R-6 staff; if anything, I was too kind to them. They're a bunch if lying shills, IMO, but I do my best to treat them with more respect than they deserve, perhaps hoping maybe someday the honey will catch me some flies....

Where I went wrong last year was taking the fight to the folks who were still fishing the bay while we were shut down in the tribs. I was jealous, and it manifested as misdirected anger, even toward folks I consider friends.

I completely understand and agree that last year's closures were inappropriate; maybe even incompetent. My fear, considering recent decisions about most every fishery I used to love, is that wrong-headed or not, shutting down tributaries seems to be WDFW'S favorite treatment for the disease of chronic overharvest in ocean mixed stock and terminal gillnet fisheries. The same folks are still in charge (right?), and I tend to believe people when they show me who they are....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 09:50 AM

The R-6 Harvest Manager is Mr. Lossee and he is new. Mike and Kim have a lot of years in the Chehalis system. Now in Olympia believe me they do not have Ron W's knowledge at all. Uninformed is a kind way to say it as to the concrete palace.

On the QIN side Ed took another position and who is who I do not know but some of the guys have years under the belt. That said the Nation team seldom fumbles the ball on tribal fisheries. It can be said " the Nation plays hardball and WDFW plays T ball!" ( from a retired WDFW employee )

Little edit: I did not directly awnser your question FF. Yes the same group is still in place both Monte & Oly.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 02:27 PM

If i remember right, last year and the year prior we had pretty similar July to end of september weather. You're right about the seldom seen fish phenomenon. A bunch of fish pushed through because the in river crowd wasn't there to intercept them. Those fish would have been harvested, same place same time in years past. Spent many a year on the lower satsop/nooch during low water years.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 03:50 PM

For bay and tidewater general rule is dry year or one spieces restricts commercial tribal or NT harvest which is usually Chinook. Trib weter the better moves them up but then bay and tidewater sucks.

So I always hope for a dry summer until Nov as I live on tidewater which gets me in trouble with old fishing pals inland. What pissed me off about last year and still does is inland fishers pray for a year like last year! It was really the best numbers and conditions anyone could have hoped for most certianly on the tribs / above Fuller Hill. In my mind it was a once in a lifetime Rec oportunity. I haved lived next to a Chehalis stream 65 years out of my 75 and I never seen a fish movement that large condensed into such a short time frame outside of Alaska. The sorry ass low flows crap WDFW paraded out is just that, a load of BS. Out of respect for Bob as it is his site I will refrain from expanding my vocabulary utilizing four letter words shaded dark blue and smoking to truly express my outrage for the injustice done to them, especially you bankies !!!

Just make things clear my home is next to Higgins Island and I DO NOT fish inland and most bay fishers do not either. I will put my time up against anyone in Chinook restoration and conservation. So let us get this straight it was not about low flows, it was not about Chinook conservation, it was about the bias toward freshwater inland fishers in every element of WDFW from harvest managers to enforcement to ground guys doing redds and research. To be honest I will say what I have said for years, it is discrimination toward those who choose to fish from the bank or lack the financial means to purchase a watercraft. If your poor or just cannot afford a boat to fish ocean or bay you do not count to WDFW. If you fish inland you are are unworthy of consideration or respect! This is reality of WDFW management.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 04:46 PM

True that! I was talking with a WDFW fish manager about the plans to restore coho in the Yakima. I noted that a successful recovery could reduce the resident trout population; a population that provides a significant fishery and income to the basin. His response was that they could go to Buoy 10 and fish coho out of a boat.

Look at all the fisheries that WDFW pushes; marine salmon, albacore, halibut, lingcod, walleye, Tiger Musky, kokanee. All rather good fisheries and all require a boat. I go on the website to look for where I can catch some trout species and all I get is lakes.
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 09:24 PM

Well, if the WDFW is so inclined to favor folks angling from boats as the rule, they sure blew that favor to fishers out the door in MA11, along with their rather large fleet of boats.
Posted by: Streamer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 10:00 PM

Originally Posted By: 20 Gage
Well, if the WDFW is so inclined to favor folks angling from boats as the rule, they sure blew that favor to fishers out the door in MA11, along with their rather large fleet of boats.



+1

Area 11 anglers got absolutely fvcked over by WDFW.

Carry on…


Streamer
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/14/23 11:12 PM

Why they want boat fisheries is an obvious when you look at the money spent to participate. I do not currently have an ocean boat, so I thought it might be fun to take my family out on a charter since they have never did it. Well, the price that popped up was $250 a pop. I know someone who owns a hotel down there and they are getting up and over $300 a night a room. Add in gas and food and one day fishing for my family of 5 could run between $1800 and $2000. Just not worth it to me.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/23 07:54 AM

Even in the 80s, and probably before, the economic value of the rec fishery was given high weight. That was one of the reasons for the pushing marine mixed stock fisheries; anglers spent more money to catch a fish. Interestingly, the commercial fisheries tend to run the other way; spend a little as possible to catch the most.

We have known since I was in school (history teacher was Noah) that marine mixed stock fisheries were not the way to go for salmon if conservation was your goal. Maximizing economic return is a different ballgame.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/23 08:54 AM

We are talking GH here and WDFW priorities are marine fisheries to be sure but it is not that simple especially for Chinook. Many cannot understand why there is no Chinook fishery on the Chehalis and it is very simple and complicated at the same time.

So first up in the world of harvest management our Chinook are managed for Grays Harbor Chinook. No entity other than WDFW separates the Chehalis & Humptulips for harvest.

Next the fact that Alaska & BC are modeled to harvest 11,461 GRAYS HARBOR CHINOOK, and SUS (marine coastal) 300. This leaves 12,024 Chehalis Chinook crossing the bar at Westport.

So in 2023 Chehalis Chinook harvest 1693 remained for a NT share of 847. This is where things get a bit strange for folks. The combined Chehalis Chinook NT impacts are modeled at 645 and QIN are 2225. Now as blood pressure rises this, it is GRAYS HARBOR impacts not Chehalis. In the world of harvest the combined Humptulips & Chehalis Grays Harbor impacts look different. 2023 NT GH Chinook impacts are NT 3076 and QIN are 3306.

So when one objects to Chehalis seasons or conservation needs limiting GH Rec opportunity the numbers do not say that in world of fish managers. Combined NT & QIN 2023 terminal fisheries result in 6,471 Grays Harbor Chinook harvested in terminal fisheries with Rec impacts at 2826. Inriver Rec are modeled at 2179 Humptulips Chinook and then we have C&R mortalities for Chehalis. This also limits Coho harvest as the small number of available Chehalis Chinook impacts available restrict Coho harvest or at the least time on the water for Recs.

So as a good friend of mine says “we are so screwed” with the AK & BC thing! Not just the NT fisheries but the QIN are also terminal fishers also.

This is the world of salmon management and I tell folks the words fair or conservation only come into play in a realistic manner in terminal fisheries.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/23 12:21 PM

There is something else going on, I think, with the world of WA fish management. When I started the practice was to bring in entry level folks (Bio 1, Fish Culturist 1) and promote up the chain into leadership positions.

Now, it seems, if you come in at low level there is a ceiling above which you can't rise. The leaders come in from the outside. You lose not only institutional memeory but actual folks who worked in the field, talked to the users, and so on. Bringing in folks from outside is a good way to ensure that they accept what you tell them is gospel.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/23 01:00 PM

I recieved some emails asking why cannot the NT side give some Humptulips impacts to allow for a season on the Chehalis? Well the Grays Harbor Policy calls for the two to be seperated. When the GHMP was developed the Commission went with what was and never really looked at why/what went with that seperation done by former Region 6 managers.

Next up is I do not know but say the state side gave up 1000 Chinook on the Humptulips could that allow for NT seasons on the Chehalis side? Not sure but it would be a math thing. For 2023 644 is the Chehalis C&R mortality charge so the 847 share minus 89 Chehalis tribal impacts is 758 add a 1000 gives 1758. I am not sure / yes. Depending on opening times and locations mathematically I think it could be done. It would require some timing restrictions on Wynoochee and Satsop but that number could work. Keeping in mind the bay fishery and Chinook tail at Aberdeen in week 43 or 3rd week of Oct. The prime weeks are Sept and adding and subtracting NT commercial days in the model to see a run timing based on history weeks 37 38 39 are the prime weeks or 10th through 27th of Sept.

So by managing the fishery to say Oct. 1 or 7 opening for Chinook or say Oct 7 to 31 you might fit it in. No matter what the Humptulips harvest reduction of a 1000 in the GH total to allow a Chehalis / Grays Harbor 1785 ( this years numbers ) impact can be managed. It would take some thought but is doable.

The key here is Grays Harbor Chinook as courts, feds, tribes do not split Chehalis Hump as WDFW does. Frankly the whole situation is a bit anal to me.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/23 01:32 PM

maybe they could shut the ocean down a year or two out westport so the in river fishers can have a king season..
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/23 02:11 PM

Quote:
Next the fact that Alaska & BC are modeled to harvest 11,461 GRAYS HARBOR CHINOOK, and SUS (marine coastal) 300.


The 300 number is the modeled impacts 2023 coastal marine fisheries all including Westport. Not much to gain there.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/23 05:39 PM

I suspect that it is something that is easily calculated but like Rivrguy says the courts and tribes would need to agree. I suspect that one reason for not acting is precendent. If that trade were made it "might" be seen as recognizing separate stocks.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/23 06:01 PM

I was told that it was WDFW harvest manager Tim Flint and Tony Floor in Olympia wanting a bay fishery that unilaterally did the seperation. Also a lot of Rec boat bay fishing advocates also were in the mix.This is from memory and I stayed away from harvest issues then. It is hard to argue conservation as I did back then and harvest at the same time! If anyone has a clearer memory take a shot at it but that is the best have.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/15/23 07:03 PM

I can see Tim and Tony going for a boat fishery in the Bay. My first boss when I started working in fish (Jim Johnston) told me that I would have to decide if I worked for the fish or the fisherman. I chose the carrier lit of working for the fish and them made the even greater error of working for the ecosystem. Any agency needs both, but it must listen to both.
Posted by: Mr.Twister

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/16/23 11:07 AM

I have a good friend who is a lobbyist for a large sportfishing organization. We were fishing the Columbia last week and naturally there was a discussion as to why NT commercial mostly takes precedence over the sport allocation. We all know it has to do with who has the most political power. Time after time we all bitch and moan but the fact that sportfishers aren't organized politically has kept adding nails to our collective coffin. Everything from Alaskan overharvest to WDFW not supporting the gillnet buyback program on the mainstem Columbia, to the political cowards running the show trembling every time the tribes speak, we shouldn't expect any different results since most folks just want to complain but not join an organization that can fight back. Even if you don't agree with PSA or CCA, there at least is political power in having bigger numbers to oppose commercial overharvest. There was a WDFW meeting recently on Willipa Bay management that was likely to affect sportfishers. A grand total of three hundred people sent in protest emails. That doesn't move the f ing needle at all.
Posted by: eddie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/16/23 01:59 PM

Political power, yes but maybe different than you think. In our Constitution, it states that treaties are the supreme law of the land. The old unintended consequences bites us in the butt again!
Posted by: Mr.Twister

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/16/23 02:47 PM

True that. I sat in on a hearing last session regarding a bill to enforce the gill net buy back and ensure nets stay out of the main stem Columbia. The bill was very specific in that it made sure it did not affect tribal fisheries. The tribes still opposed it on the "slippery slope" theory and the yellow politicians tucked tail and ran. My lobbyist friend said another big issue in the legislature is that its hard to find anyone who cares about sportfishing. Between them expressing their collective guilt over historical native oppression, and the viewpoint that commercial fishing is the only way to feed the masses, us sporties are pretty much doomed.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/21/23 04:02 AM

I have had several inquiries about river conditions and as always fish. Well the river is warm to say the least. The warmest I have seen was 74.4 degrees above the Muck and it seems to like to hang out around 72 at my dock. With the summer flows it is not unusual for warm water and it appears we have a warm bubble running back and forth with the tides.

I have seen some fish showing but they are pure chrome which means they are coming right through the bay and up tidewater reaches the river. No mad dash just moving with the tides. This is somewhat different as usually you see a mix bronzed, gun metal silver and chrome fish just depends on how long the have been in fresh water. So judging by what I have seen they are not hanging out in the bay much and absolutely not in tidewater.

The Chinook numbers remaining in the non-treaty (NT) harvest share were around 271 and even with C&R that is not many fish to spare. As a preventive measure to save my computer screen from melting I am fully aware the Alaska and British Columbia will take 12,091of Grays Harbor Chinook. This leaves only 12,024 crossing the bar and 1693 remaining Chehalis Chinook impacts for both tribal and state fisheries. What a joke and this is an unfair conservation standard being placed on terminal fishers both tribal and non-tribal comes to mind. Yup it is but it is the world of fisheries harvest management that exists at the present. Bottom line choose wisely when fishing not for the state managers but for the fish.

Otherwise enjoy the summer and the start of the fall salmon seasons.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/21/23 09:27 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi

Last couple of days of the month is showing some rain coming but not that much. The strange thing is that the river forecast is looking at bounce up in flows greater than you normaly see with the small amount of rain forecast. Have to wait and see but any rain now is helpful !
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/23 12:14 PM

This is something the Port of Grays Harbor started with net pens years ago. Not our traditional fishery but a lot of folks enjoy it.



Westport Marina boat basin fishery begins
‘The boat basin fishery is the best kept secret in Washington state’

The Daily World

This week marks the start of the Westport Marina Boat Basin Recreational Coho Fishery.

This unique, familyfriendly fishing opportunity has a long history in Westport and is a favorite among anglers in the Pacific Northwest, according to a news release. To ensure a safe and fun environment for years to come, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has implemented new rules for the 2023 season.

New rules

&#9632; Anti-snagging rule in effect, except any hook where the weight is molded directly to the hook such as twitching jigs, swim jigs, or casting jigs are not allowed.

&#9632; Only single-point barbless hooks may be used.

&#9632; Daily limit of six salmon; up to four may be adult salmon

&#9632; Release Chinook

&#9632; Night closure rule in effect In addition to the rule change, a patrol emphasis by WDFW enforcement will be in effect to combat illegal snagging and support a safe and fun environment for everyone. Anglers must also follow all WDFW regulations, along with the rules and regulations of the Westport Marina Tariff. Fishing from the banklines, piling or fences is strictly prohibited.

“The Westport Boat Basin Fishery is a unique opportunity compared to the many available fisheries in Washington. In the last few years, WDFW enforcement has been responding to increased snagging complaints and disorderly behavior. As a result, WDFW has responded by enacting the new laws … to ensure this fishery remains familyfriendly and enjoyable for all. We wish all anglers a safe, orderly, and successful trip to the Westport boat basin,” said Captain Dan Chadwick, WDFW Region 6 Enforcement.

For many, the boat basin coho fishery can be a beginning step into recreational fishing. A laidback atmosphere with no boat required, fishermen of all ages, demographics and backgrounds can enjoy the opportunity to catch their limit of salmon from the docks in the Westport Marina. Fishermen’s Boardwalk on Float 20, the Centennial Viewing Tower, and 17 public docks provide all citizens the opportunity to enjoy a working waterfront, with access from dawn to dusk.

“We are thrilled to see the public utilizing the docks for the boat basin fishery,” said Port of Grays Harbor Commission President Tom Quigg. “Public access to the waterfront has been a priority of Port of Grays Harbor Commissioners for decades. Thanks to the excellent work of WDFW and the Westport Police Department this opportunity will be around for years to come.”

Transported by WDFW, and monitored by Ocosta students and staff, the rearing of salmon in the marina has taken place since 1975 when the nets were first placed. This year, WDFW placed an additional net pen and more than 50,000 additional salmon, over and above the 100,000 historically delivered.

These new fish are “Late Coho” which means in 2026, when these salmon mature and return, they should arrive in November and December extending this unique fishery late into the year. In 2023, salmon are expected to return in early September, depending on rainfall, with peak returns over the last week of September through the first week of October.

Westport has long been dubbed the “Salmon Fishing Capital of the World.” Getting to fish for salmon is often challenging. The boat basin offers an easy access salmon fishery that is free and available to all ages.

Ramps allow handicap accessibility and having all services just a few hundred feet from where salmon are swimming by.

“The boat basin fishery is the best kept secret in Washington state. Catching a salmon from the docks and cooking it up for dinner is a special experience for visitors and locals alike. With these new rules in place and an abundance of harvestable fish, we hope to see many more people out on the docks this fall,” said Mike Coverdale of Windermere Real Estate.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/23/23 04:40 PM

Great news but. Secrets out.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/23 08:51 AM

8/24/2023

A couple of us drove out there, in the early years......things haven't changed, only the way individuals seem to fish in situations like the boat basin.

I remember that there were 25-30 people on a dock....not doing anything THEN, someone would yell "here they come", then it was cast, jerk, cast jerk. well you know what I'm talking about......there were no twitching jigs at that time but LOTS of double hooks and green corkies, and heavy weigh to get it down or among the fish but there were spinners, spoons being used....some fish caught legal but many not!!!

Oh my word......that was about 46 years ago....2 times at the boat basin, was enough for me....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/23 10:30 AM

The port employee who managed the marina years back used to growl about the foul hook thing, drove him nuts. Before we lost Steve as our harvest manager at a policy meeting he once remarked it is a put and take fishery why get excited! Two sides to every coin.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/23 12:09 PM

Way back, almost before Rivrguy, WDF had a couple of snag fisheries for hatchery coho. Expressly in the regs in limited sections of the river near the hatchery. I does make sense if you have met egg take and would rather have somebody take them home rather than go to carcass and egg sales. I have also heard that, at one time, Idaho gave surplus salmon to folks who came to the hatchery.

It may not be "fishing" but when surplus occurs what should they do? More fisheries in the mixed stock areas just aren't in the cards. Excessive surpluses is why WDF went to mass marking.
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/23 12:31 PM

What is confusing, is locations like Hoodsport, where they will surplus in the 10's of thousands, but keep the limit at 4 fish. While not me, there are people who really want the roe. Why not up the limit to 6, like they do the coho in other places.

I remember watching some tribal members netting the Skok back when it was still open for sports fishing. In talking to them they had just filled there fourth tote and were planning on doing at least 2 more that evening. My guess was 400 fish per tote, so around 2400 chum, for that one net. Yet the state had the sports limit at 2 per day. Makes you wonder what the rational is.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/23 01:42 PM

Doubt there is one. On the Kenai they start at 3 for sockeye and then go to six if the run supports it. Only thing I can figure is that WDFW wants to cycle guys through. Get your limit and leave.

Back when I started the steelhead (and all gamefish, actually) limit was 2 fish brought to hand. Release them and you're done. Actually, a kelt counted as one and needed to be punched. Most wardens would let you release it and not punch it but that was the rule. Again, the idea was to cycle guys through.

But I don't see why, in a situation like Hoodsport, the limit is not much much higher.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/23 03:18 PM

Back when the GH Policy was being adopted several times the phrase " rowdy fisheries " and the need to insure they didn't exist was said. Take a large group of people doing anything shouting carrying on is normal. That conduct is not acceptable to many who think of sport fishing as it was 50 years ago. Then what do you want with more than one or two fish as that should be enough for anyone! The idea of smoking and canning fish for the rest of the year simply is not an acceptable thing. You see that is what commercial fisheries provide for you to purchase. The bias toward REC fishers is real.

If I remember was not there a sport/commercial license years back? I do not remember how it worked but maybe somebody else does?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/24/23 03:53 PM

Another thing that is seldom talked about is fishing just to be fishing. In one Chehalis stream a staffer asked a guy what he was fishing for? ( bit off season for everything ) The responded nothing in particular just fishing to be fishing. I think I am paraphrasing a bit but the end result was they changed the regs so folks can not fish that way. You see for WDFW it is about dead fish with an exception. They are more than happy to set a season when most of the fish are not around. Conservation is the justification I was told but then so is C&R and seldom if ever is the REC fisher the cause of the shortage of fish. Outside of nature it is always marine fisheries or terminal commercial fisheries. That is the system and how WDFW views things.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 09:18 AM

One thing that I saw in a lot of fish managers (WDG,WDF,WDFW) is that they manage for what THEY like. One manager said he would never release a steelhead, so why require it of others? Some folks, as noted, want to lay in smoked or canned fish. Others want prime springer. I always believed that your't rally be a manager unless you can argue for and implement a (appropriate) fishery or hunt that you would not participate in. But then I'm weird.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 09:47 AM

So how about this rain? Liking what I'm seeing this morning and in next week's forecast. Hopefully, we'll get enough to move some early Chinook out of the snag zone and to the hatcheries earlier this year, so those of us who just want to "go fishing" can do so come October. I can hope, right?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 11:39 AM

Old rule of thumb is no matter what a Chinook will make Schaffer Park by October 10th, always. Rain will move them out of the Chehalis or above South Elma but not above Porter in any numbers before a major brown out in the latter part of October. Tangle netting for broodstocking it was two or three a night, little rain maybe more. Brown out full blown stampede.

Satsop kinda the same but the water rise early ( or very early ) gets them into the West, Middle, & East Forks but not much farther. To early for them to spawn so they move which puts them above the fishing cut off lines but they have to stage waiting to spawn and that is a time driven thing.

I want to agree with you but a August or early Sepember rain is way different than a early October rain event. Odds are it will only draw them out of the bay into upper tidewater and lower parts of the tribs. They will slowly work their way upstream depending on timing and conditions.

Early rain depending on how much can cause Coho to do early movements way off normal which is why inriver fisheries like early rain and brown outs are best as brings them in and on the drop they slow down and stop.

Then you have a year like last year that is an outlier which frankly falls in the fish will screw you everytime! As the saying goes fish do what fish do not necessarily what we fishers would like them to do.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 11:56 AM

All makes sense. Just trying to be optimistic. I've been fishing these rivers long enough to predict the salmon migration patterns on occasion, but yeah, you never really know when they're gonna be where until they show up. I have observed that in years where we start getting some amount of rain (and the cooler temps that come with it) in late August/early September, there are usually coho staging in the lower tribs by mid-September, but to your point, we have a ways to go (with a hotter than normal forecast and bone low rivers) before we can start thinking that's going to happen.

There's a saying about hoping in one hand and doing something else in the other, but I'm hoping anyway.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 01:17 PM

Always hope and hope and hope. The NOAA river forecast shows a doubling of flows in two days then right back down to where we are now. Keeping in mind that 180 cfs and change at Porter is at record lows the jump to 360 cfs is not huge but it is a real bump. Here is the deal one it is a forecast two day event with higher elevations getting more. Just as important is how fast it comes down as 3/4 inch spread out over 48 hours is way different than drizzle with most of it in four hours. I go with you and hope for a real dumper and most of the 3/4 inch in as narrow window as possible!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 05:17 PM

I'm leaning the other way. I'd like a slow rain that is constantly absorbed in to the ground so that it is softer and ready to absorb more of the heavy rains. I want infiltration rather than runoff.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 05:28 PM

Absolutely in mid Sept butttttt nope not in August with temps above average forecast for Sept. Any soaking will be gone in a few days from this bit of rain. Now mid Sept oh please rain god be merciful and follow CM's advice!!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 05:31 PM

I remember when we started up at Snow Creek we were in the '76-77 drought. Really didn't break until May and then a flood that took out the racks. From May on for a couple of years, we had at least an inch of rain every month. Kinda different now.....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 05:49 PM

Ah the "good old days"!!!!!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/25/23 06:20 PM

In some ways, yes. At least we had lots of fishies.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/27/23 08:29 AM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi

Well the rain event coming has been down graded considerably. Sure hope we get more than the forecast says now, the hope thing again.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/27/23 01:58 PM

On the bright (dark?) side, the extended forecast is showing more chances of rain the following week. I'm thinking fall is coming a little sooner than last year, but yeah, that could just be blind hope....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/27/23 03:35 PM

Trees around here are already losing leaves. That will help transpiration. I still think the longer-range view is for a drier fall. Anything helps.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/28/23 08:17 PM

Has anyone seen the Q's net schedule?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/28/23 08:28 PM

C&P from WDFW provided information. Nothing on QIN website. This is a C&P so I am pretty sure your going have figure it out a some as formating will like fall apart.

Date Week Days
10/1 - 10/7 40 2
10/8 - 10/14 41 4
10/15 10/21 42 4
10/22 10/28 43 3
10/29 11/4 44 0
11/5 - 11/11 45 5
11/12 11/18 46 5
11/19 11/25 47 5
11/26 48-53 5

Edit: The Nation always starts noon Sunday.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/28/23 08:45 PM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi

Weather changing again and they 3/4 inch Thursday. Did I hear hope hope again?


Flows will bounce.

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/rfc/

Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/28/23 09:06 PM

Just stringing you along........
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/29/23 08:51 AM

We get enough rain this early in the season, it's gonna really speed things up quick! Looking like enough in the showers to provide a decent river or stream bump depending on the location.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 08/29/23 01:31 PM

Fishing has gone downhill since Steve Pool retired.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/01/23 06:53 AM

Well it is safe to say that the rain event was a bust! Just enough to turn things into a steam bath around here for thr next couple of days with temps around 80. Nice weather for the weekend to be sure and should help the fire danger on the coast.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/01/23 08:09 AM

Sure is nice to have some damp ground around here, though.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/01/23 11:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Well it is safe to say that the rain event was a bust! Just enough to turn things into a steam bath around here for thr next couple of days with temps around 80. Nice weather for the weekend to be sure and should help the fire danger on the coast.

Sure was a bust.... we're back to mostly hot and dry in the extended forecast. Oh, well... the last rain chances came out of nowhere... could happen again.

Meanwhile, I'm toying with the idea of taking a tuna trip on September 21, and the warmer forecast would be good for that, so maybe I can squeeze some lemonade out this year....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/01/23 08:46 PM


Sounds like a winner here!

Then on the downer side we are off on the Springers again.

The Daily World

This spring the Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers filed an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing petition for springrun Chinook salmon in the Chehalis River Basin.

The petition is currently under a 90-day review with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is anticipated to respond by Sept. 26, according to a news releaase.

After the review period is completed, if National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration decides the petition warrants further consideration, they will begin to investigate data such as abundance and population trends, and continue to perform an extended status review of springrun Chinook salmon in the basin.

Currently, the Chehalis Basin is the only remaining stronghold in Washington where no salmonid species are listed as threatened or endangered.

An active salmonid ESA listing in the Basin would have impacts across strategy projects, including additional required analysis and feasibility considerations, in-water actions, and more.

This topic will be a priority for ongoing Board discussion and is a major topic for our long-term strategy considerations.




But if Tuna fishing fails you try to catch one of these!


New state record mahi mahi caught off Westport
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

The 21 pound, 48-inch-long fish — also known as dolphinfish or dorado — was caught 42 miles off the Washington coast by angler Wade La Fontaine on Aug. 25.

Wade La Fontaine is an avid saltwater angler who has been going on trips off the Washington coast for more than 10 years chasing salmon, lingcod, halibut, and tuna.

Even with all that offshore experience, La Fontaine never expected the fish he landed on Friday, Aug. 25, 2023: the new Washington state record dolphinfish, also known as mahi mahi or dorado.


Angler Wade La Fontaine with his 21 pound dolphinfish caught out of Westport on August 25.
The 21-pounder with a brilliant yellow belly and blueish-green back was caught with Captain Keith Johnson aboard the charter boat Tunacious trolling plastic squid behind a spreader roughly 42 miles off the coast of southwest Washington.

Upon landing at the dock in Westport, the dolphinfish was checked by a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Program biologist, then weighed on a certified scale at Ocean Gold Seafoods. La Fontaine’s Washington Record Sport Fish Application was then reviewed by a WDFW Regional Fish Program Manager and other staff, and certified on Aug. 30.

Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) are sporadically caught by recreational and commercial fishers targeting albacore tuna and other pelagic species off the Washington and Oregon coasts, including a handful recorded last year at the ports of Westport and Ilwaco and at least two this summer.

Most mahi mahi caught off our coast are smaller fish in the 6- to 12-pound range. La Fontaine’s fish — which was 48 inches long and 40 inches to the inside fork of the tail — was more reminiscent of large dolphinfish caught in warmer waters off southern California, Mexico, and Hawaii.

The charter reported the water temperature in the area of ocean where the dolphinfish was caught measured 70 degrees; warm even for these warmer offshore waters though not unprecedented especially during El Nino years.

Washington’s previous state record dolphinfish was 16.27 pounds caught by Albert DaSilva out of Ilwaco in 2013.

“I’m so appreciative to Keith Johnson, Darrell Johnson, Raymond Paraíso, and Aden Kallerson with Far Corners Adventures Sport Fishing,” said La Fontaine. “Without these charters doing it (making the run offshore) day after day, I wouldn’t have had a chance to connect with this fish.”


Wade La Fontaine and Captain Keith Johnson after landing the new state record mahi mahi on a trolling rig.
While he hails from Camano Island, La Fontaine said he fishes for albacore tuna out of Westport up to six times a year, and hopes he earned this very special fish.

“I’m blessed beyond comprehension,” he said. “I’ll be getting another tattoo of a mahi!”

In Washington state, dolphinfish are listed within the “Other Food Fish” category and have a daily limit of 2 per person. Other Food Fish Refers to species that occur in our waters irregularly, usually in coastal areas during the summer months and also includes opah, swordfish, striped marlin, barracuda, white sea bass, bonito, California yellowtail, and pomfret.

Albacore tuna are the primary target for Pacific Northwest offshore anglers, with large schools or “patches” of these “longfin tuna” abundant off the coast of northern California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia in the summer and early fall. Albacore are found in the “blue water”, a mass of warmer Sea Surface Temperature water typically found off the West Coast of North America during summer and fall, and off Southern California year-round.

Recreational anglers fish for albacore 40 to 100 miles off the Washington Coast, with commercial fishers regularly venturing even further. Occasionally albacore will come in as close as 30 miles and, on rare occasions, they have been known to come in as close as 15 miles or less.

Many charter boats target albacore out of Westport and Ilwaco on both one-day and multi-day trips, while independent (non-charter) anglers with large, ocean-capable boats also fish tuna out of these ports as well as occasionally La Push, Neah Bay and Sekiu when weather and water conditions allow. Check out our blog post on choosing a fishing charter.

Tuna and mackerel fishing is open year-round off the Washington coast, with weather and ocean conditions as a limiting factor. No minimum size or daily limit except northern bluefin, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna, which have a daily limit of 2 each.

Information on how to submit a possible state record fish is available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/basics/records

Westport
Mahi
Dolphinfish
Dorado
State Record
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/02/23 08:09 AM

Great eating, to be sure.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/23 09:32 AM


I have had inquiries as to what is up as I have not sent much out lately. Well I have been a bit under the weather a bit and let us just say that some aspects of getting old are not that hot but I am fine!
Now down to business and it has been a strange month for the river in all aspects. Back a few weeks a substantial number of Chinook moved upriver chrome bright right out of the ocean straight up the river. I thought this was going to be an early run then that movement stopped. We have jacks and adult salmon coming in but it is spotty from what information I have.

Chehalis water temperatures have been just terrible up to the mid-70s and this morning is 67.4 here at the house and remember my place is in tidewater. So with the cooler evening the water temperatures are dropping but 67.4 cannot be regarded as good by any means. Chehalis Basin flows remain right at record near or at record low flows throughout the basin. As strange as it seems this is normal for returning salmon but these are terrible conditions for the juvenile salmon and trout rearing areas. I read a bit back that on 15 January 2022, an underwater volcano in Tonga – the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai – erupted violently, releasing billowing plumes of soot, water vapor and sulfur dioxide high into the atmosphere. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and so “it is possible that over a multiyear period Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai will cause a temporary increase in global surface temperatures”, the paper says. In particular the Pacific Ocean which cutting through the BS means we are likely to have this ugly weather pattern for a couple of years more. Great summers for sunseekers not so much for fish!

Back to strange on the river. First we had the Chinook thing followed by schools of fish six inches or so long and the birds went crazy feeding. For several days I had three Osprey crashing the water in front of the house then nothing. A few days down the road schools were back and Cormorants in an absolute eating frenzy! This was followed by Blue Herons working the heck on the gravel bar on the tides getting some sort of little fish and then they were gone. This morning nothing no fish jumping, no birds, no nothing just blah.

So salmon are coming in (some) and water temperatures are dropping but at the present flows are not forecast to increase until sometime in October. So we wait and see but the fish are going to do what fish do and seldom what we want them to do!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/10/23 12:08 PM

One aspect of the warmer freshwaters is that the adult salmon metabolic rate will rise; use more energy to live. That energy/nutrition gets diverted from eggs and sperm. It also will eventually weaken them so redds might be shallower, might not be covered as well, and so on. I think that basic fry production will go down next spring.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/11/23 09:43 AM

I have had some questions as to the relationship between flows and returning salmon which is different in tidewater than flowing streams. The flow thing is complicated yet simple. Flows are about cubic feet per second (CFS) which is 7.48 gallons in a cubic foot per second. So the difference between 100 cfs and 200 cfs for Chehalis Basin flows is not that huge. What is hidden in that number is water temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) which are rather important. Warm water and low DO stress the heck out of returning salmon especially above tidewater.

Tidewater is not about flows as tidewater is measured in acre feet and an acre foot one foot deep is 326,000 gallons. So in tidewater the flows are important but seldom a driver for salmon behavior and health until a real bump in flows or the fall rains water up spawning streams. In times such as the present it is not unusual to see the same log float up and down the river with the tide day after day. I have always thought of it as a bubble of fresh water moving back and forth. Think of it this way if you put a barrier across the bay and drained the bay how long would it take to fill the bay and tidewater. Looking at tidewater and bay acre feet and summer cfs flows coming into this area many months or even years.

Salmon always do the same thing each fall but differently. They come out of the ocean to be sure and that is the only thing that remains constant. They will hold in the bay, swim right through tidewater, or stop in tidewater, move out of tidewater into tributaries, and in the Chehalis itself move above tidewater but seldom above Porter minus substantial rain. The combinations of these factors are many and coupled with behavior such as last year simply move in mass upstream way early makes predicting what salmon runs are doing is next to impossible before it rains.

The one constant behavior always present is after leaving the ocean and entering the bay the vast majority of salmon will stop and wait for rain someplace out of tidewater, which is known as staging up. The best example I can provide folks is the East Fork Satsop Coho. Many years broodstocking Chinook the hatchery Coho were stacked below and well above Schaffer Park yet Bingham hatchery a few miles away had very few Coho if any to the trap. Yes you have the outlier years such as last year but those years are few and far between. In the hatchery returns in the 80s and 90s we had as many staged Coho red fish return as anything silver looking with the Humptulips Hatchery being almost the opposite.

The one thing that we learned on the East Fork Satsop was Coho stay staged (mostly) until it rains but most importantly spawning areas water up. On the East Fork it takes a descent amount of rain to water up but when it does the first thing that happens is brackish black water comes down stream and it is almost a golden black color. The fish would crowd into areas out of the main current and as soon as the brownish water arrived off they went like it was a race, which in terms of spawning I think it is!

So for the harvest managers freshwater fisheries are always a bit of crap shoot. Often they get it right and sometimes like last year they get it wrong. With the predicted weather pattern being dry and salmon behavior almost completely unpredictable, who knows what the next few weeks have in store for us. My thought is fish when you can as planning ahead is likely not going work out well.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/23 11:23 AM

For those wondering here is the QIN fishing schedule and NT nets.

https://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf


Non Treaty Schedule

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/...edule-final.pdf
Posted by: eddie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/14/23 03:31 PM

Thanks Rivrguy!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/15/23 06:32 PM

Looking at the weather forecast the present pattern does not break until Sept 23rd & 24th. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi This is at the end of NOAA's 10 day forecast so we will have to see what the updates have for us. The absolute minimum that I can see is it will bump the river now how much that is anyones guess. Sept 25th & 26th at present show somewhere around a 100 cfs rise but we don not have the days past the next 10 forecasted. The updates for the next few days should be interesting going forward.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/16/23 04:25 PM

This was posted on Next Door today does anyone know what happened?

This morning a man passed out in his boat on the Chehalis in front of our home. The gentleman that was with him did cpr. Not sure if the man survived. Does anyone know what happened?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/23 01:21 PM

Forecast update 7th,8th,9th, and 10th the NOAA river forecast has a good size jump in flows to avaerage cfs. This is being driven by the Olympics streams areas getting 3 inches with Haywire Ridge station which is near the West Fork Satsop at 3.5 iches in the same time period. The upper Chehalis side is different in the same time frame just gatting around 1.25. The odd thing is looking at the river forecast for flows the Satsop does not jump as much as one would think with it going from around 200 cfs to around 300 cfs. Then on the Chehalis side with far less rain forecast at Porter it goes from 208 cfs to 572 cfs.

So as far as NOAA is concerned we are getting rain for sure. The updates the next few days should be interesting as on the Olympic side of things and event like this brings a brown out that comes and goes very rapidly. Broostocking we called it nature flushing her toilet as all the dust banks just everything is dry and loose so everything just pours into the streams making it look ugly. Usually it goes away just as fast but it is the next few days of the forecast that will tell us what is coming.

So this starts around Sept 24th and looks to be several days long ( how many to be decided ) and extended forecast for October is mostly dry and above normal temperatures. Inland guys got to love this bay and tidewater not so much.

The QIN will just love this forecast!
Posted by: On The Swing

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/23 02:20 PM

Yes, I know of the situation.

His name is Dennis, and our buddy Zack was fishing with him. They had just launched, motored out and started to fire up the main when he crumpled at the wheel.
Zack tried to flag down surrounding boats but nobody responded(luckily, in hindsight).

Zack did CPR and got the boat to one of the small docks on the opposite shore where an angler there saw what was going on and called 911, he also helped moor the boat so Zack could stay focused of CPR. The medics were able to come down the dock, get him off the boat onto a backboard and attached the automatic CPR strap then got him up to the ambulance.
Meanwhile I met with Zack at the launch, we trailered the boat and the cops busted into his truck for us, the rest of the day was spent connecting with his wife and family to get them in town.
He suffered a massive blood clot the bottom chamber or whatever of his heart, they were able to put a stint in a regain good flow, solving that issue. Since CPR was done so quickly and since advanced medical care arrived so soon after we are hopeful to him waking up, he is currently in recovery and we will know more in the next 72 hours.

I stopped to see him this morning and he was looking good as could be in the situation, his body is strong, we need prayers for the rest. His wife Karla is hanging in there but could also use all of our thoughts and prayers.


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/17/23 02:43 PM


Thanks for the information and lets hope the worse is behind him. It sounds like a bunch of folks all played a part in turning tragedy to hope!
Posted by: Duncan Dharkeez

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/18/23 08:24 AM

These kind of events really are sobering. He was lucky to have a friend that was capable and trained to help. What a good reminder on why it is so important for everyone to keep CPR skills up.

Just out of curiosity what is this Next Door? When I search for it I keep coming to some german movie. I think there might be a filter or security setting on the computers here at the Timberland Library.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/18/23 09:48 AM

A BB similiar to PP but is for communities to post things up like lost pets need something giving away something that sort of thing. Nextdoor one word.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/18/23 05:42 PM

Weather forecast update and NOAA is staying with the rain. It is a six day event with the Olympics getting the most rain with Haywire Ridge at 5.5 inches. In the upper Chehalis not nearly as much rain with Doty at 1.72 in the same time period. It appears the 26th is going to be the wettest and right now NOAA has the storm tailing down 28th but still at one inch in the upper Satsop.

Flows on both upper Chehalis and Olympic side are supposed to triple by the 28th and they will just be some above normal average but are going to drop like a rock once the rain stops. So this storm is starting to shape up in the forecast, good for inland gonna suck bay and tidewater.

We used to call a rise like this time of year Mother Nature flushing her toilet. Lots of dust, loose dirt on banks, just plain crap is going to come down for a short brown out on the Satsop is my bet. This will not drag the fish from the ocean or shouldn't but anything in the bay and tidewater is going to move up and likely above the cut off lines inriver before October 1st. Sure hope I am wrong!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/23 02:11 AM

A little update on things around tidewater. Going with the old rule of unknown locations mostly it has been terrible in tidewater catching that is. Remember two years ago when the darn fish followed your gear right to the boat? Well they are at it again and I swear they grin at you before dashing off! Now on the other side of things with crystal clear water and polarized glasses I have never seen this many jacks but they have lock jaw too following gear in two, threes, and one time four of the darn things all at once! So fishing is very spotty to say the least. Tons of jacks, some adults, and lock jaw in tidewater but if you know where to fish inland they are just killing the jacks and getting adults also. I really hate the lock jaw thing.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/23 08:56 AM

Trolled tidewater Sunday. 5 takes. A 10 & 5 lb. Coho. Released a 15# king. Lots of jack chasers. Anything going on in the So. channel?
Posted by: Duncan Dharkeez

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/23 01:17 PM

We're certainly in for some colder new water. I hope it will be more like a 600-800 cfs bump on the Sat that ends quickly. All depends on the 10 day + forecast. Perhaps enough to color the water but I am hoping it is not enough to bring the full chocolate on. That of course could be wrong if the full brunt of this inbound atmospheric river doesn't deviate.


The two forecasts clearly coorelate to a good event but I am not convinced we will see a full 800+ cfs jump, or I guess I should say I hope not.



Either way I'll be back out there to once again work towards my Silver Harvester Badge. I'll never forget the year that Swanny made the Platinum Club ... boy those were the days!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/23 06:26 PM


Haywire is forecast at 9.54 inches for the storm period and NOAA river forecast for both sides of the basin are not showing the peak flows yet in the 10 day forecast. I could be wrong but I think both sides are going to blow out. The upper Chehalis water drag 4 days behind the Satsop so it looks like Satsop will brown out and it will clear but then the upper Chehalis water will arrive and I got to believe it will be a brown out. So hoping I am wrong but the Chehalis fishery is going to get 7 or so days of muddy water if we are lucky. The Satsop always clears fast with this type of event but this guy is a rather large event for September. It will be the upper Chehalis water that determines just how long and just how ugly it is for Chehalis fisheries. If you do the Northwest River Forecast Center hit the 240 rain tab on the right side of your screen it shows the rain in inches. It is about to get wet and ugly!
https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/20/23 06:35 PM

let it blow.. get fish up before the nets go in
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/21/23 09:02 AM

9/21/2023

Chehalis just needs water.......not the Bay, not the river from 101 Bridge to South Monty but above there to Fuller Bridge/Satsop area, at low water in quite a few areas......no running even jet boats, more than a few "have sucked gravel", not at high water but if you aren't careful, drop of water to low.....oh oh, where'd that gravel bar come from..........

If ya listen in the middle of next week..... those Satsop fish will be grabbing a left out of the Chehalis and heading North, and no legal fishing until 10/01/2023, wow there could be a "xhit pot full of fish", in the Satsop or Chehalis above Fuller Hill...

Could be a ZOO, 10/01/2023.....Satsop and Chehalis above Fuller, might be muddy?????
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/22/23 03:54 AM

Well still watching the forecast and the amount of rainfall forecast is staying around the same just small changes day to day. So right now everything looks to have flows peaking around midnight the 30th. It looks like the rainy 8-day event starts on September 24th and 26th and 27th are the wettest days. The rainfall tails down for the following 5 days.

With the West Fork Satsop getting 9.5 inches in 8 days and nearly 2 inches each day the 26th and 27th let us just say we are going to get mud big time in the Middle Fork and West Forks Satsop. Matlock is supposed to get nearly 7 inches so we can expect the East Fork Satsop to go out but nothing like the other forks. What this all means is when the October first opening comes the Satsop will be muddy or clearing and Coho are likely to be above the cutoff line and hatchery Coho likely all the way to Bingham. All those Coho in the bay and tide water are going to be after burners on somewhere around the 28th! The good news is the river will drop fast and the fish will slow way down as the river clears and fishing should be good just less of them than we all hoped.

My best guess for the upper Chehalis is this rain is the best thing for fishing in a long time. The rainfall is much less with the same pattern and is forecast to peak around midnight on the 30th at Doty and the next day at Porter. The Coho are primarily in the bay and tidewater with more jacks than I can remember and most have not even got scales set. So upper basin guys this rain is going to bring you a bunch of bright Coho and they are going slow down on the drop. I think you lose a few days at the starting line October 1st but this going be about as good as it gets for inland fishers! Bit of a dream come true.

Going to stink in tidewater and the bay.

One last thing about the rain. How much is one thing but how fast it comes down is another. Two inches one day and two inches another is one thing as this is 48 hours in the foreast. It is something all together different if you get two inches at 8 PM to midnight one day and midnight to 4 AM the next day. Two days in the forecast but for the river it is 4 inches in 8 hours. So forecast are about 24 hours in a day but for the rivers it is not necessarily the same if your talking flows.

For October presently the forecast is for temperatures above normal but dropping as always in the fall and little rainfall until the end of the month.

Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/27/23 06:54 PM

Well we got a bump in flows but Olympic side was well below what was projected but East of the Satsop drainage got the rainfall. Upper Chehalis looks like more than forecast but not that much. So we should end up with below average flows on the drop but will be a huge improvement and much lower water temperatures. Some more rain would have been nice but what we got is not that bad.
Posted by: Duncan Dharkeez

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/23 08:53 AM

Fished yesterday between fuller and the nooch. They are starting to show up but not in large numbers. The end result of the storm
event was just as I suspected a sub 800 bump on the satsop and a much less significant impact on the upper watershed than predicted. If I can get my RVs door repaired, I might get back out there today or tomorrow but I ran out of tape so it is unlikely.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 09/28/23 05:27 PM

I recall working on traps was watching the res[ponse to freshets. One freshet we got a couple hundred coho which is a lot in a stream that hated 5 or 600. While we were passing them up an angler stopped by. He had been fishing down at the mouth and noted how they just blew by. I am sure Rivrguy saw lots of the same thing; on the stream every day shows a lot. Big flush of water and things slow down passage-wise.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/23 08:21 AM

Lots of limits over the weekend!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/02/23 12:37 PM

I've had amazing fishing the past 4 days, and I can't imagine it's been anything much less in the bay or for the QIN, because I've been catching brand new fish every day. Whether it's been cutthroat or coho I've been after, I've caught both, to super high quality, all on a 6-wt. fly rod. The coho I caught today beat the crud out of my hands when they ran (repeatedly); my poor old Tioga 6 doesn't really have much of what you'd call a drag these days, so palming has often been necessary...

Anyway, I'm much more pleased with this year's season compared to last, and I hope everyone else is enjoying good fishing.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/04/23 03:42 PM

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi

And we are off to the races with the weather forecast again. 10/10 NOAA says a large event is going to arrive! So far they are 0 for 3 missing location and total rainfall so let us see what this one does. The storm is supposed to be several days long but the 10th has several locations around the Wynochee Dam getting nearly 2 1/2 inches in 24 hours. The pattern looks similiar to the forecast that did not come to pass a bit back soooooo who knows!

Everyone should remember it is nets 4 / 4 / 3 days for the next three weeks and QIN start at noon Sundays. The NT commercials will fill any openings to fill out the four days. NT's have more time but it is late Oct and we can look at it then.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/23 11:22 AM

Fishing definitely slowed down just above tidewater after Monday. Few if any new fish around, and what was around was tight to brush and tight-lipped. Typical for flows this low, I suppose. Fishing was pretty good higher up, but the fish were getting blushy and not so quick to bite as they were last week.

The high pressure system coming in should produce a prominent east wind and shut the bite down pretty good until it rains again (which per Rivrguy's post will happen soon). The QIN does appear to be benefiting from outstanding timing for their fisheries this season (which of course isn't great for the rest of us, but whatever). Anyone know how they did this past week?

Finally, I've caught nothing but hatchery coho and jacks so far. What are others seeing?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/23 12:18 PM

QIN fishing reports lag a week or more after pulling just depends on if they are communicating with WDFW and staff is on the ball.

Abot 50 / 50 H&W
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/05/23 03:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
QIN fishing reports lag a week or more after pulling just depends on if they are communicatingwith WDFW and staff is on the ball.

Abot 50 / 50 H&W


Sounds good. I've been mostly fishing a river with a hatchery run that is usually weighted to the front end of the season, so I would expect to see mostly clippers early on.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/23 09:58 AM

10/06/2023

I've NEVER seen any QIN catch totals that show/list "hatchery or wild" numbers or male and female numbers.

Its not like it wouldn't be valuable information, and maybe it is done. Maybe WDFW receives a breakdown, if they do, it is not posted on the WDFW web site.

Sports on the other hand....heaven help your ass, if your "punch card isn't filled out completely, and tough [Bleeeeep!] if you forgot your pen or your pen won't write on a wet punch card....
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/06/23 08:57 PM

My punch card is always wet on the rivers.I can't get a ballpoint pen to write on it. I make an attempt and an officer can see that I tried. When I get it dried out I then write on it clearly.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/23 07:29 PM

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Fishing definitely slowed down just above tidewater after Monday. Few if any new fish around, and what was around was tight to brush and tight-lipped. Typical for flows this low, I suppose. Fishing was pretty good higher up, but the fish were getting blushy and not so quick to bite as they were last week.

The high pressure system coming in should produce a prominent east wind and shut the bite down pretty good until it rains again (which per Rivrguy's post will happen soon). The QIN does appear to be benefiting from outstanding timing for their fisheries this season (which of course isn't great for the rest of us, but whatever). Anyone know how they did this past week?

Finally, I've caught nothing but hatchery coho and jacks so far. What are others seeing?


Went out twice last week and caught nothing but hatchery fish! Literally zero wilds out of maybe 30 fish. Makes it easy to release those that don’t quite make the cut. Interestingly, it’s probably been a ratio of 6:1 females to males for me. Definitely getting some eggs for Springers!
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/07/23 07:31 PM

Not sure if any of you got the email from WDFW, but it looks like they’re considering adopting electronic catch reporting which would be nice as another option.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/23 08:19 AM

I did not see that but have some questions. Would the electronic reporting be in lieu of a CRC in the field or like we now do with Big Game and Turkey tags. Still need to mark it but then file it electronically?

I see ( and not just WDFW) getting on a really slippery slope of requiring direct reporting. If no service, you're in violation. I also don't like the app for regs. Again, if I am out in the tule-weeds and they change a reg I can't find out about it.

I just don't like the trend to requiring me to have smart phone of some sort just to do anything.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/23 09:56 AM

I think In Oregon you have the option of e tagging your fish or using conventional CRCs, not doing both. I would be surprised that there wouldn't be a non smartphone option for recording catch. As you point out there are many areas eg OP where cell phone reception is sketchy.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/23 12:55 PM

im sure u will have to download the app for the right price!!
Posted by: Get Bent

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/08/23 07:29 PM

Oregons license allows you to tag offline. They recommend you open the app before you loose signal. I tagged a fish on the lower D with no signal no problem. Also decided at the last minute to dig razors at Gearhart, grabbed a license on my phone and was digging in 5 minutes. I’m a Washington resident when will this state line up? Yes a bore copy is still an option in oregon but I don’t think too many retailers even offer it anymore.

On a side note I wasn’t sure of a catch code yesterday and launched the fish Washington app without service, it eventually launched with a sync error but gave me the last downloaded regs and the catch code of the river I was on. Hey Olympia catch up you’re missing out on revenues.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/09/23 10:28 AM

Well the weather forecast is moving around. Tomorrow is supposed to be the biggy of a three day event with the total two inches plus maybe three depending on location. A couple of days break and then five days that total 6.54 in upper Satsop. It is the second one starting the 15th that is going to send flows way up! The three dayer starting today moves things up but the flows drop right back down. I do not think that will happen with the second event starting the 15th. Time will tell if NOAA has it right.

https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi?v=20200803v1

Just hit the home tab on the site linked after looking at the weather and it takes you right to the stream flows 10 day forecast.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/10/23 08:57 PM

I've been biting my tongue for a few days after your post Rivrguy but finally gave in. Your reports on NOAA"s weather predictions reminded me of a comment a lady friend made about snow in the western WA lowlands. She said it was just like sex; you never knew how many inches you'd get or how long it would last. Looks like that can be said about the rains and stream projections, too.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/23 10:31 AM

That's what your lady friend told you?!
I'm sorry.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/11/23 10:39 AM

Interesting so far. Want to see something interesting take a look at this forecast. Keep in mind I never bet on this being dead on but rather showing trends. https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/aberdeen/98520/november-weather/336359?year=2023

Now that is one ugly November trend!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/23 04:45 AM

Well CM it appears NOAA got it somewhat right. Satsop was late on the rise went straight up and now flows are dropping down the same way. Upper Chehalis well short of the forecasted flows so it is going to be about when and where one fishes for water conditions. I guess the old saying don't like the weather wait and hour or two it will change is in play!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/23 07:51 AM

We had about an inch here. It came in waves of downpour and then sun. My plants are happy for the water. May have pulled the coho towards the Deschutes as have seen no jumpers since the rain got serious.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/12/23 02:49 PM

QIN actual harvest numbers for Oct 1-3 fishery.

Chinook 136
Coho 1,743
Chum 16

The QIN modeled fishery numbers for October 1-3 were:

Chinook 628
Coho 4530
Chum 193

It rained early but damn that Chinook number is ugly. Coho I can get as they did the rain zoom up but Chum no water and early so I get that. That Chinook number mirrors what I have seen and guys in the bay also. We did get a big shot of Chinook mid August but things just have not seemed right since then.

Big thank you for Kim getting the numbers out as soon as staff got them from the QIN.
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/13/23 05:46 AM

Haven’t seen a single Chinook in the river either. 3 days of fishing in very early October usually yields a few of them for me.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/13/23 05:46 PM

Should have been on fire today on the Satsop drop. Disgusted I couldn't make it if the next round of rains put it out for a while. Cross your fingers it does't!
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/23 08:49 AM

QIN numbers look disappointing. Their timing hasn't been as great as what it was looking like, so I can imagine lower than expected catch, but with those numbers, paired with what they're seeing in bay, I'd say at least the chinook appear to be underperforming, rather badly.

I fished a different Grays Harbor river two days ago, and I saw what seemed like good numbers of kings. I incidentally tangled with a couple, and they were very bright, so maybe they didn't really get moving until this last rain or something? I guess we'll find out when the QIN posts last week's numbers. I haven't seen a ton of them in the Satsop yet either, which is odd....

Interestingly, I saw a lot of coho moving in the same river, but most of them were blushers or darker, so perhaps not as many fresh coho moving in as I was hoping for?

No chums yet, but they'll probably come with the next rain.

Anyway, I did see what I would call a better than average number of fish for where I was fishing, and that was encouraging. Fish were definitely on the move; I went back yesterday (wanted to fish the Satsop, but it was way too crowded for my liking), and most of the fish had moved on. What was left was a few, mostly dark, non-biting fish. Went 1 for 1 dinky, blushing buck on a small jig. Really illustrates the importance of timing when chasing these fall salmon....
Posted by: jgreen

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/23 09:13 AM

Has anyone else heard that QIN participation in their net fishery is low? I’ve noticed far less nets up and down the river and so have a few other people. That could help to explain the lower numbers.

I heard that they were only getting $1.00/pound so it’s not really worth it. If that’s true, then I could certainly understand why a lot of net boats might save the fuel. Anyone else hear that? I’m not complaining about less nets. Seeing thousands of fish a day get by isn’t a bad thing.

People more familiar with their fishery might be able to help me figure out if participation really is lower.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/23 02:45 PM

Fishers down some I think but mostly it is that they are catching about 25% of the forecasted harvest. Rained early and now there isn't crap coming out of the bay. Even Chum are mostly a no show right now. Everything now says the Chinook forecast was off by a huge amount not some but huge. I doubt we make Chinook escapement or get close. Lets hope Coho and Chum don't fall short but it is to early to panic.

Last report Bingham has 827 adult Coho in the ponds and 500 jacks.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/23 03:56 PM

I think coho are fine, but I can only go on what I've seen on the water, which is something less than 1% of everything that's actually happening....

Here's hoping the kings are just doing a really good job of not being seen, but that seems rather dubious this late....

Finally, if the Tribe is only getting $1/pound (really?), that would indicate that the market is flooded with fish from ocean fisheries, so I guess we will know where they went if the numbers don't improve....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/14/23 05:35 PM

As I understand it, AK has gazillions of sockeye and probably their hatchery pinks. Killed the market with them.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/15/23 06:05 AM

The thing is that for fishers it is going to be a bit weird for a while. While managed for normal timed Coho and Late Coho the Chehalis Basin Coho are far more complex. We have the Coho that come in in September and the first part of October which are sorta our summer Coho. Then we have the October Coho followed by the November or Turkey Day Coho then the lates after December 1st. How this plays out year after year varies with what the fish decide to do such as last years early Coho movement and rain / time driven behavior.

This year’s rains early have been a bonus inland and terrible for tidewater. Things were great for a bit but the vast majority of the October Coho are up stream now and staging or spawning. For the last ten days or so the Coho numbers have been dropping off in tidewater and right now it is ugly. Chum are starting to show but QIN harvest numbers are below expectations but we certainly have seals and Sealions all over the place and they are getting some. We have always had Coho that come with the Chum but they seem to be scarce right now.

So lets hope the Coho that come with the Chum are still not up yet because if they did come in with the rain the river will have to really blow out to bring in the November Coho and the forecast has bumps but flows keep returning to below average for some time.

One thing about it the upper Chehalis water from the last rain event arrived a couple of days ago and lord the trash that came with it is awful. Logs limbs chunks like everything one could imagine! What did not arrive was fresh fish in any numbers! Good day to watch the Hawks play.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/23 08:33 AM


Some had questions about the QIN numbers not being posted on WDFW's website so I asked. This is the response.

Unfortunately, due to the inconsistent nature of receiving QIN preliminary harvest numbers, they will no longer be placed on WDFW webpage. However, I will be happy to forward you the harvest numbers when they become available. As you know, the final harvest numbers are available at the end of the season in the forecast and planning models.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/23 12:20 PM

It just continues to amaze me that one purports to manage salmon runs in the absence of up-to-date catch numbers. It is as if we are on autopilot and the catch numbers are meaningless.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/23 04:19 PM

wdfw might be afraid of posting cause they probably get a lot of calls complaining and u cant believe the numbers anyways.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/23 04:23 PM

I imagine it is because folks look at the website and no numbers or some others late and bitch out WDFW who do not control the QIN. So not putting up numbers hit and miss didn't work so staff just stopped. About the only other way to do it would be post weeks as always and when the QIN lag post " QIN HAVE YET TO REPORT CATCH "
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/23 04:38 PM

Back in the 80s we used to get 98% or more of any day's I or NI next catch. I don't care if the co-mis-managers agree that each side is responsible for their catch reporting. I can't effectively manage my fishery if I don't have up-=to-date information on yours.

Unless, as I noted, that we all agree that managing on autopilot is acceptable. And I then recall how well that plane landed at San Francisco when on autopilot.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/23 04:50 PM

It has been in the yearly agreement between state and QIN no inseason updates to forecast for a long time. I guess they might have changed it but last time I asked for it I had to go to the courts to get it. The no inseason adjustment came about because old WDF screwed over the QIN big time one year. I doubt the tribe has forgotten.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/16/23 05:30 PM

Well, in season management screws the last in line. For a long time, it was the Tribes who. bore the brunt of conservation. Hence Hoh v. Baldridge. So, the agreement was that the State fishes outside and then the Tribes balance. So,l we craft fisheries for "balance" regardless of the actual impact on the fish. First responsibility is catch. After catching occurs, and meets the goals of catch, we check and see if enough spawners made it to the gravel. Much cheaper, too, as you don't need the staff to monitor catch.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/23 05:15 PM

Interesting with the rainfall totals over the last 3 days the rivers didn't bumps as much as I thought they might. Ground sponging it in I suppose.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/23 05:29 PM

Something I become aware of sometime back, I noticed that the NT Commercial and QIN were both scheduled for the 18th. I assumed we would get a press release addressing the conflict but nope nothing. So I called and asked what’s up? It appears that error got by both managers and when they become aware of it the QIN did not want to change dates. With low prices for catch a few state fishers and QIN fished at the same time. How’s that for different?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/18/23 07:24 PM

Odd that in PS the recs are closed when the Tribes fish the rivers but not in GH. Nicer people in GH??
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/23 04:32 AM

More that the tribe fishing is tide water and north channel so folks can get in front of the nets in the bay and above South Monte. What is interesting is forever the QIN refused to fish at the same time as NTs and that is a change. Going forward it could get interesting in future years.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/23 08:07 AM

Well, there is more room on the Chehalis. It is surprising that the netters would fish together as, again, in PS, the Tribes always went first. Normally, though, as I recall they tended to fish in different areas. The Fraser sockeye fishery was where everybody wanted to be.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/19/23 09:57 AM

little update Bingham Hatchery Coho 5950 H 837 W 1650 Jacks H 105 W

Same time 2022 1108 H 54 W combined H&W jacks 559

This for the 19th but the numbers are from last weeks report as it takes several days for the information to be put up so the numbers lag a bit.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/23 04:38 PM

HEY LOOK...when it rains early this is what happens! Like I posted earlier the numbers lag but this is a bonus if you have that many hatchery fish still in the river down stream.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oct. 20, 2023



Satsop River anglers may keep an additional adult hatchery coho
Action: Increases daily salmon retention by one (1) additional adult hatchery coho.

Effective dates: Oct. 23 through Dec. 31, 2023.
Species affected: Coho.

Locations, dates, and salmon rules:
Satsop River and East Fork (Grays Harbor County) from mouth to bridge at Schafer State Park:

• Oct. 23 through Nov. 30, 2023: Minimum size is 12 inches. Daily limit is six (6). Up to three (3) adults including no more than two (2) salmon other than hatchery coho may be retained. Release adult Chinook.

• Dec. 1 through Dec. 31, 2023: Minimum size is 12 inches. Daily limit is six (6). Up to two (2) adults including no more than one (1) salmon other than hatchery coho may be retained. Release Chinook.
Satsop River and East Fork (Grays Harbor County) from 400 feet below Bingham Creek Hatchery dam to the dam:

• Oct. 23 through Nov. 30, 2023: Minimum size is 12 inches. Daily limit is six (6). Up to three (3) adults including no more than two (2) salmon other than hatchery coho may be retained. Release adult Chinook.

• Dec. 1 through Dec. 31, 2023: Minimum size is 12 inches. Daily limit is six (6). Up to two (2) adults including no more than one (1) salmon other than hatchery coho may be retained. Release Chinook.

Reason for action: Broodstock collection at the Bingham Creek Hatchery has exceeded needs for production goals. To date, more than 10,000 coho have entered the Bingham Creek Hatchery.

Additional information: All other permanent rules published in the 2023/24 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet remain in effect. You can receive all in-season rules changes as they are announced by signing up for email notification through WDFW Regulation Updates. Be sure to check for emergency rules on the WDFW website prior to fishing and consider downloading the Fish Washington mobile app.
Information contact: Region 6 Montesano office, 360-249-4628.



________________________________________
Fishers must have a current Washington fishing license, appropriate to the fishery. Check the WDFW "Fishing in Washington" rules pamphlet for details on definitions and regulations. Fishing rules are subject to change. Check the WDFW Fishing hotline for the latest rule information at 360-902-2500, press 2 for recreational rules. For the Shellfish Rule Change hotline call toll free 1-866-880-5431.



Request this information in an alternative format or language at wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/requests-accommodation, 833-855-1012, TTY (711), or Title6@dfw.wa.gov.




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/20/23 05:45 PM

Ok my computer screen is warmmmmm ! Look at it this way if you take the Coho run and graph it by week the curve goes up peaks goes down, with the biggest share of the fish middle two weeks of October. This is based upon years of similiar runsize and harvest by week or days even half days.

It does not take into consideration flows and the fish bloody well doing what fish do to fishers..... screw them over. So it rained very early not once but three times that mattered and take that curve by the weeks and move the peak forward 2 1/2 maybe 3 weeks. The fish shot right upstream and when the QIN went in they were on the backside of the run curve. Really messed with both NT and QIN fishers. Early rain does not benefit bay and tide water but inland it is the gift that keeps giving!


Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/23 10:03 AM

I've benefitted from the rain timing this year, and that's been great, because I got royally screwed by last year's timing. For sure, a lot of fish moved up the Satsop between the end of September and mid-October. They weren't there every day, but when they were moving, it was in good numbers, which made for good fishing. Best I've had in years.

With that said, you'd probably think I would be happy about the increased harvest limit, but I actually think it's a lousy idea. I'm one of those people who believe that "fish are habitat," and I'd like to see the "surplus" left in the river, to spawn and turn into marine-derived nutrients. I get that there is such a thing as a catastrophic overescapement, but I think it's safe to say we've not been anywhere near that biomass in Grays Harbor for many decades (certainly, 10,000 fish to the hatchery is well short of that mark).

I also get the management perspective that more hatchery fish than what is needed for broodstock is considered waste, and it also creates the need for more labor hours to deal with the surplus in various ways. I think that's what's driving this decision (trying to make the hatchery fish stop coming; not enhancing fishing opportunities). The reality is that the majority of the hatchery run is pretty much over at this point. Yes, a few more will trickle in throughout the rest of the season, but it should be mostly wild fish from here on out. That means there will be anglers staying on the water after harvesting two wilds, trying to find that bonus hatchery fish. If fishing is good, they might encounter several more wilds without finding a hatchery fish. I don't think that's how WDFW would want that to play out.

Although there won't actually be many fish around most days the rest of the season, increasing the limit always has the effect of increasing pressure. It would have been ideal to have that bonus fish available around the opener (a couple thousand of those surplus fish could have been caught in the first 2 weeks), but obviously, they weren't aware there would be a surplus at that point, so here we are....

Anyway, I don't agree with the mentality that we need to harvest fish, hatchery or otherwise, down to the last expendable fish in order to be managing a fishery effectively. Indeed, at this point in the game, any number of fish beyond escapement goals, regardless of origin, can only help future broods (not to mention steelhead and every other species of game fish).

"Excess" fish are free habitat enhancement (or at least a lot cheaper than building all these fish passage bridges on creeks that have severely depressed or non-existent salmon runs, anyway). On that note, maybe they should start transporting excess hatchery spawners to some of those places, to let them seed the recovered habitat. Who cares if they aren't as successful as wild pairs might be... some progeny would survive, and they would adapt to be more successful in those habitats. Has a much better chance of getting a return on the investment in those projects than harvesting down to the same escapement goals we had before the habitat was restored and expecting more fish to magically appear....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/23 11:03 AM

Nothing to disagree with FF but it is always the natural return that governs harvest. I think two weeks ago they knew they had eggtake covered times many for Coho and were well aware many more were coming. A substantial amount of Coho were up above the cut off line before Oct. 1st they just don't go all the way to Bingham. What they would not know is the wild return and I guess they got comfortable enough to expand oportunity. Keeping in mind that the nets missed most of their harvest of Coho and these are the fish utilized for the expanded rec harvest.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/21/23 04:35 PM

They still running the trap on Bingham? It seems that with all the years of return data to the hatchery and the years at Bingham passing fish upstream that they shut should be able to develop and in-season evaluation of timing, run size, and composition. Since they have flow records, too, they could add that in. Even rainfall.

Should at least get some sort of "heads-up". Or would that "heads pulled out"?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 05:56 AM

I think the trap is still operating but it is seperate from the harvest division or used to be. Then you have the agreed to seasons with the tribal managers and the dust up of both missing the commercial NT and tribal fishing the 18th. So no idea is my thought as the early rains made mess out of the planned fisheries. One thing for sure at the moment is a lot of Chum are coming up river.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 07:16 AM

10/22/2023

If you are a chum fisher, then Chehalis and Satsop Rivers are where you need to be.

In past few days, around the "pump houses", big wakes of fish heading up river, 3 boats, 5 fishers, fish total was 2 Coho and 2 Chum, chum were released. I've not caught a Chum in probably 10 years, because I use "spoons". Why that big male decided to hit my spoon, who knows????? Now I remember, why I don't fish them....fight, fight, fight and then more battle, that was enough for me.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 07:44 AM

Back when I was involved in Harvest we actually used the hatchery data to manage fisheries. But that was then.

Friend of mine who was an active fly fisher for all things salmonid used to say that if you tied a 20 pound steelhead and 20 pound chum tail to tail that the chime would drag the steelhead all over the river. Only really big chum I ever hooked on a fly had absolutely no idea he was hooked. He just swam away.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 09:21 AM

I hope lots of chum salmon make it up river. I've seen WDFW sacrifice the chum run in the past to the net fishery in order to eek out every last available (on paper) coho that might be headed up the Chehalis. When it comes to salmon, I've concluded that WDFW doesn't manage fish, it manages fishing, particularly commercial fishing, at any cost to fish populations.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 02:41 PM

Fishermen vote. Commercial fishermen support (donate to) politicians. If WDFW was really serious about recovering wild salmonids, especially those with extended freshwater rearing, they would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce chum harvest and put this fish on the grounds. No way they'll do that.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 03:56 PM

Last Thursday I watched a QIN fisher for an hour until he pulled his nets. A school of Chum had moved in with sea lions all over. Those guys worked their asses off nonstop pulling fish from the nets. As they pulled at noon I fished the area a bit then nothing no fur bags nothing. So I idled up stream and just above Preachers found them and my sonar screen was literally full of fish and the fish went bank to bank. Did the zig zag upstream to the corner where the tracks meet the river and turned around for home. I took a picture of my screen and sent it to DW. The QIN at Aberdeen pulled the ninetieth a head of time so the fisher I watched had no nets in front of him so hello meet the Chum. To the point judging by the area my Lowrance covered and counting fish that school was in the thousands not hundreds. Biggest damn bunch of Chum I have ever seen. I think every fur bag in the area was right with them and it was a circus! At first when the Chum showed it was daytime incoming then they just started incoming period. This morning at the end of incoming I could hear sea lions bellowing all over the river around the house and several times got a bird’s eye view with the dock light of them chasing fish all over the channel. Looks like Allan was right that the early Chum performance means a good run. So far he has it right.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 04:54 PM

Battled nothing but chum today. Should have known better. Sorry, don't like chum. I'm like Drifter, Done until they are gone.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 06:19 PM

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE SWEET KIND GENTLE CHUM ARE KICKING YOUR ASS?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 08:26 PM

Since most of my salmon fishing is sport oriented I really like chum. Just C&R 'em. But, since they were the fish I did my MSc on and then were the driver that showed me the MDN effect I really like them just for their existence.
Posted by: thaxor

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/22/23 09:21 PM

Floated hump on Saturday and it was miles of chum... Like a never ending flow of them, never seen so many in there before.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/23 08:02 AM

It's satisfying to hear about lots of chum salmon. Imagine what it would be like if they had no commercial value.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/23/23 10:05 AM

Then we'd just take all the water because a huge ecological value is rated at close to zero.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/26/23 03:50 PM

East Fork Satsop Hatchery returns as of October 26 posting. Remember numbers are always about a week behind


BINGHAM CR HATCHERY Satsop River- H - 8,950 J-1,950 Surplus 10,299 -
BINGHAM CR HATCHERY Satsop River- W - 1,137 J-122 Released 1228

SATSOP SPRINGS PONDS Satsop River- H - 1,000 J-300 Surplused 335

These NT impact numbers for Chum are about 75% of forecast Coho 6.5% and Chinook well 86 was modeled so this number was out in the weeds. One more time it rained early and this is what happens with Coho and Chinook. When and if we get the QIN numbers we will see Chum take a dramatic turn around.

Oct 18 WK 42 0 Chinook 93 Coho 270 Chum
Posted by: Steelheadman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/27/23 05:50 PM

I haven't fished the East Fork for a couple of years. Lost a large Chinook on a twitching jig.
Couldn't get the coho to bite but my buddy got one. He did well last weekend but I was busy.

Anyway going to give it a shot. Haven't fished for several weeks. Forks next weekend.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 10/29/23 12:55 PM

I am not sure there is much room on the gravel near the freeway bridges! Perfect weather and water and folks out enjoying things, not bad.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/23 12:02 PM

Latest Coho returns for Bingham and Springs report stayed the same.

BINGHAM CR HATCHERY Satsop River- H 10,450 Jacks 2,130 - total 11,601 10/27/23
BINGHAM CR HATCHERY Satsop River- W 1,287 Jacks 127 10/27/23

Same time 2022 30,108 H and 2054 W. Some have expressed reservations that the preseason forecast is not holding up. Could be right as for Recs the early rain got fish up so inriver was mostly good fishing. Tribal and NT Coho harvest were way off ( keeping in mind WDFW has not shared any numbers recently ) so looking at Bingham if the forecast was correct and tribal plus commercials had fish run up early those 10/27 numbers should be wayyyyyyy bigger.
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/02/23 03:36 PM

Hope you guys are out fishing. Took the little guy out around Oakville yesterday before the rain. There's plenty of fish around!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/23 01:39 PM

and the river is pure mud today at tidewater.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/23 05:30 PM

Kinda knew this was coming.

FISHING RULE CHANGE



Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Nov. 3, 2023



Adult salmon daily limit reduced for Grays Harbor rivers
Action: Reduces adult portion of salmon daily limit to one (1) fish. Closes all Chinook retention.

Effective date: Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023.
Species affected: Salmon.

Locations and rules:
Black River (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth to the bridge on 128th Avenue Southwest:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Minimum size is 12 inches. Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Chehalis River (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth upstream to the high bridge on Weyerhaeuser 1000 line:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Minimum size is 12 inches. Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Clearwater River (Jefferson County) from the mouth to Snahapish River:

• Nov. 4 through Nov. 30, 2023: Daily limit is three (3) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.

• Effective Dec. 1, 2023: Closed.
Copalis River (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth to the Carlisle Bridge:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Elk River (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth at the Highway 105 Bridge to the confluence of the middle branch:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Hoquiam River (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth at Highway 101 Bridge on Simpson Avenue to the west fork at Dekay Road Bridge:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Joe Creek (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth to the Ocean Beach Road Bridge:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Johns River (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth at Highway 105 Bridge to Ballon Creek:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Moclips River (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth to the Quinault Indian Reservation boundary:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Newaukum River, including South Fork (Lewis County) from the mouth to Leonard Road near Onalaska:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Queets River (Grays Harbor and Jefferson counties):

• Contact Olympic National Park for regulations at 360-565-3000 or https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/fishing.htm.
Salmon River (Jefferson County) from outside the Quinault Indian Reservation and Olympic National Park:

• Nov. 4 through Nov. 30, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.

• Effective Dec. 1, 2023: Closed.
Satsop River and east fork (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth to the bridge at Schafer State Park and from 400 feet below Bingham Creek Hatchery Dam to the dam:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Skookumchuck River (Lewis and Thurston counties) from the mouth to 100 feet below the outlet of TransAlta WDFW steelhead rearing pond located at the base of Skookumchuck Dam:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Van Winkle Creek (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth to 400 feet below the outlet of Lake Aberdeen Hatchery:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Wishkah River (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth to 200 feet below the weir at the Wishkah Rearing Ponds and from 150 feet upstream to 150 feet downstream of the Wishkah adult attraction channel/outfall structure (within the posted fishing boundary):

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.
Wynoochee River (Grays Harbor County) from the mouth to the WDFW White Bridge access site:

• Nov. 4 through Dec. 31, 2023: Daily limit is six (6) including no more than one (1) adult. Release Chinook.

Reason for action: Early season indicators suggest the number of coho returning to Grays Harbor and other coastal tributaries are lower than pre-season forecast. These measures are necessary to ensure natural escapement and hatchery broodstock goals are met.

Additional information: Anglers are reminded that fishing from 400 feet below Bingham Creek Hatchery dam to the dam and from 150 feet upstream to 150 feet downstream of the Wishkah adult attraction channel/outfall structure (within the posted fishing boundary) is open only to anglers with disabilities who permanently use a wheelchair and have a designated harvester companion card.

Please see the 2023/24 Washington State Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet for current season information and be sure to check for any emergency rule changes prior to fishing. Consider downloading the Fish Washington mobile app or signing up for fishery changes at email notification through WDFW Regulation Updates.
Information contact: Region 6 Montesano office, 360-249-4628.



________________________________________
Fishers must have a current Washington fishing license, appropriate to the fishery. Check the WDFW "Fishing in Washington" rules pamphlet for details on definitions and regulations. Fishing rules are subject to change. Check the WDFW Fishing hotline for the latest rule information at 360-902-2500, press 2 for recreational rules. For the Shellfish Rule Change hotline call toll free 1-866-880-5431.



Request this information in an alternative format or language at wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/requests-accommodation, 833-855-1012, TTY (711), or Title6@dfw.wa.gov.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/23 06:29 PM

I've been saying that they over estimated the run size all fall..

first they say theres plenty of fish up river on satsop so they raise the limit to 3. Now there lower the limit to 1 cause they are afraid that they might not get enough for egg take..


DOES ANYONE AT WDFW KNOW WHAT THE HELL THERE DOING???
Posted by: deadly

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/23 06:45 PM

Dry all fall, finally get some rain, drop the limit, get 40000 to the hatchery, drag feet on bumping limits, fish are gone, and or rivers are closed.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/23 07:16 PM

When I heard that the QIN had stopped netting WDFW would somehow restrict the rec anglers. Sure enough. I would think that they would wait until after this big rain to see what comes in.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/23 07:21 PM

Had to look but 2022 H&W Coho at Bingham same week was 32,162. 2023 Bingham same week H&W 11,737 so I kinda doubt the 40k is realistic. The % on H&W is about the same so it is doubtful that the hatchery Coho are under performing and the wild are not.

Take a look. 2023 https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/weekly-escapement-11-02-2023_0.pdf

And this is 2022 https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/weekly-escapement-11-03b-2022.pdf

As Region 6 staff have not provided any up to date QIN harvest numbers so this is about all we have to go on. From what I have been able to see Chum were well above expectations. Coho came early with the rain but both NT and QIN Coho harvest was way below expectations. Chinook showed way early in mid August and they just did not seem to pick up again in September. My bet is Coho & Chinook well below expectations and Chum well above. Chum are hard to say for sure because the prices both QIN & NT got per pound had a drastic reduction in effort.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/03/23 07:41 PM

QIN says jump, WDFW says "how high?" It's embarrassing.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/23 04:52 AM

The QIN closed their season until the end of November. I know there were some big bright coho showing in the lower Chehalis this last week. It will be interesting to see what comes into the tribs after this high water. Yes, the return of coho so far is less than at this time last year but the reason WDFW raised the limit to 3 adult coho /day a couple of weeks ago on the Satsop was that they had enough fish back to Bingham to justify it. QIN will go back in in Dec to (I suppose) fish the late timed coho and maybe pick up a few early steelhead. The new limit (1 adult/day) started today but the recs won't be fishing for a while because of the high water. WDFW could have waited to see what comes in with this high water before reducing the limit. I guess they have to keep the QIN happy.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/23 09:06 AM

11/4/2023

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
I guess they have to keep the QIN happy.


And to get the NT gill netters, fishing time. A group, IMO, that should have been eliminated from the Chehalis side and Humptulips side many years ago.

I've said for many postings, that this basin DOES NOT 3 GILL NET FISHERIES. The Qin, the Chehalis tribe, and the the NT'ers.

It's not like the NT fishers do not have options....a very liberal Willapa Bay fishery or take part in the "buy back program".

WDFW, Region 6 and some levels of WDFW upper management are so short sighted, out of touch with current reality, that the coastal salmon and steelhead fisheries will both be in the toilet. One of the worse things to happen in this State, around 1995, combine the 2 agencies responsible for "fish and game", then tip the scales with many Salmon management personnel.....duh move, an now here we are!!!! Grrrrrrrr
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/04/23 04:55 PM

Exactly what Drifter said!!!!!!!! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/23 08:47 AM

WDFW employees are only in it for a pension.
They are a group of lazy, college educated idiots.
Posted by: TedR

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/06/23 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
WDFW employees are only in it for a pension.
They are a group of lazy, college educated idiots.


Comments like this aren't helpful. To paint all employees with this same brush is dumb and inaccurate.
Posted by: eddie

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/07/23 05:01 AM

You are correct!
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/07/23 05:47 AM

Cashing Jay's check this week I see.

So who is accountable if it's not the WDFW employees???????

WDFW employees and the weatherman get paid for consistently being wrong.
It's a culture of not being accountable and passing the problems down to the next generation.
Do something!!!!!!
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/07/23 07:22 AM

they r doing something!!! there destroying fishing in washington!!!
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/07/23 01:04 PM

i was told by a buddy who is well informed, the reason that the tribes wont net through November, is because they were 32% over quota LAST MONTH....

playing by the rules as usual..
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/23 10:31 AM

Well, bummer. Another year, another emergency reduction/closure. It might be time to accept that our habitats and climates are no longer conducive to large runs of anadromous fish and plan open ocean fisheries accordingly....

It started great for me (early rain is great for the bank-bound), and realistically, I've enjoyed some of the best fishing I've experienced in years in the tribs all season, but I can see that the numbers are fading out; fewer and fewer fresh fish around as the season progresses.

One (potential) silver lining is that some of the tribs are still slated to be open in December. I fully expect that to be the next change (watch for it as December nears), but at least for now, there is some opportunity for late coho and early steelhead on the books. Trouble is, with the Satsop closed and nothing much else available to Puget Sounders, if those tribs remain open, the hordes will descend on what rivers remain open, putting additional pressures on wild runs that aren't doing very well to begin with....

It's probably safe to plan on November 30 being the last day of fishing in 2023 for Grays Harbor, but as always, I hope I'm wrong....
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/23 12:10 PM

It will be interesting to see what the returns are after the high water and no netting.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/08/23 05:05 PM

I doubt that QIN shut down in Nov because they were over quota
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 07:03 AM

I doubt that the numbers, especially as allied to the Tribes but maybe even the NT-Commercials, are actually "quotas". They are estimated of catches based on a fixed schedule of fishing days. I think that that important aspect, now, is "days on the water" rather than a fixed catch number.

I believe this grew out of Hoh V Baldridge and co-mnanagement agreements.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 07:36 AM

Yeah... word on the river (and in this thread) was QIN effort was low and catches not great (until the chums showed, anyway). Seems unlikely they exceeded any catch goals.

I went fishing yesterday in a spot that should have had at least a few fresh coho on the heels of the last rain event. Saw some fresh chums, but the only silvers around were fire trucks (decent biters and beautiful colors, but not exactly what we're looking for). Things do seem to be slowing down. Lots of boats on the Satsop yesterday for a Wednesday. Also lots of water, so I opted to go elsewhere, but I'd be interested to know if that was any better....
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 08:11 AM

First time I have read Hoh vs Baldridge. Some interesting history and numbers from the 70's/80's. "Findings of Fact" paragragh #9 on, very informative.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1519498/hoh-indian-tribe-v-baldrige/
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 10:28 AM

Total adult coho returns to the hatcheries on the Satsop thru 11/6:

Bingham: 19,208 H 2562 W 21,313 surplused (H + W)

Satsop Springs: 1,500 H 1,443 surplused


Total: 22,756 surplused coho

1 adult coho/day limit??
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 12:21 PM

It would do well for us to understand the history of how we got where we are. I never read HvB; I just understood the implications.
Posted by: satsop_connoisseur

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 01:33 PM

Those Satsop numbers are well above average for the past 10 years. Last year was an anomaly. Plus, the late run hasn't been counted yet. I also don't understand the reduction in the daily limit.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 01:44 PM

If you want to understand the problem, look at the number of hatchery returns versus wild. Wild stocks are the limiting factor, no matter how many hatchery fish get surplused. We're talking what... 5 to 1 H to W here?

From an angler (and Tribal) perspective, a harvestable fish is a harvestable fish. From a management perspective, only the high finners count. Not enough of those, and we end up on the couch.
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 02:10 PM

theres almost 20k Coho back to Bingham, with 21,313 surplus, do the math on that...

the same thing happened with the low water on the Quillayute this year, the fish werent moving and were stacked up by Richwine, tribe came in, smacked the hell out of them, and they closed the rivers because not enough fish were back to the Sol Duc hatchery... they had their totes off the side of the road, so unless it was full of dead raccons, they had fish in them...

if you guys believe numbers from either side, i dont know what to tell you...

same thing with the Puyallup this year, they say there is 8600 back to the hatchery, yet i didnt encounter very many hatchery fish at all, maybe 20 out of 100+ landed...

almost seems like someone dumped a bunch of unclipped fish in the system, either that, or it was one of the best Coho years in over a decade, and we just get crapped on and left hanging...


Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 02:30 PM

It comes down to a very simple question. Do you see value in having large, ecologically relevant populations of wild anadromous fish in our rivers and streams or not? If the answer is "yes", then hatchery operations must constrained and better sited and operated, mixed stock fisheries have to be significantly reduced for the long-term, and habitat (quantity and quality) has to be restored and maintained.

If the answer is "no" then stock hatchery fish in as large of numbers as the ecosystem (including ocean) will support and fish to your heart's content.

I believe these are the only two viable choices as 100+ years of trying mixed management has just **cked the wild fish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 03:04 PM

Couple of things missing from the conversation. First missing the QIN harvest numbers ( which WDFW says the QIN will not provide ) it is difficult to say exactly what is going on. That said the Satsop hatchery returns are around 1/3 of what was expected and wild mirrored them. It rained early and the Coho were up way early so both QIN and Nt fishers were well below expectations and bad prices brought commercial effort to a dead stop. The Chum came in strong but with reduuced effort how much is fish not taken in the commercial harvest is really a guess. With the rain up and down several times the Chehalis Basin has had the best freshwater conditions in many years. Fishing has and is good inland but that does not translate to large runsize but rather great conditions to fish and a fair amount of fish.

Always remember hatchery Coho are a bonus it is about the wild spawners period, put a fork in it, nothing else matters. Without QIN harvest numbers ( somebody should thank Ed Johnstone for that ) it is difficult to have a clear picture of what has and is happening. Frankly I would bet Chinook do not make escapement and 2 to 1 that Coho do not for the Chehalis Basin.

From what I have seen Chum came in at or above expectations. What was missing was the substantial number of Coho normaly present depending on what week of the year varies but for NT it is around 4 Coho to 5 Chum. For the QIN it is different but they hang out at at about the same in prime Chum weeks. The Chum were there but the Coho were not. Looking at harvest NT on Coho were 25% or so overall.

So you look at the hatchery returns which was supposed to be around 40k after QIN NT and Rec harvest one could say we have a problem. If the wild run mirrors the hatchery which it normally does and appears to be doing it is most likely we do not to make Chehalis Basin Coho escapement.

Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 04:14 PM

How many wild coho are spawning in the river and not being counted or collected at the hatchery? There is still most of November and all of December ( and into January) to go. Why not have a 2 adult hatchery coho/day limit with selective gear rules.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 04:49 PM

A fishery based on what data? WDFW is, or at least to, do daily spawner surveys in various parts of the watersheds. Perhaps 4 or 5 indexes a day, 5 days a week, by a 2 person crew. Or just one. These serve as the basis for run reconstruction which ultimately tells you what was there. I know that while I was managing I used the information from this daily surveys to provide more clarity to the updates.

For whatever reason, WDFW, QIN, and many other tribes have rather abandoned in-season management based on a pre-season plan. Unless there is strong evidence of different numbers they won't change.

In-season management is expensive; you need staff in the field to count spawners, to count catch. You need staff in the office to convert these numbers into updates. And as Rivrguy can tell you, the burden of conservation in real-time management falls on the last in line. Before HvB it was the Tribes, mostly. Now it is the freshwater sportie.

Given the poor numbers of wild spawners relative to goal, you can't kill any of them. Even now, with ESA, we still allowed wild endangered fish to be killed so we can kill hatchery fish. Nobody involved in the current management regime really wants wild fish (see what is happening to steelhead) because they prevent harvest of too many hatchery fish.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/09/23 05:16 PM

Tribe pulled nets, WDFW had to reduce the limit to keep dad off their back.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/23 04:26 AM

When the QIN decided to pull their nets (Oct. 27) and not fish in November, the writing was on the wall that the rec limit would be cut back. Pretty easy to predict. The tribe must have agreed to allow a 1 adult/day limit.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/23 06:07 AM

Some have asked about the 40K hatchery that was forecast. That number includes the Wishkah at Mayres, Aberdeen Lake, and Skookumchuck miitigation Coho and I do believe Bingham Lates. None of these are large smolt releases but added together are a substantial number. So yes one could say the the Satsop Hatchery Coho returns are looking to be around 50% of the forecast or maybe not. 2023 at present H Coho are at 19,208 and W 2562 which is down about 500 wild fish from 2022. All numbers for returns are after anticipated harvest and that is the thing. It is thought that QIN Coho numbers were way down and we know NT commercials were. So he hatchery returns we see include fish that should have been caught in commercial fisheries which makes 19,208 not exactly a great number. The 2023 anticipated QIN harvest of Coho in the first two weeks of November was 4810 with only 1985 being hatchery. So the Rec fishers with our good river conditions are getting a shot at fish tha normally would be harvested. Total runsize is another matter all together and that is why knowing the QIN harvest numbers matter for those who care about conservation and the fish.

The other question was the portionality of H&W in November. That always varies but years back WDF used run compression in an attempt to create a early timed Coho by taking all eggs as early in the run has possible. In more recent times this practice was ended but the hatchery Coho are still more in the earlier part of the run. So as we go through November the H /W ration ends up being dominated by the wild returns. Rain can mess this up by raining early or dry years move the fish to the later weeks of November and then we have fish do what fish do and that is never the same year to year.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/10/23 09:30 AM

Remember when the tribes only took enough fish to smoke for the winter?
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/23 08:02 AM

Anecdotally, all 6 fish we saw Thursday were wild.
Posted by: thaxor

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/11/23 10:16 AM

Ran around Porter to oakville in the sled yesterday. No luck for us. Ran into two other boats, neither seemed to be having any success.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/23 11:54 AM


Ok folks as I posted before I requested the harvest numbers for the QIN but staff said QIN had not provided them. They also said as soon as they have the data it would be provided and this arrived today from Mike Scharpf. I think he has done a good job providing insight for our fisheries so far.


As K-- explained below, market for salmon this year is way down and is reflected in the effort. Even when anglers fished, most didn’t fish the whole time available, many left after the prime tide. We heard similar stories from the treaty anglers. QIN’s pre-season catch predictions for the Chehalis were 2,039 Chinook, 28,815 coho, and 8,101 chum through the first 4 weeks of their fishery. They reported catching 289 Chinook, 3,562 coho, and 7,398 chum landed. And for the Humptulips side, pre-season predictions were 1,022 Chinook, 6,087 coho, and 2,961 chum, actuals are 59 Chinook, 768 coho, and 3,471 chum. On Oct 27th, they closed the remainer of their fall season due to concerns with the number of coho returning this year. They numbers are still preliminary and may change, but probably not much.

As for the non-treaty side, the pre-season predictions for 2A/D were 83 Chinook, 7,002 coho, and 6,155 chum, actuals are 9 Chinook (hatchery origin), 1,474 coho, and 3,121 chum. To help put things in a little better perspective, the pre-season predicted catches are based on years with an average of 14 boats participating. There were 6 this year and only 5 the last week. No one participated in the 2C fishery, weather wasn’t great and just wasn’t worth it with price for fish.

During both fisheries, the number of coho per fish ticket was lower than pre-season forecasting, and on the treaty side, as low as the 2015 year. Part of the concern that they expressed. Combining low coho per ticket and lower effort explains some of the commercial catch numbers. Thankfully, some of the in-river indicators are pointing to a few more fish than what was observed in the commercial fishery. Wynoochee trap counts are ahead of average, and we are seeing large numbers of coho at the Elk Creek trap. Hope they keep coming.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/23 12:35 PM

Gee. Go figure. No money to be made, so they don't fish, and as a result, they don't catch a lot of fish... Price was through the floor why? Perhaps because ocean fisheries flooded the markets with the vast majority of an at least decent run before the gillnet season started?

For sure, those commercial numbers are disappointing, even in light of the reduced effort. I think they missed a lot of early fish before they started fishing this season (that early rain that made me so happy), but even with that, it seems like the runs are underperforming. I really don't have a problem with the reduced limits; I'm always in favor of more fish for the gravel. I do think it's a bit of dirty pool to make a conscious decision not to put in full effort, then force our side to reduce ours as well, but it's probably for the best. I'm just glad we didn't get shut down the second the QIN announced their decision to stop fishing. Just being allowed to be out there keeps me happy these days, even if the fishing isn't always great.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/13/23 01:07 PM


Nello Picinich (CCA) sent this and after the WDFW buy back this is the number of GH NT Commercial fisher left.

Remaining Grays Harbor/Columbia River Gill Net Licenses
Number Waiver? License Owner Residency
70621 N A J MITBY Resident
73362 Y CARL D FERGUSON Resident
71004 Y CHRISTOPHER A DOUMIT Resident
71160 Y DALE M BRUMFIELD Resident
70429 N DANNY J REEVES Resident
72070 N DAVID J MANDICH Resident
70326 N JACOB R COSS Resident
72368 N JOSEPH L SCHEUBER Resident
71526 Y KELLY DONALD & MARINA Non-Resident
72999 N MARIYAH INC Resident
72267 N OTIS M HUNSINGER Non-Resident
72988 N PAUL T BEESE Resident
70020 N RED FINN FISHERIES LLC Resident
72377 N ROBERT H BROCKHOFF Resident
72740 N WILLIAM L HUNSINGER Non-Resident
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 04:17 AM

Quote:
Price was through the floor why? Perhaps because ocean fisheries flooded the markets with the vast majority of an at least decent run before the gillnet season started?


Do a seach why are salmon prices so low? It is all about Alaska and last years run leaving fish on hand. Also Russia found a loop hole on import bans by having processing done by China. Bristol Bay prices were 50% of last year and other fishries not much different. It is an interesting read and a lot of information is out there.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 05:17 AM

I did a little reading, and it sounds like retail price-gouging is largely responsible for the glut of salmon on the market. Retailers would rather throw away a bunch of fish than sell it at a reasonable, market-driven price. That's why you still see high prices at the store despite the paltry ex-vessel price of 50 cents per pound.

Russian salmon should be boycotted, considering that it is fueling Putin's war in Ukraine. I suppose it's finding its way to market via Chinese processors, which sounds to me like a great reason to boycott salmon from China, but hey, those middle men aren't going to stop practices that earn them higher profits, so....

I don't have much sympathy for the Alaska fishing industry, but I've always felt like they should get a lot more per pound than they do. I used to think it was the processors who controlled that (and they do, to some extent), but this shows how much they are constrained by the market.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 07:46 AM

I was surprised also when I finished reading several articles. It was not what I had thought at all.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 07:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy


Be interesting to find out how many of those on the list, actual net??????? Maybe they keep the license "just for a tax write off"????


Nello Picinich (CCA) sent this and after the WDFW buy back this is the number of GH NT Commercial fisher left.

Remaining Grays Harbor/Columbia River Gill Net Licenses
Number Waiver? License Owner Residency
70621 N A J MITBY Resident
73362 Y CARL D FERGUSON Resident
71004 Y CHRISTOPHER A DOUMIT Resident
71160 Y DALE M BRUMFIELD Resident
70429 N DANNY J REEVES Resident
72070 N DAVID J MANDICH Resident
70326 N JACOB R COSS Resident
72368 N JOSEPH L SCHEUBER Resident
71526 Y KELLY DONALD & MARINA Non-Resident
72999 N MARIYAH INC Resident
72267 N OTIS M HUNSINGER Non-Resident
72988 N PAUL T BEESE Resident
70020 N RED FINN FISHERIES LLC Resident
72377 N ROBERT H BROCKHOFF Resident
72740 N WILLIAM L HUNSINGER Non-Resident
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 08:25 AM

Back in the mid-80s there was a big pink run in PS. The netters were getting like a dime or so per fish. One tribe set up a direct sales (it all went on fish tickets, too) for $2 per fish and couldn't keep up with demand. For a while a local tribe down here sold whole chum for a few dollars each. We bought some and got them custom smoked for gifts.

With some set-up effort the netters could sell directly as there seems a huge mark-up when you go through all the middle-men. Custom canners and smokers could also probably do well but it would be locally driven market.

We have, on occasion, gotten flash-frozen salmon from AK fishermen. Good product and good price plus the money goes to the fisherman.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 10:18 AM


More info. Not really a Chehalis thing but Alska and BC take more of our Chinook than cross the bar. They also are the main driver on prices for commercial caught fish. With processers dumping unsold flash froze 2022 not sold to prepare for 2023 harvest and 2023 prices so low why in the hell is salmon so expensive in the store?

Press Release: October 31, 2023
CONTACT: Forrest R. Bowers, (907) 465-6139, forrest.bowers@alaska.gov

2023 Salmon Harvest Summary
(Juneau) – The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has published preliminary harvest and value figures for the 2023 Alaska Commercial Salmon Fishery.

A total of 230.2 million salmon were harvested in 2023, a 43% increase from the 2022 total harvest of 160.7 million fish. The 2023 commercial salmon fishery all species harvest was valued at approximately $398.6 million, a significant decrease from 2022’s value of $720.4 million. International market conditions significantly impacted pricing of salmon statewide, thus value of the harvest.

Sockeye salmon accounted for approximately 45% of the total value at $181.1 million and 23% of the harvest at 51.8 million fish. Pink salmon comprised approximately 29% of the value at $113.7 million, and 66% of the harvest with 152.4 million fish. Chum salmon accounted for 19% of the value at $74.6 million and approximately 10% of the harvest at 23.5 million fish. Coho salmon accounted for approximately 4% of the value at $14.4 million and 1% of the harvest at 2.3 million fish. Chinook salmon harvest was estimated to be just under 235,000 fish with an estimated preliminary exvessel value of $14.7 million. A total of 5,577 individual permit holders made commercial salmon landings in 2023, a decrease from 2022 (6,126 permits).

When compared to the long-term time-series (1985-2022), the 2023 all-species commercial salmon harvest of approximately 230.2 million fish and 919.7 million pounds was the fourth highest on record for total fish harvested, and the seventh highest on record for total pounds harvested. Adjusted for inflation (CPI, 2023 prices), the 2023 exvessel value estimate of $398.6 million was the sixth lowest exvessel value reported since 1975.

These are preliminary harvest and value estimates which will change as fish tickets are processed and finalized. Dollar values provided by ADF&G are based on estimated exvessel prices and do not include post-season price adjustments. The final value of the 2023 salmon fishery will be determined in 2024 after seafood buyers and processors report the total value paid to fishermen in 2023.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 12:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

Chinook salmon harvest was estimated to be just under 235,000 fish with an estimated preliminary exvessel value of $14.7 million. A total of 5,577 individual permit holders made commercial salmon landings in 2023, a decrease from 2022 (6,126 permits).

235,000 kings... 5500 permits delivering

That's a whopping 42 kings per active permit. J F C... talk about an overcapitalized commercial fishery. Is that even "commercial" fishing? Sounds more like hobby fishing for personal homepack and sell just enough for fuel/expenses.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 01:33 PM

Got a question on the Chehalis AK & BC harvest. I think I have been in the numbers game to long! The 2023 modeled 11,461 intercept by AK and BC is for Grays Harbor Chinook and total marine harvest known as Northern Fisheries is 12,091 is for all Grays Harbor Chinook. 2023 return across the bar for Grays Harbor Chinook 20,928 which is Chehalis Hump everything that comes into the Harbor.

WDFW manages Chehalis and Humptulips seperately but no other enity does so other than for spawner escapement. My bad not thinking to be clearer on what was in the numbers.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 02:04 PM

I don't think that all 5500 permits landed Chinook. They are targeted by the trollers in SE where it is pretty significant fishery. The net fisheries are probably pretty "clean"; I doubt the Bristol Bay guys get many.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 05:56 PM

A long time friend of mine who passed some time back caught a Chinook while rec fishing out of Sitka. It was clipped and when eveything was processed he was told CWT's said it was a Humptulips Chinook. The Alaska intercept fishery is not exclusively commercial.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 06:22 PM

I am sure that the AK and BC rec fisheries on feeding Chinook get WA fish. Going to SE AK or up to BC to chase Chinook and coho is just catching lots "our" fish when they don't count is sharing. Just in conservation.
Posted by: darth baiter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/14/23 07:18 PM

Pretty sure that's 5577 permits landed salmon, not landed Chinook. In 2021 SEAk, 831 troll permits landed 163,000 Chinook. There were about 1500 total permits all gears that landed salmon in SEAK in 2020-21
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 11:19 AM

Turn out the lights when the party's over....

https://www.kxro.com/quinault-nation-closed-tribal-fishing-early-calling-on-wdfw-to-do-the-same/
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 11:34 AM

Yup always remember what Albert Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.


Quinault Nation closed tribal fishing early; calling on WDFW to do the same

The Quinault Indian Nation says that while they closed their fall tribal fisheries in Grays Harbor and on the Queets River early this year in order to protect wild Coho Salmon, they are calling on the state to join them.

In a letter sent to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) director Kelly Susewind, the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) says that they have again called on the state to close both fall Coho salmon fisheries in response to “alarmingly low returns of wild adult coho salmon”.

The letter states “We are disappointed at WDFW’s ‘wait and see’ attitude and reluctance to take precautionary actions to protect the resources entrusted to our stewardship in the face of uncertainty.”

“We understand this closure has brought hardship to our tribal fishermen and their families, but as stewards of our salmon for today and future generations, it’s the right thing to do,” said Quinault Indian Nation President Guy Capoeman. “While we won’t know with certainty how many wild coho will eventually spawn, after analyzing all the information we could muster, we believe precautionary management principles had to be followed. The best available science led us to conclude emergency closures were needed and we are disappointed the state decided against taking similar precautions.”

QIN has a treaty protected right to harvestable fish produced by the Queets River and the Chehalis Basin and the responsibility to regulate its fisheries.

WDFW manages non-treaty commercial and sport fisheries within state waters.

The Nation states that in an letter dated October 30, 2023, they urged WDFW to immediately close Coho fisheries under its jurisdiction in the Queets River and Grays Harbor.

The agency has chosen to keep those fisheries open for the time being.

In a November 3 letter in response, QIN says that WDFW stated “We agree that the limited information so far this year, suggests that the coho return is likely below pre-season expectation, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty.”

“We do face uncertainty in making these difficult management decisions, but the risk of leaving fisheries open too long and getting it wrong is too great with our salmon populations already in a precarious state of decline,” said Quinault Fisheries Policy Spokesperson Cleve Jackson. “Our shared responsibility to be good stewards of our sacred salmon requires us to be cautious and proactive before it’s too late.”

Based on preseason projections for spawning escapement – the number of salmon that escape fishermen and successfully reach spawning grounds – the Quinault Department of Fisheries opened tribal commercial and guide fisheries for Queets River Coho on September 1st and tribal commercial fisheries on the Humptulips and Chehalis River (which both empty into Grays Harbor) on October 1st.

After observing far below expected catch numbers anticipated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s preseason projections, QIN decided in October to close its fisheries early.

A full season for Grays Harbor tribal commercial fisheries and the Queets River tribal guide fishery would have run until November 30.

The October 30 letter from QIN to WDFW states “Despite considerable social and economic consequences for its communities, the QIN has closed its Queets and Grays Harbor fisheries. We are distressed and frankly mystified over WDFW’s reluctance to take comparable actions.”

In further explaining QIN’s decision to close its fisheries, Jackson commented “Our ocean, where salmon spend most of their lives, is sick. Heat waves, acidification, harmful algal blooms, and disrupted food webs are becoming the rule rather than the exception. On land, we are facing challenges from growth and development, warming temperatures, droughts, floods, invasive species, plastic and chemical pollution, and other environmental degradation. The earth is out of balance. Our future is getting more uncertain and unpredictable. Our ancestors have taught us that we are part of the environment, not apart from it. We have the responsibility to make hard decisions to care for the whole, our communities, the land, forests, water, air, fish, plants, and animals for today and tomorrow.”
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 12:15 PM

Well, considering that they left open the salmon river for steelhead, and continued to allow the take of wild Steelhead last year while we got shut out, I do not think we should have to take their lead. That is not too say it might not be the correct action, but the differences in impact between their fishery on wild fish and ours makes their argument very weak.
Posted by: 5 * General Evo

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 12:18 PM

they are doing it for a reason, and it has nothing to do with the fish...

WDFW closed all the coastal rivers last year for Steelhead, the guides on the Quinault had no problem killing any fish they brought to the boat...

in 2008 or whatever it was, WDFW closed the Hoh due to low returns, the tribe never stopped netting, and took over 80 percent of harvestable (estimated) fish...

the past 6 years they have closed the Puyallup early to protect the chum and late silvers, yet the tribes have no problem netting the hell out of them below Clarks, and no problem selling them to russian businessmen and others right out of their totes underneath the 66th street bridge...

they talk about problems with "growth and development" aka "buidling and population increase", yet have no problem building larger casinos and parking areas to bring in the money from the population growth...

it was/is, never about the fish.. its about money...

and by money, i mean the federal money they and the commercials are about to get for the hardship they are going to face by not raping the resource and profiting from it... and its going to be tens of millions likely...

they are trying to see how much they can get away with, and sadly, the state sucks at poker, so we are likely screwed....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 12:21 PM

A friend of who was a tribal member used to say "the Nation plays hardball WDFW plays T ball".
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 04:58 PM






“We understand this closure has brought hardship to our tribal fishermen and their families, but as stewards of our salmon for today and future generations, it’s the right thing to do,” said Quinault Indian Nation President Guy Capoeman.

Lol, the hardship was that they were getting .75/LB or something like that. They were all bitching about the prices. Pretty easy to shut down when you're not recouping gas and beer money.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 05:04 PM

what hardship?? they still get money from the gov't and their casino.. clamming and other seafood..
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 05:32 PM

What's before T-ball???
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 06:30 PM

11/16/2023


I am really surprised that WDFW didn't "go to a "hatchery only" Coho take, when they changed the limit to 1 fish........ makes me scratch my head at what WDFW does in making rule changes....... grrrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 06:43 PM

What amazes me about WDFW is that I thought humans needed to breathe oxygen and not methane to survive. Learn something new every day.

Plus, going to hatchery only would have cut out the commercials....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 07:18 PM

Keep in mind this is a news report ( follow Doc's link to listen to the recording ) and not the actual letter. First they both screwed up so both commercial entities had to fish together which the QIN had always said was not possible. Then the Rec three bag limit on the Satsop. Then the one fish bag limit on Satsop. Qin shut down their season in the middle of all this and are asking to shut down the Rec season. Frankly it looks like they are taking turns poking each other in the eye!
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/16/23 08:12 PM

Get ready for a rec closure real soon.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/23 07:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
Get ready for a rec closure real soon.



i figure either today they will announce the closer to take place on Monday or Monday and close by t-day..
Posted by: eswan

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/23 09:40 AM

Fair to assume no fishing for the coast until memorial day?
Posted by: Krijack

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/23 11:55 AM

Thats probably the result. Close on the 1st, for all fishing. Of course, the tribe will still fish the Quinault, Queets, Salmon, and possibly the quillaute, with no restricts. I doubt they give a rip about netting steelhead else where as the numbers do no really make it feasible.

The real interesting thing, is that all the rivers with no tribal influence will stay open-that is too say all rivers south of Grays Harbor.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/23 12:21 PM

I've seen no mention of the Quillayute and Hoh, so I suppose they'll still be open? Not that I'm going to make that drive more than once or twice, but it would be nice to know that's still there....
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/23 03:09 PM

My money is on Forks area rivers, Hoh, and Willapa Bay rivers open for Winter Steelhead. Same as last year minus the 15 days in December on Grays Harbor/Chehalis tribs, due to Coho numbers.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/17/23 09:23 PM

it makes sense to them to stop gillnetting when they are getting less than a dollar a pound for the fish, claim hardship, and get a big check from uncle sam.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/23 04:15 AM

Spot on F4B. I had the same thoughts. I heard FED money will be on its way to them. How can the QIN say that they stopped netting to save the wild fish when everybody knows that "a fish is a fish to them" whether it be wild or hatchery? Complete BS.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/23 10:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
Spot on F4B. I had the same thoughts. I heard FED money will be on its way to them. How can the QIN say that they stopped netting to save the wild fish when everybody knows that "a fish is a fish to them" whether it be wild or hatchery? Complete BS.


Right. You can't have it both ways... unless you happen to be a Washington treaty tribe, in which case you can have it as many ways as you like. It's like they have a See and Say that spits out excuses for closing non-tribal fisheries when you pull the string. I imagine the voice tracks sounding something like Tonto, with a steady beat on the tom-toms in the background....

To be a little fair, the Tribal fishers did get screwed over by the glutted market, and it was entirely non-tribal fishers and retailers that created that market. From that angle, I'm good with them getting hardship money. That said, we (and the salmon) could do without all the guilt trips and Draconian "requests" to close our fisheries when they can't sufficiently profit from theirs. Indeed, I think the truth would have been a much more compelling (and potentially productive) case for them to make. That the market crashed the way it did proves that too many fish were taken in last year's non-tribal commercial fisheries. Sounds like solid justification for the Tribes to seek reductions in those fisheries, to ensure less waste of precious salmon and reasonable ex-vessel prices for all fishers. Instead, of course, they borrowed that favorite page from WDFW's playbook and put the burden squarely on the in-river recs. Such BS, and a wasted opportunity to make real, positive change to boot.
Posted by: fishbadger

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/23 10:54 AM

Can anybody here find it in their hearts to thank WDFW for not immediately caving to QIN's pressure campaign to shut the in-river rec's down? I am grateful, even if it was out of complete ineptitude, at least I can go and catch and release a dark coho tomorrow. I mean, they are really turning the heat up. The article in this morning's Seattle Times is a gem. Feel free to hit the comments section there,
fb
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/23 12:19 PM

The fish coming up river now are chromers nothing dark about them. Here is the article:

By Isabella Breda
Seattle Times staff reporter

Quinault Nation shuttered its fall coho fishery a month early this year after harvest numbers came in at just a fraction of what was expected. Now, fishery leaders have called on the state to do the same.

“It’s our way of life, and these days, it’s a source of income as well,” said Cleve Jackson, a policy representative for Quinault Fisheries. “Our people would fish no matter what: to eat, to feed their soul.”

But the state Department of Fish and Wildlife pushed back on these requests from the Quinault. In a Thursday letter, the state cited levels of returning natural spawning coho above the 10-year average to date in one tributary of the Chehalis River.

They acknowledged depleted natural returns of coho in other coastal systems and ultimately pointed to a lack of “technical tools available that would inform our shared decision making,” as state and tribal co-managers of the fisheries.

The tribal nation was anticipating to harvest more than 50,000 coho salmon from the coast, coastal rivers and streams. Three weeks in, they came up with fewer than 10,000 fish.

Quinault Fisheries leaders worry there are more “paper fish” than fish running up the rivers and fear the fishery is not being managed for future generations. “I work for the nation, but I also work for the ones that can’t speak for themselves,” Jackson said. “If there is no salmon, then there’s no k&#695;ínay&#620; [Quinault people].”

After several years in the ocean, migrating as far as 1,000 miles to feed and grow, coho return to their birth streams and tributaries, guided by their snout. The fish often gather or hold at the mouth of the river and wait for rain to raise streamflows before heading to their spawning grounds. They begin to turn deep burgundy as they ripen, with the males growing a hooked noses and big teeth.

These coastal coho runs, like other oceangoing fish across the state, took a hit from the warm water “blob” that parked itself off the West Coast about a decade ago. The blob — driven by a long-lasting high-pressure ridge — appeared in 2013. It’s part of a larger pattern that led to low snowpack, drought and depleted marine nutrient levels.

Since the blob was documented as a primary contributing factor to the downturn in coho production in 2015, the stock has struggled to recover, according to Quinault Fisheries.

The number of tools available to fishery managers to conserve runs is shrinking as climate change adds a layer of threats on already struggling salmon.

Ashley Nichole Lewis, a member of the Quinault Nation and a fishing guide, said she’s watched the warming waters — sometimes reaching lethal temperatures — and late-season rains force the salmon to change their behavior.

“We very much respect the science, but the traditional knowledge suggests conserving now is going to set us up for a future that we want,” Lewis said. “Our village is currently being relocated to a higher ground because of climate change, and we feel the impacts of climate change on many levels. Our fish are certainly feeling it also.”

As glaciers, like those that feed the Queets River, recede, some rivers will be further choked off from access to sufficient, cool flows.

Large marine heat waves in the North Pacific have occurred each of the past four years, typically beginning offshore in the spring and moving to the West Coast in the fall, before retreating in the winter.

These were among the largest heat waves on record for the eastern North Pacific since monitoring began in 1982.

Sign up for Evening Brief
Delivered weeknights, this email newsletter gives you a quick recap of the day's top stories and need-to-know news, as well as intriguing photos and topics to spark conversation as you wind down from your day.

In the Queets River, only in one of the last eight years have the runs achieved the escapement goal, or the number of salmon that “escape” harvest and return to the river or hatchery to spawn and sustain the population.

The natural coho stock in the Queets is currently under a rebuilding plan through the Pacific Fisheries Management Council after being designated “overfished” in 2018 when spawning escapement levels dropped below the minimum threshold.

Last fall, amid Western Washington’s driest recorded June to October, salmon crossed their fins as long as they could before fighting their way upstream, many relegated to the lowest reaches of the river without sufficient water to help carry them to their prime spawning habitat.

It not only changed how the salmon spawned but prompted state, tribal and federal officials to close some fisheries, concerned about the number of fish that could successfully spawn.

“We’re facing climate and continued population growth and habitat degradation,” said Jackson, the Quinault fisheries policy representative. “We have to do this. We have been taking this more precautionary approach because of those things.”

Isabella Breda: 206-652-6536 or ibreda@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @BredaIsabella. Seattle Times staff reporter Isabella Breda covers the environment.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/23 12:44 PM

As nI understand it, that State at QIN and other Tribe's insistence, has gone away from in season management. They say the lack the tools. BS. They used to have them. There is no reason why they can't do daily inseam monitoring and modeling except they have agreed not to.

In-season management carries risks in that fisheries may need to close rather than follow the preseason plan. This still doesn't help in-river and everybody is in line ahead of them but it does put numbers out there.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/23 05:28 PM

Heck, even I found a bright coho today. Granted, it took me about 4 hours of fishing, but I finally found one. Another hatchery hen... all I seem to be catching this year. This one was small, too. Maybe 4 lbs.

Are the fish in the Satsop (I assume that's where the best numbers are) big, wild ones, or are they dinky hatchery fish like what I was delighted to catch today?

I've heard lots of accounts of small, bright coho being caught in the tribs. I guess I'm wondering if the small size of the fresh fish moving now may be an indicator that the ocean ran out of food or was somehow otherwise inhospitable during the time the wild B runs are usually fattening up in the nearshore areas....
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/23 06:10 PM

My colleagues who have been looking at the ocean off of AK are seeing coho and Chinook that are smaller at age. It looks to them like the quality of what they eat is way down; lots fewer calories/item. In the dim past the late-returning fish were larger as they stayed out and ate more.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/23 07:25 PM

A % of normal timed Coho come back late and a % of Late Coho come back early. Bingham has a modest Late Coho smolt release and the 300K Skookumchuck mitigation are late timed. Week or so back fish caught mostly were unclipped and up to size. Last few days mostly clipped Coho but most the normal size. Early Coho this year were a tad small but they came in a month early and that makes a big difference. November Coho have been about what one would expect so far in size from what I can tell.

Numbers that is a different thing all together. I imagine things will stay open until December 1st.
Posted by: Smalma

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/18/23 08:35 PM

The coho returns to Puget Sound rivers have been excellent.

Most of the hatcheries have surplused 1,000s of fish lead by the Marblemount hatchery on the Skagit. The hatch run was forecasted to be 21,000 fish. To date that hatchery has surplused 22,000 fish. Looking at the count of wild coho at Sunset Falls on the Skykomish it looks like the wild coho escapement is on track to potentially exceed 150,000 which would be the highest escapement since 2004.

While Puget Sound and Grays harbor coho may not exactly track at least in some areas of the state there were lots of coho.

Curt
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/23 07:24 AM

Nice numbers. What's the size?
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/23 11:18 AM

Looks like WDFW is indeed holding firm, despite the Tribe's pressure. I just read a KIRO article that seems to confirm that. Of course, the article goes into no detail about the real reasons the QIN suffered an economic hardship (the bottomed-out ex-vessel value that made it economically unfeasible to fish). That's unfortunate, because that's something the public should understand. Absent that, people are left to think WDFW is being reckless and irresponsible by letting us keep fishing, and that's simply not the truth. Oh, well. Good news is good news....
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/23 11:59 AM

WDFW refuses to close fisheries despite Quinault Nation citing ‘alarmingly low returns’ of salmon

By KIRO 7 News Staff
November 18, 2023 at 5:35 pm PST


TAHOLAH, Wash. — The Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) has sent a second letter to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to close fall Coho salmon fisheries in Grays Harbor and the Queets River due to “alarmingly low returns” of wild adult Coho salmon.

The letter sent to the WDFW stated:

“We are disappointed at WDFW’s ‘wait and see’ attitude and reluctance to take precautionary actions to protect the resources entrusted to our stewardship in the face of uncertainty.” -QIN

Quinault Indian Nation President Guy Capoeman had sent an earlier letter dated October 30, 2023, asking WDFW to close the hatcheries immediately. In that letter, QIN urged WDFW to close Coho fisheries under its jurisdiction early in the Queets River and Grays Harbor.

WDFW has since decided to keep the fisheries open.

The later reply from WDFW reads:

“We agree that the limited information so far this year, suggests that the coho return is likely below pre-season expectations, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty.” - WDFW

“We understand this closure has brought hardship to our tribal fishermen and their families, but as stewards of our salmon for today and future generations, it’s the right thing to do,” said Quinault Fisheries Policy Spokesperson Cleve Jackson. “Our shared responsibility to be good stewards of our sacred salmon requires us to be cautious and proactive before it’s too late.”

QIN decided in October to close its fisheries early after seeing far lower catch numbers than were anticipated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s preseason projections.

©2023 Cox Media Group
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/23 01:31 PM

The KIRO release made no sense. If you read it on the internet, it's even more confusing. They quote the tribe as asking WDFW to close the hatcheries?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/23 05:01 PM

I think it was more the case of an error in the reporting.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/19/23 08:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Tug 3
The KIRO release made no sense. If you read it on the internet, it's even more confusing. They quote the tribe as asking WDFW to close the hatcheries?


Yeah. I noticed that, too, but the bigger miss was leaving out the real reasons the QIN had poor catch numbers this year. Makes WDFW and their closed hatcheries look like monsters for letting us keep fishing...
Posted by: fishbadger

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/21/23 11:44 AM

I fished a couple Chehalis tribs this weekend, and can verify that the wild fish are on the march,
fb
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/21/23 12:45 PM

Some nice fish in the system. The wild coho return to Wynooche Dam has been good. That is one indicator that WDFW uses to estimate the wild return. I have friends who are doing well on bright coho in the Chehalis.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/23 04:39 PM

Double post making sure I have all the bases covered!!!

Heads up on the weather and fishing. Around Dec 2nd a storm is forecast and in 4 days we are going to flood stage. There are four flood levels from action to major and it looks to be just flood level which is the second stage. Somewhere arounf 23,000 CFS at Porter and 17,000 CFS on the Satsop. In other words the river is going to blow out big time! At present December looks to be a mixed bag as to rain so we will have to wait and see but the great inland fishing water that started in September is about to come to an end.

One thing is for sure I have never seen WDFW hold their ground when the QIN do not fish before. There is a world of difference between a net fishery and Rec fishery in November. To say I have been a critic of WDFW over the years is an understatement but this time I think staff got it right. It was never fair for the commercial fisheries to hammer the crap out of the fish then opps the recs have to conserve. If we do not make escapement for Coho the Nov caught Rec fish will not be the cause.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/26/23 05:52 PM

I'm with you, it was fantastic to see WDFW stand their ground. Still seeing nice fish caught in tidewater. QIN is making a money play, economic hardship because "there aren't enough fish", which translates in real talk to "lots of complaining about rock bottom prices they were getting" so an opportunity to manipulate the situation for a big check from Uncle Sam.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/23 06:55 AM

so an opportunity to manipulate the situation for a big check from Uncle Sam. [/quote]

RIGHT ON ...RIGHT ON...RIGHT ON !!!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/23 12:20 PM

In conversation about the Coho fishery some questioned the Rec oportunity of one fish bag. I took a peak at the Chehalis Basin hatchery Coho returns as of Nov 22 for all Chehalis hatchery Coho. They totaled 29,222 adults and after harvest the modeled return was 40,563. There will still be more fish showing but not enough to drastically alter things. So we should end up near 10k (25%) short of what was anticipated. Keep in mind that both the QIN and NT commercials did poorly due to the early rain and low prices and inland Rec did rather well.

So the forecasted Coho return to the Chehalis Basin hatcheries is off about 25% & change, both commercial fisheries were a bust, inland Rec fsheries were outstanding and fishing is presently doing well from what I am told. After harvest the 2023 Wild Coho escapement was expected to be 15,595 above the escapement goal of 28,506. The math says if wild Coho perform as the hatchery Coho 25% short of modeled returns it is likely wild Coho make escapement.
Posted by: deadly

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/27/23 01:08 PM

With how dry it has been this year I would nor be surprised to see 10k more coho show up. Maybe I'm overly optimistic though.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/30/23 05:36 PM


Looking to the numbers game the number of Chum was just amazing but how amazing? So some of us looked to the Satsop hatchery returns. 2023 Bingham and the Springs had 4942 in 2022 2070 and in 2021 2900 and Bimgham passed 1395 upstream in 2023. So it appears that on the Satsop the Chum return was rather large.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/30/23 06:06 PM

I just saw the emergency closure rules that just came out for WDFW. Looks like all the Chehalis system and tribs and other rivers are closed to all fishing Nov. 30. Kind of late with the announcement. I was planning on fish The Nooch or the Satsop tomorrow and Saturday for coho. I had all my gear ready to go. Did other people see the closure announcement? Looks like a lot of rivers are closing today. I wonder how many recs will not see the closure? Did I miss something?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/30/23 06:54 PM

This came from Region 6 and a press release from Olympia. The portions I highlighted in red is about all the information available. The December late Coho fishery is always tangled up with the tribal Steelhead fishery and there are almost no wild December Steelhead. Late Coho runs are in poor shape we could C&R for wild Late Coho as Bingham and Skookumchuck have hatchery releases for late timed Coho. This is one of the disagreements or agreements between the comanagers that is seldom if ever explained. I was told years back coming after the tribal court decisions it was understood both state and tribe fish or nobody fishes. Over the years I tried to get the numbers of tribal harvest of Late Coho caught as incidental in the so called December Steelhead fishery and was told it was not available.

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Nov. 30, 2023
Contact: Coastal Region – Montesano, 360-249-4628
Media contact: Bridget Mire, 564-224-0845


WDFW announces 2023-2024 coastal steelhead season
Department to test fishing from a floating device in some waters
OLYMPIA – Fishery managers with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) announced this week regulations for the state’s 2023-2024 coastal steelhead fishing season. Included are special rules allowing fishing from a floating device on two sections of the Hoh River during certain days of the week to help determine impacts to wild steelhead.

“With a focus on the long-term decline of coastal steelhead, especially in the Queets and Quinault watersheds, the Region 6 team has designed recreational fishery regulations that support WDFW’s conservation goals while integrating what we’ve heard from the public,” said James Losee, WDFW Coastal Region fish program manager. “With this in mind, we are implementing a one-year study in the Hoh River to determine the wild steelhead impacts from fishing from a floating device to better inform future rule making.”

Fishing is scheduled to be open from Dec. 1 through March 31 with some opportunities to fish from a floating device. Selective gear rules and single point barbless hooks will be required on all systems open to fishing. These include:
• Quillayute River System
• Hoh River
• Willapa Bay River System (select tributaries will close Feb. 28)

WDFW fishery managers are continuing discussions with Quinault Indian Nation to secure agreements on fishery plans in Grays Harbor rivers and tributaries.

In waters open to fishing, the bag limit is two hatchery steelhead, and anglers must release wild steelhead and rainbow trout. All anglers are advised that additional emergency Fishing Rule Changes could occur throughout the season.

The Quillayute River System will follow similar rules as last year’s emergency regulations with some expanded boat fishing on the Sol Duc River. Fishing from a floating device will be allowed in the mainstem Quillayute, downstream of the concrete pump station at the Sol Duc Hatchery, below the Highway 101 bridge on the Calawah River, and downstream of the mouth of Mill Creek on the Bogachiel River (approximately 3/4 mile above the Bogachiel Hatchery).

In the Hoh River, fishing from a floating device will be allowed Sunday through Tuesday only from the Morgan’s Crossing boat launch downstream to the Washington Department of Natural Resources Hoh Oxbow Campground boat launch, and Wednesday through Saturday only from the Hoh Oxbow boat launch downstream to the Olympic National Park boundary near the mouth.

Fishing from a floating device will also be allowed in rivers that flow into Willapa Bay throughout the scheduled season (Dec. 1 through March 31).

State-managed recreational fishing closes Nov. 30 in the Chehalis, Humptulips, Quinault, and Queets rivers due to chronic low wild steelhead abundance. WDFW is still pursuing agreement with tribal co-managers through signed fishery management plans in these systems.

For more information on the Quinault and Queets fisheries, see the Olympic National Park news release. More on fishing in Olympic National Park can be found on the park’s fishing webpage.

Final fishing regulations followed an extensive public engagement process, which included a two-part virtual town hall series this past fall and several WDFW staff updates to the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

WDFW continues to operate under its Statewide Steelhead Management Plan, which requires the Department to prioritize the sustainability of wild coastal steelhead runs by focusing on healthy levels of abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution.

For more information about coastal steelhead management, the pre-season planning process, and recordings of prior public meetings, please visit WDFW’s website.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.

###

Individuals who need to receive this information in an alternative format, language, or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact the Title VI/ADA Compliance Coordinator by phone at 360-902-2349, TTY (711), or email (Title6@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see https://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/requests-accommodation
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/30/23 07:09 PM

I still wonder how many recs will be fishing the Chehalis and tribs tomorrow not knowing of the closure. WDFW came out way too late with the announcement. Typical WDFW screwing things up. Will LE be running around to all the rivers tomorrow telling recs that fishing is closed and to get off the rivers?
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 11/30/23 10:59 PM

WDFW put the river closures near the end of the email on coastal steelhead seasons. Like it was some minor update. A very "sneaky" move by WDFW. It should have been in its own separate email. And WDFW wonders why they are held in such low esteem by recs.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/23 08:23 AM

12/01/23

Whom ever writes these WDFW announcements, "must get paid by the word".

Sportspersons really only want to know "what rivers are open and when", if they were put in alphabetical order, that would be a bonus.....
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/23 08:59 AM

WA has low wild steelhead abundance statewide. But WDFW finds it necessary that "State-managed recreational fishing closes Nov. 30 in the Chehalis, Humptulips, Quinault, and Queets rivers due to chronic low wild steelhead abundance." I think it's worth noting that the rivers closed to recreational fishing due to chronic low wild steelhead abundance are exactly those rivers fished by the Quinault Tribe. Other rivers fished by other tribes have their wild steelhead abundance issues too, but apparently not at the same level as the rivers fished by the Quinault. This has me thinking that the Quinault Tribe doesn't see chronic low wild steelhead abundance as the kind of conservation issue that WDFW does. Could it be that Quinault's significantly lower spawning escapement goals have something to do with this? Or maybe that the Quinault Tribe has adopted the policy - not biological - decision that hatchery and wild fish are the same? With such disparate management concepts, it seems like "chronic low wild steelhead abundance" is by management design. And whichever co-manager has the lowest standards wins - if you can call it that.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/23 09:06 AM

Quote:
And whichever co-manager has the lowest standards wins


That is called a race to the bottom.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/23 09:58 AM

Are we winning? Seems like it.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/23 10:05 AM

With the river closure announcement coming out so late yesterday, it seems that maybe WDFW and the QIN were discussing seasons and closures late and , at the last minute , could not come to an agreement. So the rivers were closed abruptly. With the rivers flooding in the next few days the flooding was as good as a closure.
Posted by: deadly

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/23 11:58 AM

That's optimistic lifter, I'd say they closed it late ro get a few tickets today and this weekend
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/01/23 03:15 PM

QIN is 100% responsible for the demise of late coho in the Chehalis with the 5 day/week netting schedule that starts in November for "steelhead". Years of it has killed the run.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/23 09:15 AM

Quote:
With the rivers flooding in the next few days the flooding was as good as a closure.


Just looked at the weather forecast and it is a ugly thing! https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi Day three which is Monday has Wynoochee Dam getting over 6 inches in 24 hours and upper Satsop getting 6.42 inches. That a lot of rain but the saving grace is that flows are so low that it will get ugly but just ugly! Upper Chehalis gets heavy rain but it is spread out over a week or so with Monday just over 3 inches.

December looks to be rather wet as always but a little above normal for temperatures. If WDFW can come to and understanding with the QIN so folks can fish sometime after the 9th or 10th the rivers should be fishable with tribs first and Chehalis dragging behind 3 or 4 days.

So hopefully the agency can craft and opening for the late timed hatchery Coho in December.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/23 09:32 AM

12/02/2023

Originally Posted By: fish4brains
QIN is 100% responsible for the demise of late coho in the Chehalis with the 5 day/week netting schedule that starts in November for "steelhead". Years of it has killed the run.


Not to get in a big pissing match but at one time, over the past 50 years, there were thousands of hatchery steelhead caught in the Chehalis River, November, December, and January. Lots of plunking shacks, plunking areas below the Satsop River and it area way above the Satsop, all the way to Chehalis area.

The tribe did not net steelhead, in the early days of the Bolt Decision, and they never netted the Chehalis or Humptulips during the winter months.

WDFW started cutting back on the amount of hatchery salmon coming out of local hatchery, so tribe started netting started netting November - January for steelhead. WDFW reduced the plants of steelhead, so netting continued but "the late BIG Coho were the targeted fish.

As much as anything WDFW and all the cutting of hatchery steelhead and hatchery salmon are/still are a major part of the problem.

I do remember the really BIG LATE COHO, on the Satsop, the Wynoochee, and the Humptulips. Fishing pressure was nothing like it is today, yea there were others that fished the BIG Native Coho but most sportsperson were chasing steelhead, late November - March.

That's what I remember, and I still hate all gill netting and 99.9% of my fishing is where I don't have to see any netting at all.....
Posted by: k&P

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/23 10:12 AM

On the Web meeting Monday, WDFW said they were still in talks with the "Co-Managers". If you notice on released Regs it has: " Closed Dec. 1, 2023, until further notice".

Maybe those of you who want the rivers open should call the Quinault and ask them to get the negotiations with WDFW completed.

It's interesting that the Forks area rivers are doing ok & open, but the Grays Harbor rivers are closed & not doing so good. 1 common factor are the Quinault's involvement with those rivers. It seems like WDFW & the tribe are rarely on the same page. The one that sticks out is the Queets where WDFW has no water it's responsible for. River goes from the Pacific, through Tribal Land and into the Pristine National Park where we can't keep a Wild Fish. The Queets should be the Crown Jewel of Coastal fishing. Yet, it's struggled to meet what the Park & State feels is a reasonable Escapement Goal on Coho & Steelhead for years & years. Mostly not making it. Did netting the river for Winter Steelhead 4 & 5 days a week help?

I understand the Tribe has netting Rights & I'm fine with that. But maybe what they have been doing and are doing isn't working.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/02/23 10:58 AM

12/02/23

I'd have more faith in the WDFW and QIN negotiations, IF there was a few members of the public at the meetings.

I remember that it was that way BUT a few big mouth NT personnel "mouthed off", end of open meetings. About the same way WDFW hides behind the current way of dealing with public meetings, no real discussions allowed, no real idea how many are "tuned in"....not a good way to have "open meetings", grrrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 11:50 AM

With the Grays Harbor rivers on the drop and coho fishing technically open until the end of December, it would be nice to know if any progress is being made in the discussions/negotiations between WDFW and the QIN concerning opening coho fishing up again. Or does WDFW just want to "stall it out" until the end of the month and then tell the recs sorry but there was no agreement. I realize that QIN would not agree to any rec opening unless water conditions allowed them resume netting. Also, is there any possibility of a steelhead season? WDFW,in there email closing fishing said fishing would be closed "until further notice" .Are negotiations at a standstill or is there any progress? With the rivers on the drop it would be nice to know.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 12:16 PM


good ? lifter.. but i doubt that there will be anything happening this yr.. hope I'm wrong!!
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 02:14 PM

Yeah Steely, I am pretty pessimistic about the whole situation. Wishful thinking.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 02:24 PM

I'm of the understanding that one of the reasons that the Quinaults closed their own season is that the market price for coho was in the toilet. I heard seventy cents per pound and no one wanted to go fishing for that low of price. This rumor is not confirmed but just hearsay from a friend from Amanda Park.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 05:11 PM

But Tug, the QIN said the reason that they stopped fishing was to protect that wild coho run. You don't believe them? Come on.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 06:01 PM

QIN I talked to were bemoaning the price, it didn't cover expenses.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 06:40 PM

I may have mentioned this before but back in the 80s the fishermen were getting 2 cents per pink. Some tribes sold them directly to the public at $2 each and couldn't meet the demand. Here in Olympia chum were available for $10 each, I think, and basically sold out. And they were recorded on fish tickets so there was accounting. It seems some enterprising fishermen could do the same thing. Maybe expenses have gone through the roof but it still seems that there are ways to make it economically viable.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 06:51 PM

Coho were up early, low prices for Coho what few were there, and Chum prices were about a buck a fish or a little more on average.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 07:02 PM

I remember seeing the Puyallup tribe selling king salmon right on Puyallup Ave. here in Tacoma in an old dugout canoe on the corner. In the hot sun, uncleaned and no ice. Flies all over them. Cheap but terrible quality. Guys I know would buy fish on the banks of the Puyallup and Nisqually and they were not recorded on fish tickets. I remember a friend of mine would buy steelhead from tribal fishermen on Nisqually right out of the boat for $3/ lb. uncleaned . He always bought hens so he would get the eggs. That was back in the 80's however.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 07:07 PM

I also remember many years ago fishing on the Skokomish (when it was open for sport fishing) and tribal netters offering me all the male chum I wanted since they only kept chum hens for the eggs. Lots of nutrient enhancement bacause all the buck were thrown back.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 07:23 PM

Lowest price that i was told was 16 cents a pound for chum and the buyers really did not want them. In the Chehalis it Is the Coho that make the fishery because Chum don't pay the bills so early up Coho run timing is a real downer for the QIN. Better to take disaster relief for run failure. It is a common practice in all commercial fisheries.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/06/23 07:38 PM

Was talking with a NI gill netter who was one of the "high-liners" based on sales. But he told us that during chum season in November he sold them directly in taverns and such as folks wanted fish to smoke for the Holidays.

It goes on all over. It would be nice if the State and Tribes could come up with a good direct sale operation.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/07/23 07:32 AM

Unreported fish catch has been a problem ever since I went to work as a fishcop in 1971. One year I arrested a dealer who had more than a hundred fifty fish receiving tickets from landings in Neah Bay that he failed to turn in! The data on fish tickets can also be misleading. I also arrested a local Olympia dealer from buying spring chinook and putting Hoh River as the catch area, when they were really from the Columbia. Direct sales from commercial to consumer goes on everywhere, but not by everyone. We also have the problem of sports catch being sold, and always have. The smaller the commercial fishery the bigger the problem, like the Columbia spring fishery.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/07/23 07:49 AM

Anybody who has been around management/enforcemnt has all sorts of stories of unreported catch. Klamath River sold as landed in WA, Fraser sockeye sold a Columbia, and so on. Tug's right as rain. Fishermen, of any stripe, have issues with accurate reporting.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/07/23 08:46 AM

Everybody is out to make a buck.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/07/23 05:39 PM

It's BS. They should be held to the absolute highest standards since they 1. get 50% of the fish, and 2. are subsidized by the government.
Posted by: steelhead59

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/23 11:29 AM

At this years coho and chum prices commercial fisherman will receive more money thru Federal disaster aid than rather keep fishing.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/08/23 12:06 PM

Part of what managers should be doing is figuring out how much of run needs to return to justify a commercial fishery economically. maybe this year is a one-off but the fleet should be matched to at least the average return. If we are going to have commercial fisheries then they should be viable.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/12/23 05:03 PM

This should get interesting.

Endangered listing for Chinook on Washington coast, rivers ‘may be warranted,’ agency says

Salmon runs on Chehalis, Quinault, Queets, Hoh and Quillayute rivers will be included in yearlong status review

Isabel Vander Stoep



The Chronicle

Southern resident killer whales are federally listed as an “endangered species.”

In a finding released last week, the National Marine Fisheries Service said similar protections “may be warranted” for the orcas’ favorite food: Chinook, or “king” salmon on the Washington Coast.

Last May, two conservation groups, the Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers, jointly filed a petition seeking federal “threatened” or “endangered” listings for Chinook on the Chehalis, Quinault, Queets, Hoh and Quillayute river basins, with an emphasis on spring Chinook.

With the National Marine Fisheries Service’s finding released Wednesday, the agency will now take on a status review for Washington salmon that spawn “north of the Columbia River and west of the Elwha River.”

A public comment period will be held until Feb. 5 and testimony may be submitted by “any interested party.”

To the knowledge of Jeff Miller, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, no organizations have petitioned for this listing in the past. Last year, the center petitioned for a similar listing in Oregon and the National Marine Fisheries Service began conducting a review for the decision earlier this year, signaling a step forward in the listing process.

Spring kings, “which are distinct from fall-run salmon,” Miller said, return in the spring from the ocean to spawning grounds in freshwater rivers.

This means the fish’s difficult, final journey upriver takes place during the warmest months of the year, when the water holds the least oxygen. Relying solely on stored energy, between their depleting strength and

Former Chronicle sports editor Eric Trent with a spring-run Chinook salmon he caught on the Columbia River on June 18, 2021.

increasing stressors from climate change, barriers and waters warmed by recently-logged areas without adequate shade, the fish are easy pickings for fishermen and predators. Or, they may just die before spawning.

According to the center, “Washington coast spring Chinook have declined significantly and are now at a fraction of their historical abundance, with an average of only 3,200 adult spawning fish returning annually to Washington coast rivers.”

Miller said the status review is supposed to take one year, “but frequently takes longer. National Marine Fisheries Service will consult with state agencies, tribes, salmon experts and solicit public information to into the review.”

The agency’s full report can be found at https:// public-inspection.federalregister. gov/2023-26852. pdf.[i][/i]
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/12/23 06:04 PM

What should concern folks is that the Chinook have declined AFTER they were listed elsewhere. As if the State and Tribes weren't paying attention to what was going on elsewhere.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/22/23 03:13 PM


Well this is not about the Chehalis or Grays Harbor but it is. Folks should participate but having watched WDFW work over the years it will be full of loop holes or they will attach new meaning to words when needed to do whatever they want. That is WDFW.






NEWS RELEASE



Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Dec. 22, 2023
Contact: Fish Program, 360-902-2700
Media contact: Mark Yuasa, 360-902-2262



WDFW seeks public input on North of Falcon Policy to guide salmon fishery planning process

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is opening a public comment period on its updated draft of the North of Falcon Policy for the 2024-28 salmon fishery planning process.
The draft of the North of Falcon Policy directs the WDFW to manage salmon and steelhead fisheries using a science-based, transparent approach and consistent with all conservation and legal obligations.
“Public feedback on this updated policy is critical,” said Kyle Adicks, WDFW Intergovernmental Salmon Manager. “This policy will provide guidance to the Department on how to plan and implement fisheries around the state within the complex legal and conservation frameworks that overlay salmon management.”

The annual North of Falcon salmon season-setting process is where state, federal, and tribal fishery managers work together to plan Washington’s commercial and recreational fishing seasons with input from the public. Each year, WDFW hosts more than a dozen public meetings in winter and spring to gather initial input from anglers around the state.

The public is invited to comment on the draft policy by submitting written comments via email at northoffalconfwcpolicy2024-28@publicinput.com, or by phone (855-925-2801, press #6825). Comments will be accepted through Jan. 15, 2024. Public comments received will be summarized for the Commission as they consider adoption of an updated policy during their January meeting. A link to the full draft policy is available on WDFW’s website.
All members of the public are invited to share their diverse perspectives and participate in WDFW public feedback opportunities regardless of race, color, sex, age, national origin, language proficiency, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression, status as a veteran, or basis of disability.


WDFW works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.



.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/23/23 12:09 PM

Thanks Rivrguy. I got that email too. I'm tempted to comment about the ways WDFW throws sport fishing under the bus even when it serves no measurable conservation purpose, but apparently is done because the tribes tell them to. I guessing that won't gain much traction among the decision makers.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/23/23 03:24 PM

The annual WDFW "dog and pony show" is upon us. The State wants the recs input. North of Falcon. Save money, effort and time. WDFW, just ask the tribes what they are going to give us for rec seasons, tell us and be done with it. That is the present day co-management.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/24/23 10:50 AM

Lifter,

A few years ago I heard that from mid-December to mid-April, 75% of WDFW's Fish Division time is spent on NOF. Considering what NOF produces for us, I have wondered how different the outcome would look for us if WDFW didn't particiapte in NOF at all and simply ignored the annual process. It sure looks like non-treaty salmon fishing gets the seasons that the treaty tribes set of us. I see a lot of potential $$$ savings.
Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/24/23 11:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Lifter,

A few years ago I heard that from mid-December to mid-April, 75% of WDFW's Fish Division time is spent on NOF. Considering what NOF produces for us, I have wondered how different the outcome would look for us if WDFW didn't particiapte in NOF at all and simply ignored the annual process. It sure looks like non-treaty salmon fishing gets the seasons that the treaty tribes set of us. I see a lot of potential $$$ savings.


Wow do I agree with this.....I sat in on all of the meetings for a long time. To much of the time was spent on "trying to get NT fishing time"!!!!! NT should have been gone, a long time ago.

I have posted many times, merger of WDG and WDF, helped lead to do what ever could be done to for salmon and less time on steelhead, see what that did.

Chehalis still has 100's of hours spent on NOF. NT'ers continue to net in the Chehalis.....buy backs still, not being taken advantage of, grrrrrrrrrr Should have been a time limit placed on the buy back!!!!!
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/24/23 11:27 AM

Two separate, directed, gillnet fisheries should NOT be allowed on the same water. QIN gets half, NT's with their poor fish handling and loud mouthed representatives should be GONE!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/24/23 12:15 PM

I really don't see why we have a NI commercial salmon fishery at least in the Boldt and Belloni case areas. The Tribes can do the commercial. Actually, the Tribes should do the commercial harvest of fish and shellfish.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/24/23 01:19 PM

We have three net fisheries not two. Chehalis tribe is non treaty so it counts as a state fishery.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/24/23 01:48 PM

Even worse! Should come out of QIN's paper fish!
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 12/24/23 02:21 PM

They were part of the treaty tribal catch 50% until the courts did a clarification. Chehalis tribe is a non treaty tribe which made them not part of NOF or anything really, they can only fish on rez and are part of the states share. QIN are court mandated comanagers entitled to 50%. Used to be QIN would not meet with the state with the Chehalis rep present and I doubt if that has changed much if at all.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 09:51 AM

This interesting. After reading the number you have to wonder just why and the hell we even have non treaty nets. I guess sometimes you cannot fix stupid!






NEWS RELEASE

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
January 18, 2024
Contact: Sam Montgomery, 360-688-0721

Washington releases participation and spending data on fishing, hunting, and wildlife recreation

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has released participation and spending data about fishing, hunting, and associated wildlife recreation in Washington in 2022.
The data, collected during a national survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, documented the number of hunters, anglers, wildlife watchers, and related outdoor recreationists in Washington and collected demographic information about participants.

The survey also quantified consumer spending related to these activities and how much time participants spent hunting, fishing, watching wildlife, or participating in other wildlife-related recreation activities in 2022.

Survey results showed that approximately 290,000 people went hunting, 1.2 million people went fishing, and 6.2 million people watched wildlife in Washington in 2022. Participants spent more than $9 billion dollars on equipment and trip-related expenses across all activities during this timeframe. In 2022, 4.4 million Washingtonians - 72% of the state’s population - participated in wildlife-related recreation, and 2.5 million traveled at least a mile from their homes to do so.

"Activities made possible through WDFW’s stewardship of fish, wildlife, and ecosystems have a significant impact on Washington's economy,” said Director Kelly Susewind. “Conserving fish, wildlife, and habitat and providing sustainable opportunities contribute to our way of life and identity while providing jobs and economic opportunities to our residents and generating tax revenue for the state."

A report documenting full survey results is available on WDFW’s website.

WDFW works to preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife, and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.



________________________________________




Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 10:39 AM

And I have a question, anyone having problems communicating with Region 6 ?
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 10:52 AM

Yes.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 10:55 AM

So, the state made millions of dollars from hunting and fishing and billions of dollars to boost our economy and the recreational hunter/angler gets less every year? Still stocking like its 1999 and catering to the commercials is not working for the people that fund them. So your last statement is invalid rvrguy. Sorry.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 10:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
And I have a question, anyone having problems communicating with Region 6 ?
no, but truthful and logical explanations are a problem around the board.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 11:37 AM

Try setting those wishy washy salmon/steelhead seasons before its time to renew licenses and watch those sales plummet. After that reality, come the following year you can bet your bottom dollar that more fisheries would open up. But they wont, because that's not how you appease your snake charmers. And so much for the free fishing weekend. Now you have to buy a catch card if you are fishing for anything that requires one. So, technically its not free fishing. More snake tactics. So rvrguy, who do they work for again? Themselves, or what?
Posted by: seabeckraised

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 11:57 AM

I’d be curious how they got “6.2 million people” listed under Wildlife Watching. I know whale watching tours as well as bird watching, are popular in their own right, but there’s no way that 6.2 million people “watched wildlife”. I’m guessing this is lumped in under hikers and campers where it’s implied they are observing wildlife while they’re out and about in nature.

Guess I’ll read the report.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 01:44 PM

That wasn't Rivrguy's statement at the end. That was a whole cloth cut and paste from WDFW's release. That statement is boilerplate for everything they send out. It's what they think they do.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 02:12 PM

I definitely would have avoided putting that last part up no matter where it originated from. Why? Cause it is an embarrassment to everybody, just like everything else this state touches.. So, sorry rvrguy. I owe you a beer.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 03:15 PM

No problem SF. Edited the intro in to make sure folks do not get confused. Should have done when I posted it.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 03:52 PM

I think the feds must have asked a very broad question. The people who replied they watched wildlife probably answered yes if they watch robins get worms oy of their yard,
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 04:02 PM

Something's eventually got to give. I dont think i could die a happy man if i never got the opportunity again, to at least fish for and say goodbye to one last grays harbor steelhead, the propper way. Im sure some of you ol' okie driftin duffers will agree. As far as the north coast goes. Yall can have it.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 04:21 PM

Double post but it was valid on both threads.

I have resisted saying anything but maybe the time is right. So this the unofficial understanding with the QIN is "everybody fishes or nobody fishes". Recs could do release Coho and wild steelhead with limited impact and reduce it further with tackle restrictions. After the dust up over fishing the same day with commercials, Satsop open satsop closed Chehalis Coho still open and PR blitz by the QIN "shuting salmon fishing down for conservation" . First the numbers indicated preseason forecast was wrong but we would make escapement. For the QIN it was low prices and the Coho were up early so a Chum fishery was toast so fishing was worthless so down for conservation which was a world class load of BS.

Steelhead it is similiar as we do not many wild Steelhead in Dec or even late Coho. Late Coho are latter part Dec and Jan not Dec 1. So wild Steelhead numbers do not allow net harvest but Recs can work around that issue rather well. This entire thing is about the QIN gillnets can not contol impacts so no fishing. So it is everybody fish or nobody AND CALL IT FOR CONSERVATION. Conservation my ass it is about managers butting heads like Buffalo in mating season to show who is top dog.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 04:55 PM

WDFW certainly doesn't have to worry about ever being the "Top Dog". It hasn't and will never happen in the present state of "co-management".
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 05:05 PM

Like I said yesterday, WDFW should open the Harbor rivers for winter steelhead and force the QIN to make the next move. Would the QIN negotiate ? Would they take WDFW to court? Force the QIN to do something. WDFW should open the Chehalis system by Feb.1 with selective gear restrictions.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 05:10 PM

They could start by opening Johns and Elk. Neither is, to my understanding, within QIN U&A or actually even part of the Boldt Case Area. It would have to be in-river, because out in the bay QIN has U&A where they might intercept Johns/Elk fish and NI would harvest fish going to Northside tribs.

Just a thought. May take huevos.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 07:47 PM

CM, does anyone really think that WDFW has huevos?
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/18/24 09:42 PM

There's no better time than now for them to show if they got them, have a dumb and dumber moment and totally redeem themselves. Or not. We'll have to stay tuned.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 05:36 AM

Opening Johns and Elk would be another in a long line of disappointing distractions. Kind of like how they promote perch fisheries on Facebook and then turn off commenting.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 07:25 AM

I think it would hi light the problem WDFW has with the Tribes. Southern Grays and Willapa don't have Co-Managers. How they manage them is how they believe stocks and watersheds should be managed.

Somebody asks why we can fish Johns but not Satrap. Tell them, the QIN won't agree because....

I doubt they even can do that because higher-ups in the state bow to Tribal desires. There are bigger fish to fry, so to speak, in Tribal hammers over development. Look at the mess the Culvert Case has gotten the state into. A deadline they weren't pushing hard to meet, coupled with inflation, puts them in a big financial hole. They don't want that concept tp spread, so the fish and NI recs lose.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 08:18 AM

I had a non fishing friend ask me the other day about what the salmon seasons will be this year. I told him I have no idea from year to year what the seasons will be especially in Puget Sound. I told him that the only thing I can count on every year is that lowland lake fishing will open and close on a certain date (except the year around lakes). WDFW would love to have all the rec anglers go lake fishing for put and take trout and spiny rays. Don't have to deal with the tribes on that fishery. That is why you see WDFW promote lake fishing through out the year. State Bass Week, State Perch Week, putting tagged trout in the lakes for prizes etc... Pathetic.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 11:12 AM

I'm glad that WDFW has provided decent lake fishing, because I need to fish regardless. But I'm continuing to be angry about the lack of real fishing opportunities in OP streams. It's not right, the total winter closures, and it's not ethical. So, who's gonna'take them on?. The court system doesn't seem to work, but I think the media pressure could work. We need an articulate spokesperson to make some real noise, more like the NRA, not the Boy Scouts. It's an election year. Anyone visited Dave Reichart yet?
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 11:35 AM

One problem is that the news media is always going side with the tribes and what a raw deal they are getting. The non fishing public eats this up and WDFW and rec anglers get a bad rap. The tribes have done a good job of putting out TV programs and newspaper articles telling the public about their plight. Muckleshoots TV spots. Telling the news outlets how WDFW and rec anglers are destroying the wild runs. Remember in November the QIN telling the Seattle Times (?) how WDFW was destroying the wild coho run in the Chehalis system by keeping sportfishing open in November when they (QIN) had quit netting to preserve the wild fish? When the recs knew they quit netting because of low fish prices. Th general non rec public eats this stuff up.
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 12:42 PM

WHER'S THE CCA???????
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 05:36 PM

Exactly! Also, where is NSIA, NW Steelheaders, PS anglers? Steelheaders have no voice? I wish I had better public speaking abilities. Thanks to those that do and contribute. Something/strategies have to change? Without naming individuals, you would think all the profiteers off Steelheading would be stepping up. Guides, tackle sales dudes and famous how to article writers, where are you?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 06:24 PM

The Steelhead Trout Club of Washington has been active in lobbying WDFW for steelhead fishing. They have tried to balance wild fish, where appropriate, and hatchery fish also where appropriate. They also lobby for a return to the use of boats. Unfortunately, membership continues to decline.

From what I have seen, steelhead in particular but probably all anadromous salmonids, suffer from divided support. Wild fish advocates seem to not support any hatchery fish anywhere while supporters of harvest want more stocking for harvest.

When I was in management it was my belief that one was not a "mature" manager unless they could support an appropriate fishery that they were not interested in participating in. Same goes for sport fishing; we have to collectively advocate for appropriate fisheries, even if we don't fish that way.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 07:05 PM

Interesting? In my 50 yrs of Steelheading, I've never heard of them? Unless, they were the NW Steelheaders of TU? That is what I was a local member of, and what was going on in Tacoma area back in the late 70's early 80's. When TU sided w/ Tacoma Power to eliminate the early Cowlitz run and attempted to mask financial/dam developement responsibilities, attempting to rebuild a wild run that was already gone. I quit them after that. WFC was and is all about 0 hatchery production, not for me. Left a sour taste in my mouth, so I quit searching for clubs and did my own thing. Here I am, hardly anywhere to fish for Steelhead, maybe because I wasn't involved enough back then? I did find these PP posts from 2000. I was late on computer information access back then.

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/87478.html
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 08:09 PM

No, the STCWA has been around since 1928. Seemed to be centered mostly in the Seattle area and northward. Still in operation; I can get you information if interested.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/19/24 09:58 PM

The heat needs to be put on WDFW, not the tribes.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/24 06:46 AM

Tug, agree 100%. WDFW needs to come out of the closet and inform the rec community why fishing in the Chehalis system is not opening. As we get into February and March, hatchery steelhead returns will increase on a weekly basis in the Chehalis system (Nooch, Satsop, Skook etc.). Region 6 has went silent since the end of Nov. Give the recs some answers and reasons.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/24 07:25 AM

WDFW should answer to the rec users. Publicly. The problem is we have to demand the reasons and not let them weasel-word their way out of it.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/24 08:49 AM

If WDFW Region 6 won't respond to phone calls or emails, a few people who can document this need to attend a Commission meeting and complain. If the Commission tells Director Susewind to tell R6 to respond, they will.

Whenever there is a problem with WDFW, the root of power is the Commission. Now the Commission doesn't alway side with a constituent, so there is that. Like just before Covid, I asked the Commission to have the Department conduct an audit of the cost of returning a hatchery Chinook and coho to the recreational creel for each state hatchery that produces those species. That didn't go anywhere. Neither the Commission nor the Department want to know that number when it's common knowledge that most hatchery Chinook and coho are harvested in Canada, the WA NT troll and net, and treaty fisheries.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/20/24 10:53 AM

I haven't tried to contact the R6 office in a while, but I am hearing from anyone asking tough questions that few answers are coming. They don't have to listen to us, but they do need to respond. That is an important part of their job, no matter how much they might like to avoid it.

I suggest anyone not getting answers forward your questions to the commission and the Director and let them know the R6 office isn't responding, as Sg suggested. You should get a responsive non-answer (no satisfaction guaranteed) in short order, and the Commission and the Director will also see your questions and concerns, which gives them at least the opportunity to consider them (again, no satisfaction guaranteed there).
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/21/24 08:37 AM

From my perspective Region 6 has always been willing to provide information on salmon seasons. Mike and Kim have been rather forthright with models and information on that. Now ask a question on Wynoochee Mitigation or Steelhead not so much, in fact other than put your suggestions in to Olympia it is almost impossible to get anything on Steelhead. Most of my knowledge around closures comes from QIN folks and I am old and most of them have passed.

I have never been given a reason by WDFW why when numbers do not allow nonselective gillnet fisheries why selective rec fisheries are shut down. All I have is tribal fishers telling me years back “all fish or nobody fishes”. I do know that the QIN thoughts on hooking mortality are much different than WDFW. Net drop out rates for both NT and QIN are often not realistic especially for Chinook in the early fall with warm water and Sealions.

Late Coho are in bad shape in the Chehalis but true late Coho are late December and January. Over the years I have asked how many December and January Coho are taken by the QIN and was told each time that WDFW does not have that information. So why December was closed is a bit of a mystery for me especially when there are few Steelhead present.

The only consistent thing I have found is the use of the word conservation to validate the comanagers actions. When several years back I objected Kelly Cunningham responded that relations between the comanagers more or less was peachy! Frankly, my view is that this style of management has been institutionalized and both the comanagers are in denial.
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/21/24 09:09 AM

It's unreasonable and frankly makes them look like they're hiding something when the season is closed, people are emailing questions, and there are no valid responses or no responses at all.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/21/24 10:49 AM

As far back as 1980 Tribes were pushing to fish when the sporties were fishing. At that time, they didn't want to fish for the same fish but wanted to fish for what they wanted. Later on, I have seen situations when a Tribe had no harvest remaining but told the state "if you fish, we fish". Since the Tribes generally (I have seen exceptions) will not fish selectively this puts the burden of conservation on the fish.

The State is faced with the choice of providing a justifiable fishery that results in over harvest or just staying closed. I also suspect that WDFW has been told not to take the Tribes to court.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/21/24 07:29 PM

I was reminded by a friend that I had to take WDFW to court for failing to provide information requested in a PDR. True it was settled out of court and they agreed not to do that again. A PDR is different than a question on XXXX issue is true so the requirements on how staff are required to respond are different. I have not fished Steelhead for years but to claim conservation is the issue for a shut down when C&R would work is a rather dishonest representation of the facts.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/21/24 07:36 PM

It's simple. The Tribes won't allow it. And the sooner WDFW admits it publicly, the better.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/22/24 08:44 AM

The governor appoints the commissioners, giving him indirect control over WDFW. My guess is that the gov has enough on his plate with taxes and his climate stuff that he tells WDFW to "play nice with the tribes." Meaning he doesn't want tribal issues showing up on his desk. They donate campaign money, after all. So WDFW caves to whatever tribes want.

Otherwise it would make sense on a number of issues to return to the days of the Fisheries Advisory Board (FAB), which was the court-appointed master to adjudicate most state-tribal fishing disputes. The FAB master would rule based on the case law of US v WA.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/22/24 10:27 AM

New taxes and climate stuff bs. Lol. Theres more important issues for that guy to worry about in this state. Got to pay the way for illegal immigrants and homeless drug addicts. If you guys even want a glimmer of hope, quit voting in these incapable asshats. Wa state deserves a better governor than jaydolf or turd Ferguson that want to buy your vote with $100 canned tuna checks. After salmo's last statement, it should be clear where our problem lies within the state. For fishing, for everything. Hopefully we can change that next year. If memory serves correct, Wa state has not had a republican governor since the 80s, and anything is better than what we have had. Ive been ready for a change,preferably some body with some backbone that cares about the future of this state and great nation.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/23/24 09:44 PM

Oh so very true.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/24 07:28 AM

We need big changes, I agree, especially on the Commission. What seemed like a good idea when Fisheries and Wildlife were combined, hasn't worked out that well, has it?
Posted by: fishbadger

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/24 09:20 AM

Agree, structural changes are needed, if the system that we fund is going to start working for us (rec fisherfolk) again. One thing's for sure, the state govt certainly won't modify things on our behalf without some input. Some heavy lifting, media activation, and a little funding are needed. All that cooperative work is contrary to most rec fishermen's modus operandi. We need a channel to funnel a single voice, set aside some differences, and get TF to work.
fb
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/24 11:28 AM

Quote:
We need big changes, I agree, especially on the Commission. What seemed like a good idea when Fisheries and Wildlife were combined, hasn't worked out that well, has it?


The joining of the two agencies sounded good but ended just terrible or as a former WDG employee said when WDF ate the WDG. The placing of the Hatchery Division under the control of the harvest managers was just as bad or worse. The Commission is a mixed bag but it is flawed. The commissioner's get most of the information from the agency staff which is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. To make it even worse the Commission has no real authority other than the Director which by it's nature is in the political world.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/24 02:37 PM

I would think that the only hope for agency with a Commission is to make the Commissioners elected. 4 must reside Eastside and are voted on by them only, 4 westside with the same electorate, and a Chair. The Chair is Statewide voters. Having them all directly answerable to the voters might help. But, given that consumptive users are well in the minority there may be no way to get an agency that is apolitical and manages with the needs of the resource and users in mind.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/24 05:24 PM

I absolutely agree with C-Man. The commissioners need to be elected. Citizens's initiative? I love the idea, but who will do the work? I worked really hard on the Net Ban initiative after I retired. It made so much sense, and we got okay support , but not enough cash. I remember the Cattlemen's Association saying "We'll give you money next time". How would we get the word out about the initiative? Who would support us financially? I've said it many, many times that if each of us would contribute just the cost of a decent breakfast at a good restaurant, we would have at least three million dollars to politic with, and we could get ANYTHING we want with that amount of funding. But fishermen will bitch, but not contribute.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/24 05:47 PM

Tug, the problem with electing the Commission (even though I think it is much better than the current) is that the anti-consumptive use, especially hunting, would vote in the elections, too. It would offer a way to really shut down NI hunting. Even electing east/west commissioners, the tie-breaker would then hold tons of power and would have been elected statewide.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/24/24 09:18 PM

Maybe it's time to split up the departments? Fishing doesn't have the social issues that hunting has. Go back to a Game Commission, similar to what it once was, minus fish. Would the property stay with the game side? Would property go to DNR? or Parks? Interesting to think about. Back in the 90's I thought that combining the departments was really great because we could put steelhead into some of the salmon hatcheries that were bigger. What happened? Way back then old Game planted steelhead in every puddle or creek, it seemed, and there were steelhead everywhere. Tokul Creek had elbow to elbow crowds. I caught fish in the Tolt. When I moved to Kelso, I was in steelhead heaven. The Coweeman was a sleeper because of a holding pond. So was Grays River with another holding pond. Good by good ol' days.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 07:45 AM

Merger messed up a lot of things but so did ESA and continued population growth. A problem with splitting the agency would be habitat. Right now I see lots of times when (and it is because of the way the law is written) if an aquatic species like a frog needs habitat help it can't get it because the rules only protect fish. There are too many overlaps, where the line between fish and wildlife needs are not clear and having separate agencies would exacerbate the difference. "That's not our problem" would be heard even more then than it is now.

Heck, when the Fish side was looking at regs to protect Loons from lead poisoning the Wildlife side did not want to help and it was a "fish problem".

As cumbersome as it is the current set up could work with a good Commission and good leadership. But I dream....
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 09:01 AM

Merging the old WDF and WDG was a good idea because fish are still fish, and the merger reduced and eliminated overlapping duplication of effort. The Commission system is a good one, given that the most likely alternative is to have the governor appoint the WDFW Director, which every governor would prefer. If the Commission were eliminated and the Director was elected, like with DNR, hunters and anglers would be screwed at the ballot box because most voters don't hunt or fish. The antis would run the department.

The problem with the Commission, as hunters and anglers see it, is that the antis appear to have the governor's ear. Candidly, I think that is the trend of the future, with an increasing population and a smaller percentage of that population actively engaged in hunting and fishing. The only way to gain the governor's ear is to out-organize the antis.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 10:09 AM

And out-donate. Need to buy more politicians.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 10:10 AM

The only way to win is to have resources to manage in the first place.

The gubermunt has ran the state in the ground.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 10:56 AM

That's the problem. To many people in charge are bought and paid for. Let the folks that actually fish/hunt in this state vote for who they want managing. Inslee has proven to us that he has failed and doesn't have our best interests in mind so, probably dont want to work with that guy. It all starts at the top, remember? And yes our population is growing fast. Over 8 million illegals have had the red carpet rolled out to them in this country. What will wa state do? Oh ya know. The same thing they have been doing the past 30years and let us down. Again.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 11:05 AM

Son: do we gotta go blue creek with everybody again dad? Dad:yeah boy. That's all we got left. Son:we cant even wet a line on our home river dad? Dad: sorry son. The agency and state like to play games and politics with our fisheries and closed everything close to home. Son: well dad, i dont think i could ever get into steelhead fishing. (great to show the next generation of anglers state of wa) well done.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 02:39 PM

Spoon, and the Cowlitz ain't what it used to be. WDFW eliminated the early steelhead run and went to the later timed fish. And the number of steelhead planted is less than it used to be.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 07:37 PM

The change in run timing of steelhead in the Cowlitz hatchery was not WDFW's decision but courtesy of NOAA and ESA.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 08:42 PM

Overheard in the lunch room at WDFW Montesano: Two young steelhead managers talking quietly over the top of their computers. "We sure managed those steelhead good while they lasted. Wanna go out and check the rivers today? Nah, it's too cold and rainy."

(okay, I know I'm cruel. I apologize, kinda'. Tug)
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/25/24 08:55 PM

I started in WDG and it was expected that the bios fished as part of the job. It was expected and it was how they knew what was going on. Now, they look at computer screens.... Should I apologize, too, Tug???
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 06:56 AM

It doesn't matter who made the decision to eliminate the early timed steelhead in the Cowlitz and plant late timed fish. NOAA, ESA or WDFW. It is what it is. Used to be incredible fishing for early timed fish. I was just making a point to SpoonFed.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 07:29 AM

C-man, You need no apology. Even before I retired in 1999 some of us fishing nuts offered to take new bios fishing. Some had NEVER even caught a salmon, and they were assigned to salmon management. Through the confusing maze of hatchery management, one was heard , by me, to say that the salmon were so much easier to manage at the hatchery when they all arrived at once!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 07:30 AM

Fixing blame is important. While WDFW is responsible for a lot of things they shouldn't get blamed for stuff they have no control over.

One point being that the early timed (Chambers) fish fish provided very popular, very intensive, and likely very cost effective fisheries such that WDFW should explore how and where to recreate them. Like a system with damn few wild steelhead and little likelihood of ever getting more. The Lyre comes to mind, but I am sure there are other situations where there is little hope for meaningful recovery of the wild stock but plenty of room to host anglers chasing brats.
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 09:24 AM

Regarding the Cowlitz and changes to the steelhead program, the decision to discontinue using early timed Chambers winter steelhead stock was not the product of NMFS alone. When Tacoma received a new FERC license for the Cowlitz hydro project, a fisheries advisory committee (FAC) was created (along with some other committees). Because of the ESA listing, the FAC thought that using only late timed winter steelhead (that exhibit a genetic profile more like native wild steelhead) would be better suited and prevent introgression of the Chambers fish with the late timed stock being reintroduced to the upper watershed upstream of the dams. IMO, what the FAC failed to consider is that the Cowlitz barrier dam provides the perfect means of separating fish and preventing Chambers stock from spawning with restored wild stock in the upper watershed.

But that's in the past. Currently, the fish managers have the option of selecting broodstock from all parts of the adult return, including the earliest returns. If they want to, they can recreate early timed winter fish from the existing stock, just as the old WDG did at Chambers Creek in the 1940s and 50s. As for the number of hatchery steelhead reared, last time I checked, they were rearing and releasing 600k or more of both winter and summer smolts, about the same as 20 years ago. The reason for the poor adult returns to the Cowlitz, just like every other river in the state, is because ocean survival has dropped to a small fraction of what it was not so many years ago. Providing large returns of adult fish is simply not possible until ocean survival rates increase significantly.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 09:40 AM

Lol. You guys are crazy. The point i was trying to make is that our steelhead fisheries have been mismanaged into the ground so far, we will all end up at blue crik crossing swords. Ive fished the cow for about 30yrs so, im not a stranger to the discontinued a run. Hope this helps.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 10:48 AM

To show the salmon-centric view of WDFW on the Cowlitz, when the agreement with FERC and Tacoma was reached one clause had it that up and downstream passage needed to installed above the Cowlitz Falls dam IF Either spring chinook OR winter steelhead showed a sustainable run. The initial fish collection structure worked well for steelhead; they were close to being sustainable back then. But it didn't catch diddle-e-squat chinook. So the abandoned the successful trap (steelhead), went for salmon, and succeeded with neither.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 11:05 AM

"When Tacoma received a new FERC license for the Cowlitz hydro project"

This is a large part of the problem that let Tacoma Power off the hook.



Granted the ocean survival is a separate issue.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 11:18 AM

The average rec steelhead angler could care less who is to blame for the change in timing of the winter steelhead run on the Cowlitz. They only know that steelhead opportunity on that river (and many other rivers) is much less that what it used to be.
Salmo, If memory serves me right (which is sometimes questionable) I thought many years ago the steelhead plant on the Cowlitz was about 1 million winter steelhead smolts and 750,000 summer steelhead smolts per year. I know it is less now.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 11:53 AM

Back when the Cowlitz relicensing was taking place, I was on the fish committee as the representative for the Washington Council of Trout unlimited, not T.U. National which was represented by Ms. Kaitlin Lovell. She proposed, in fact insisted that the Cowlitz summer steelhead hatchery program be discontinued. I disagreed LOUDLY. She claimed that there were no summer runs there in past history. I went to my old high school baseball coach who grew up in Mossyrock, and he assured me that there always were sumer runs in the Cowlitz. Lovell also wanted to stop the cutthroat hatchery program. I threw a fit. T.U. National kicked me off as their rep. I told T.U. to shove it shortly thereafter. I know there are oceanic mysteries about salmon and steelhead survival, but we shouldn't let Tacoma Power or any other dam owner off the hook - pun intended. At the time I left that committee there was large woody debris being promised, as well as additional gravel to be added to the river as mitigation. Dunno what happened to that.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 01:09 PM

Tacoma Power's big money in the 60's sold the dam project, relocated people from the Riffe Valley and promised fish mitigation to help sell the project.

They did great for about 30 years.
Now between ESA and the revised FERC agreement they have wiggled off the hook.

The locals never wanted their Dam project but big government always takes what they want and fail to deliver down the road.


Many profited while selling our home river's fish down the road.
Some of those are posting here.
Posted by: SpoonFed

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/26/24 02:13 PM

Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
Tacoma Power's big money in the 60's sold the dam project, relocated people from the Riffe Valley and promised fish mitigation to help sell the project.

They did great for about 30 years.
Now between ESA and the revised FERC agreement they have wiggled off the hook.

The locals never wanted their Dam project but big government always takes what they want and fail to deliver down the road.


Many profited while selling our home river's fish down the road.
Some of those are posting here.

very true. And still blame somebody else or something for their failures. Gotta pass that buck along.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/24 09:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Lifter99
Salmo, If memory serves me right (which is sometimes questionable) I thought many years ago the steelhead plant on the Cowlitz was about 1 million winter steelhead smolts and 750,000 summer steelhead smolts per year. I know it is less now.

I broke out my old Statewide Steelhead Harvest reports from as far back as 1983-84. Most include smolt plant info. I did find only one year, 1992, where the Cowlitz planted 1,224,400 winter steelhead smolt. Summer, 463,900. The other years, up to 2010, averaged around 700,000 winter and 500,000 summers. I realize many places have quit planting steelhead smolt, hence the overall reduced production, but many rivers are planting about the same as they always have. SG is correct. Survival to return seems to be the major problem. A good start to assist survival, would be to manage predators better. That is a fact! Predators have increased exponentially the last 35 yrs, impacting both smolt and adult returns.
Posted by: fishbadger

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/24 09:47 AM

Wait, what? So it's not all Inslee's fault that there's no steelhead left to manage? Can we still blame the immigrants?
fb
Posted by: 20 Gage

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/24 10:26 AM

Originally Posted By: fishbadger
Wait, what? So it's not all Inslee's fault that there's no steelhead left to manage? Can we still blame the immigrants?
fb


Not to move off topic here, but this leaves some Feeling a bit dazed and confused. wink
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/24 11:25 AM

That answer is close to the real problem. There are way too many people who wish to (and need to) consume too many resources. I'll bet that 300-400 years ago we had lots of anadromous fish here. Then folks moved in. And keep moving in.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/24 11:52 AM

And keep pumping out kids.
Posted by: WDFW X 1 = 0

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/24 01:26 PM

I'm gonna continue to practice catch and release to minimize my pumping out.
Posted by: Tug 3

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/24 02:03 PM

One side of my family came over on the Mayflower. So I get a "Pioneer Permit"? (I'll quit the B.S. now)
Posted by: fish4brains

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/27/24 04:34 PM

Rivers were blown when I drove over Thursday evening.
Posted by: slabhunter

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/28/24 12:09 PM

mud and stumps observed at Satsop on the way home from Mocrocks.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/28/24 01:38 PM

The tide water is pure mud and so far mostly chunks and garbage but tide is incoming. When it turns it is going get ugly with trees and chunks as I can see them slowly moving down stream. Before incoming mud was just ugly and it is about to get worse.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/24 05:15 AM

With the start of February coming in a couple of days, there will be lots of steelhead entering the Grays Harbor streams after this high water. WDFW?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/24 08:22 AM

forget about fishing this year.. maybe next winter
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 01/29/24 10:56 AM

Slammer, Maybe? You are more optimistic than most. The Harbor rivers have been closed to winter steelies for three years.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/11/24 09:03 AM

I just found out that John Campbell passed away. For those who did not know John he was instrumental in bringing about the Grays Harbor Policy. He tore into the old GH harvest model finding errors everywhere and was able to articulate just how it was done. A by the book person rules were black and white no gray areas no maybes which by definition put him at odds with WDFW. I doubt that the drive to get the GHP would have had as much success if not for his efforts. So we lost another of the good guys and you will be missed John.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/13/24 09:39 AM

Rest in peace, Softbite... RIP.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/13/24 09:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Soft bite
The NT harvest compared to the Grays Harbor North of Falcon model harvest is really interesting. Chum came in at 126% of the model but Coho came in at 61% and Chinook came in at 1.9%. I do not know what the correct interpretation is but it looks like the Chinook are in trouble.
Another observation for me was that I usually catch about 85% wild Coho but this year it was more like 15% wilds. Makes me wonder if the wild Coho are in trouble also.


His last contribution here... an example of his meticulous precision in Grays Harbor fisheries.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/14/24 10:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
I just found out that John Campbell passed away. For those who did not know John he was instrumental in bringing about the Grays Harbor Policy. He tore into the old GH harvest model finding errors everywhere and was able to articulate just how it was done. A by the book person rules were black and white no gray areas no maybes which by definition put him at odds with WDFW. I doubt that the drive to get the GHP would have had as much success if not for his efforts. So we lost another of the good guys and you will be missed John.


Ouch. We lost a good one there. Rest in peace, John.
Posted by: eyeFISH

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/17/24 10:22 PM

In honor of John, I will post a very Campbell-esque 2023 review for Grays Harbor chinook 2023.

"In 2023, The Quinault Indian Nation conducted a fall gillnet fishery harvesting a total of 348 fall Chinook in two separately scheduled areas: the first in the lower Chehalis River and adjacent areas of Grays Harbor, Areas 2D, 2A, and 2A-1, and the second in the lower Humptulips River and adjacent Area 2C of Grays Harbor. The combined Grays Harbor Chinook catch of 348 was lower than the expected catch of 3,306 (10.5 percent of the expected catch).

In 2023, the non-Indian gillnet fishery harvested a total of 9 fall Chinook with an estimate of 7 non-harvest mortalities in two separately scheduled areas: The Humptulips 2C and the Chehalis River 2A and 2D areas. Although non-Indian gillnet fisheries were scheduled in Humptulips commercial Area 2C to fish a 36-hour fishery during week 43 and a 12-hour fishery in week 44, no participation occurred in 2023. It is estimated that 7 unmarked Chinook mortalities occurred during this fishery based on data collected during on-board monitoring, catch accounting, and when applying 31 percent mortality rate with tangle nets and 56 percent mortality rate using 6-inch maximum mesh gill nets of encountered unmarked Chinook."

Moreover my own personal stats showed only 7 kings caught in 13 days of fishing. On a decent year, it's not unusual to catch that many in ONE tide.

Bottom line, it was an EXTREMELY poor year for Grays Harbor chinook, and I suspect it was reflected in the spawner surveys that produce the escapement and forecast numbers going into NOF.

Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/18/24 09:26 PM

Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
In honor of John, I will post a very Campbell-esque 2023 review for Grays Harbor chinook 2023.

"In 2023, The Quinault Indian Nation conducted a fall gillnet fishery harvesting a total of 348 fall Chinook in two separately scheduled areas: the first in the lower Chehalis River and adjacent areas of Grays Harbor, Areas 2D, 2A, and 2A-1, and the second in the lower Humptulips River and adjacent Area 2C of Grays Harbor. The combined Grays Harbor Chinook catch of 348 was lower than the expected catch of 3,306 (10.5 percent of the expected catch).

In 2023, the non-Indian gillnet fishery harvested a total of 9 fall Chinook with an estimate of 7 non-harvest mortalities in two separately scheduled areas: The Humptulips 2C and the Chehalis River 2A and 2D areas. Although non-Indian gillnet fisheries were scheduled in Humptulips commercial Area 2C to fish a 36-hour fishery during week 43 and a 12-hour fishery in week 44, no participation occurred in 2023. It is estimated that 7 unmarked Chinook mortalities occurred during this fishery based on data collected during on-board monitoring, catch accounting, and when applying 31 percent mortality rate with tangle nets and 56 percent mortality rate using 6-inch maximum mesh gill nets of encountered unmarked Chinook."

Moreover my own personal stats showed only 7 kings caught in 13 days of fishing. On a decent year, it's not unusual to catch that many in ONE tide.

Bottom line, it was an EXTREMELY poor year for Grays Harbor chinook, and I suspect it was reflected in the spawner surveys that produce the escapement and forecast numbers going into NOF.


Very Campbell-esque, and also a major downer.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/24 09:55 AM



Thinking about the traffic jams on the Chehalis during Salmon season I thought this relevant.


Pulling the plug: Steelhead fishing from a sinking boat

Pat Neal

The Daily World

It was another tough week in the news. Steelhead fishing on the Olympic Peninsula has gotten so crowded you’ll want to bring your own rock to stand on if you hope to make a cast.

The state closed almost every other river in the state to even catch-and-release fishing, while the rivers of the Peninsula were left open.

This crowded the last remaining hardcore steelhead anglers from all over the United States and beyond into smaller and smaller areas where they could be studied and monitored with a helicopter, drones, trail cams, teams of fish cops patrolling the water with teams of fish checkers interrogating anglers up and down the river.

Add to this a series of the most complicated fishing regulations ever invented. Where the Hoh, a river just over 50 miles long, is divided into eight sections, each with its own seasons and gear restrictions that allow you to fish out of a floating device, called a boat on certain days of the week, but not others.

It’s all part of a study that will allow the state to eventually shut down fishing altogether.

My solution to these bizarre rules was to take the plug out of my boat. It would not be a floating device. It would be a sinking device.

While no one in their right mind would get in a sinking boat to go on a winter steelhead fishing trip, if I only took people fishing who were in their right minds, I would seldom be employed.

The idea that people who fish for steelhead are insane is not a new one.

How else could you explain someone spending thousands of dollars traveling thousands of miles to slowly freeze to death trying to catch a fish that, on any given day, may or may not actually exist?

The only people crazier are the deranged cabal of self-serving career bureaucrats who have managed the steelhead into endangered species status with a Byzantine system of inane regulations that subject the angling public to legal jeopardy every time they try to go fishing.

Meanwhile, scientists have long studied the effects of overcrowding on mice and rats in the laboratory. The results give us a chilling perspective on human behavior.

Back in the 1960s, a researcher named John Calhoun created a rat utopia and a mouse paradise with abundant food where the rodents were free to overpopulate. Which quickly led to overcrowding, disputes over availablefood and seemingly sinister antisocial behavior, which Calhoun termed, “behavioral sinks.”

Over time, the surviving rodents displayed a lack of interest in sex and raising their young. While Calhoun’s research is still being debated, one can’t help but wonder if humans would behave in the same way given the same conditions.

Similarly, the Olympic Peninsula was once described as a fishing paradise and a steelhead utopia.

As more and more anglers were confined into a smaller area by the scientists, the overcrowding led to disputes over fish and other antisocial behaviors.

This led to the row versus wade dispute. Wading anglers, who were stomping steelhead eggs into the gravel, wanted to ban boat anglers to keep them from dragging their anchors through the same gravel.

A striking parallel to Calhoun’s experiment was observed in the demographics of the surviving anglers on our rivers, where very few females and almost no juveniles were observed fishing for steelhead.

This could indicate that the surviving steelhead anglers, like the surviving rats, have lost interest in sex and raising their young.

Whether this represents a behavioral sink or an evolutionary trend is unsure. More research is needed.

Pat Neal is a Hoh River fishing and rafting guide and “wilderness gossip columnist” whose column appears here each Thursday. He can be reached at 360-683-9867 or by email via patnealproductions@gmail.com
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/25/24 11:46 AM

Sad commentary.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/24 08:01 AM

If all the current closures continue, sounds as if a lottery to play may be in order for the peninsula? I for one, am not interested in bumper boats or rubbing elbows. Sad state of affairs for sure.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/26/24 08:52 AM

Originally Posted By: RUNnGUN
If all the current closures continue, sounds as if a lottery to play may be in order for the peninsula? I for one, am not interested in bumper boats or rubbing elbows. Sad state of affairs for sure.


It's not that bad. I've been up twice this year, and it felt the same as it ever did to me as far as crowds were concerned. I was actually very happy with the level of respect people were showing each other, both in boats and out, and while nobody was lighting it up, most of the folks we were fishing around managed to find some action. Kind of par for the course, and certainly enjoyable with the right attitude.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/24 04:09 PM

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings

The first Grays Harbor & Willapa NOF is tonight the 28th at 6 PM. They are not having a public meeting but only this zoom thing. The link will allow you to register. It appears that I missed the notice. This is only the preseason forecast and 2023 escapements.


Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/28/24 05:46 PM

For those wondering in 2023 the Chehalis made Coho and Chum escapement but Chinook escapement is 9,753 and we only had 7,822 spawners. Humptulips Coho were the usual 50% of Coho spawners, Chinook 500 or so to the plus side. Grays Harbor Chum came in at 89,870 with the escapement goal of 21,000.
Posted by: fishbadger

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/29/24 08:55 AM

I'm surprised that Hump kings made escapement. Not surprised at the chum overflow, that was impressive to see. And thanks for the Pat Neal writeup, some good stuff in there,
fb
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/29/24 09:50 AM

The Ecological Escapmnt goal for GH chum should be in the millions. But, the "surplus escapement this year" will make for some happy coho and steelhead juveniles with the portent for more, especially coho, when they return as adults.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 02/29/24 04:33 PM

Got some questions on the why ZOOM vs public meetings and I have an idea but you would need to ask staff. If you have not noticed since the current Director came on board interaction with the public is not a high priority or even desirable. It was a well-managed dog & pony show though. Few hard questions except for an enviro who challenged the agency thought on Willapa Chinook returns and they dodged that one particularly Mr. Lossee’s response. We had the usual meeting recruits doing the rah rah WDFW but that is normal for WDFW. So JJ I think you’re right they are in the basement AND LIKE IT, are not coming out, and have zero desire for a lot of the new staff to go one to one with anyone let alone folks who have a memory of WDFW facts and actions.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/24 09:29 AM

You may remember, too, RG, that in the past R6 really didn't like to have minutes taken from meetings with the public. Still don't like to be pinned down with what they say.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/24 10:21 AM

Yup I remember CM and in particular recorded minutes then put in writing. If I recall that is how you came to take the minutes as some staff about had a stroke about them as we recalled things.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/24 12:58 PM

I think you may recall, too, that even after having hard copies of minutes (this and other forums) that they "lost" their copies.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/24 02:16 PM

Disappearing ink/paper?
Posted by: steely slammer

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/24 04:30 PM

so what was their pre forecast for the Chehalis and tribs?
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/01/24 05:37 PM

120k coho chinook 12400 and change chum all good
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/24 12:05 PM

In discussion among some of a group of friends the question of late Coho was shall we say lively so to boil it down the following. The Chehalis Coho the Satsop late production of smolts is around 200k and the upper basin Skookumchuck mitigation is 300k late timed Coho.

This is a huge portion of the marked Coho but most return in December & January. As this is outside the November 30 cut off for the NOF season setting process so it is not part of the conversation.

Why not? Yes the tribal Steelhead season starts in Dec but are few Steelhead present since the end of the planting of early timed hatchery Steelhead. Yes one should be concerned about the status of Wild Native Late Coho but C&R could reduce mortalities and if necessary gear restrictions. Steelhead the same but the percentage of the wild Steelhead run present in those months is rather small so the number of wild Steelhead mortalities would be very small.

In the ZOOM forecast meeting staff mentioned that they were going to have a conversation with the QIN. Our conversations boiled down are kind of like this. Why does WDFW allow the QIN to dictate state recreational salmon seasons? Yes December is within their season for Steelhead but nets are non-selective so they are a no go. Why do all salmon season setting conversations have a November 30 end date when a substantial portion of the marked Coho return in Dec & Jan?

I always fall back on what the tribal folks I worked with said “everybody fishes or nobody fishes”. Others went with the question why do the QIN get to dictate state Rec seasons that do not violate conservation standards accepted in other parts of the state? Do not violate the court mandated sharing?

I could go but I am looking for other thoughts on this issue and not the emotional you dirty rat but rather ideas based on experience around this or similar issues. The Chehalis season has been reduced to more or less a six-week season depending on location, fish movement, and weather. Any conservation issues in Dec & Jan can be readily addressed so just what is driving WDFW on this issue?

Thoughts?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/24 02:17 PM

I don't think the Court actually "Mandates" sharing in the sense that most people understand the word mandate. Rather, the Courts tell us what sharing is absent some other (theoretically) bi-lateral agreement. Which is why the Tribes now regularly exceed 50%.

But I hark back to what Phil Anderson (the pre-Director Phil) said at a public meeting with the Steelhead and Cutthroat Policy Advisory Group. I took the minutes, so it is in the minutes. He was asked why WDFW would not open a steelhead C&R fishery on the Hoh for the last half of April. The Tribe had no harvest left with the NI side had some. Phil's answer was that "We got the fishery we wanted." Never would answer who "we" was or why harvestable fish were left on the table.

My personal thoughts are that the State (not WDFW but whole political structure) is unwilling to challenge the tribes on any grounds. State won't tell us why, but that's my read.
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/24 02:40 PM

Why would anyone challenge the tribes in this current climate? Tribes know they are in the drivers seat. We're way beyond that now. Would be employment suicide. The confrontaional approaches lose in court. That's a given. Better to not live in the past and develope positive relations with all the tribes. Round table empowerment kumbaya's. Need a group of negotiators that can schmooze them into what they and we want at the same time. Happens in business every day. And it's going to take a long time because the tribes/Quinaults currently don't trust or like the state. Might take a generation to change that. Sad for us oldies waiting for something to change. We don't have the time to wait.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/24 04:08 PM

I remember last November the QIN had stopped netting coho but WDFW allowed the recs to continue to fish for coho in the Chehalis system. The QIN complained that they had stopped netting because of concerns for the wild coho and that WDFW was going to damage the wild coho run by allowing a coho sport fishery during November. But most people knew the real reason for the QIN to stop netting was the low prices they were getting for their fish.
Then toward the end of November WDFW closed the sport fishery because (they said) they were concerned with the recs hooking wild steelhead in December while fishing for late coho. Like RG said, people who know the Chehalis system know that very few steelhead enter the system in December. Large late timed coho were entering the Satsop when WDFW closed it near the end of November.
Posted by: Lifter99

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/02/24 04:34 PM

So, on the Satsop, here are the coho surplus totals and egg take totals as of 2/7/24.
Early timed coho (Bingham and Satsop Springs combined)
30,158 surplus hatchery coho, 2,046,800 eggs taken (Bingham).

Late timed coho (Bingham):
3230 surplus hatchery coho, 684,000 eggs taken

Total surplus hatchery coho on the Satsop :
33,388

In 2022, over 50,000 hatchery coho were surplused on the Satsop.
Posted by: FleaFlickr02

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/24 06:55 AM

Not allowing us to fish in December-January (at least in the tribs, where the tiny chance of encountering an upper Chehalis wild steelhead drops to near zero, and when coho are on track to meet escapement) is a head-scratcher. If I remember right, just a few years ago, the justification for shutting us down early was concern for wild, late coho. Early, wild steelhead have not been anything close to abundant for decades, yet they were never part of the conversation while there were lower coho returns to point to.

Curious. Not necessarily nefarious, but certainly curious.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/24 09:33 AM

I keep coming back to the long-term memory that Rivrguy has. I seem to remember, and this was probably pre-merger, that WDF maintained there were no summer Chinook in the watershed until such time as the recs wanted a fishery; probably on summer steelhead. Suddenly, there were summers that needed protection. I also have talked to other folks in WB who have to protect Bull Trout in their tiny creek. And, there was some habitat along I-5 in the Chehalis watershed that required protection for wolverines.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/24 10:58 AM

CM it is said that you must know where you came from to know where you are to know where you’re going, same with fish. For Chinook most do not know of the Schafer Park hatchery that reared Chinook pre 1950 when Bingham was built. The East Fork Satsop was a Chinook stream and with a early timed Chinook or summers. Eggs got transferred to upper Chehalis to the old hatchery on Fish hatchery road and one year the 5 million egg transfer perished due to facility failure. Another grabber was the transfer of the Humptulips Hatchery Chinook to the Springs on the EF Satsop to be reared to yearlings and released. The agency refused to recognize that the Chehalis has Summer Chinook for many years as they simply wanted only a Fall Chinook designation. That thought fell apart when fall Chinook numbers said good to go but nope we now had to protect summer Chinook.

Our run timings are not close in numbers in a particular month now after many years of human manipulation. I was told that when Simpson Hatchery (now Bingham) started that they did not take Late Coho until very late Dec or Jan which is not the case now. Our late hatchery Coho are a hybrid cross between normal timed fall Coho and lates. Even the wild EF Satsop Lates are a hybrid due to many years of returns that jumped the weir or came into the holding pond prior to mass marking.

It is my understanding that wild Late Coho are struggling and I do not doubt that. Then this they are not a concern when the QIN take them as incidental as we only have Coho not a early & late stock because they would have to manage for two stocks. Unlike early Coho (called normal timed) which endure weeks in warm water holding until rain come to spawn late Coho come right upstream in cold water. Mortalities from C&R are low and can be reduced farther by gear restrictions.

Prior to the combining of WDG & WDF I got into it with a WDG bio over the planting of early Steelhead for the tribal fisheries. I was told point blank that this was for the QIN fisher would get their share and not net the “native Steelhead”. When I responded that this was damaging the late Coho he told me that was WDF’s problem. That gentleman retired just a few years back from WDFW.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/24 11:14 AM

For you old timers this guy was the one that my wife blew her top about him screwing with local volunteers. So down to the old WDG office she went and got into a hell of an argument with him. They darn near called the cops on her and for years some staff introduced her as the lady who tried to kick -- --- ass!
Posted by: RUNnGUN

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/03/24 03:51 PM

Good for her! Maybe a bunch should show up at R6 office and kick some _ ss! Wake them up!
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/04/24 09:33 AM

WDG could be particularly insular. More than a few times I had them complain to WDF that we had to consider steelhead in salmon fisheries and then turn around and ignore them in trout fisheries.

Back around 1980 WDG wanted to start a big hatchery rainbow program in Lake WA. WDF opposed it because of potential damage to the rearing sockeye. WDG's response was "OK, we'll stock walleye". Gotta sell them licenses.
Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/24 04:45 PM

That time of year and ocean options for 2024 ocean seasons. Staff got back to me on the Grays Harbor 2024 models but they are close to getting it done but just not there yet.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
March 11, 2024
Contact: Fish Program, 360-902-2700
Media contact: Mark Yuasa, 360-902-2262



WDFW seeks public input on 2024 proposals for Washington’s ocean salmon fisheries

FRESNO – Fishery managers have developed options for Washington’s ocean salmon fisheries that reflect lower numbers of several coho salmon stocks predicted to return this year.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), which brings tribal, federal, and state entities together to establish fishing seasons in ocean waters three to 200 nautical miles off the Pacific coast, approved three options for ocean salmon fisheries for public review. These ocean options will help inform other Washington salmon fisheries as the season-setting process continues.

“The options for ocean salmon fisheries this year reflect forecasts for Columbia River Chinook that are similar to last year,” said Kyle Adicks, Intergovernmental Salmon Manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). “The number of hatchery coho expected to return to the Columbia is lower than last year but should still provide good fishing opportunities. Fishery managers expect salmon returns of natural stocks, especially those under the Endangered Species Act, to be at low abundance, which will limit salmon fisheries in all marine and freshwater areas.”

The options for 2024 include the following quotas for recreational fisheries off the Washington coast:
Option one:&#8239;42,500 Chinook and 88,200 marked coho.
• Neah Bay (Marine Area 4):&#8239;Open seven days per week from June 15 through earlier of Sept. 30, or 9,170 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 9,780 Chinook.&#8239;No Chinook retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line beginning Aug. 1.
• La Push (Marine Area 3): Open seven days per week from June 15 through earlier of Sept. 30, or 2,290 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 1,700 Chinook.
• Westport-Ocean Shores (Marine Area 2): Open seven days per week from June 22 through earlier of Sept. 30, or 32,640 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 18,060 Chinook.
• Ilwaco (Marine Area 1): Open seven days per week from June 22 through earlier of Sept. 30, or 44,100 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 12,960 Chinook. Buoy 10 fishery opens Aug. 1 with an expected landed catch of 22,000 marked coho in August and September.

Option two:&#8239;39,000 Chinook and 79,800 marked coho.
• Neah Bay (Marine Area 4): Open seven days per week from June 22 through earlier of Sept. 30, or 8,300 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 8,970 Chinook.&#8239;No Chinook retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line beginning Aug. 1.
• La Push (Marine Area 3): Open daily from June 22 through earlier of Sept. 30, or 2,070 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 1,550 Chinook.
• Westport-Ocean Shores (Marine Area 2): Open seven days per week from June 29 through earlier of Sept. 30, or 29,530 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 16,580 Chinook. Chinook retention is prohibited on Fridays and Saturdays during July.
• Ilwaco (Marine Area 1): Open seven days per week from June 22 through earlier of Sept. 30, or 39,900 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 11,900 Chinook. Buoy 10 fishery opens Aug. 1 with an expected landed catch of 27,000 marked coho in August and September.

Option three:&#8239;36,000 Chinook and 67,200 marked coho.
• Neah Bay (Marine Area 4): Open daily from June 22 through earlier of Sept. 22, or 6,990 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 8,280 Chinook.&#8239;No Chinook retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line beginning Aug. 1.
• La Push (Marine Area 3): Open daily from June 22 through earlier of Sept. 22, or 1,750 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 1,440 Chinook.
• Westport-Ocean Shores (Marine Area 2): Open five days per week (Sunday-Thursday) from June 30 through earlier of Sept. 22, or 24,860 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 15,300 Chinook.
• Ilwaco (Marine Area 1): Open seven days per week from June 29 through earlier of Sept. 22, or 33,600 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 10,980 Chinook. Buoy 10 fishery opens Aug. 1 with an expected landed catch of 32,000 marked coho in August and September.

Under these scenarios, fishery managers will monitor the number of salmon recreational anglers catch and may close earlier than the above dates, if quotas are met. For more details about the options, visit&#8239;PFMC's webpage.

Chinook and coho quotas and seasons that the PFMC approved will be part of a comprehensive 2024 salmon-fishing package, which includes marine and freshwater fisheries throughout Washington. State and tribal co-managers will complete the tentative 2024 salmon fisheries package in conjunction with PFMC during its April 6-11 meeting in Seattle. More information on meetings is available on PFMC’s website.
The collaborative state and tribal salmon season-setting process, known as North of Falcon (NOF), refers to waters north of Oregon’s Cape Falcon, which marks the southern border of Washington’s management of salmon stocks.

In addition to attending meetings, the public can participate in the state’s process including:
• Online comments: The public can now provide general comments on potential fisheries at WDFW’s North of Falcon public input webpage. Additional comment opportunities on specific seasons and fisheries will be available as forecasts and proposed season summaries are made available.
• Virtual meetings and daily briefings: During the final days of negotiations, state fish managers plan to hold briefings each day, which will be available via virtual meetings.
Fishery managers use public feedback on these options to negotiate a final season among states and tribes represented at PFMC, refined to incorporate preferences shared by the public.

WDFW’s NOF No. 1 meeting is Wednesday, March 13, 9 a.m., at the Office Building 2 Auditorium, 1115 Washington Street S.E. in Olympia. The meeting is available to watch via Zoom webinar. Participants must register in advance. The meeting will air on TVW Broadcast. For a full timeline of the WDFW public meetings with opportunities to participate and provide feedback, visit NOF public meetings webpage. Visit our NOF FAQs and Glossary Information for key terms and suggested resources. Follow the 2024-25 salmon season setting process, by going to the WDFW “Salmon Daily Digest” blog.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.



Posted by: DrifterWA

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/11/24 11:44 PM

3/11/2024


I predict #2, again, I don't think its been anything else!!!!!







Posted by: Rivrguy

Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET - 03/12/24 12:36 PM

Staff has sent out the first models to those on their mailing list. The email below lays it out as to what is what with the numbers. If you do not want to wait email me and I will forward the models to you. It looks like Grays Harbor Chinook are short using 2023 seasons.


To All Interested Parties,

Please see the attached NALF excel planning model (NALF stands for “new abundances, last year’s fisheries”). The model includes the 2023 fisheries with this year’s forecasts. Also included is a copy of the Grays Harbor Escapements and 2024 Forecasts along with the Summary Tables from the NALF planning model. If you have any questions or fishery suggestions, please feel free to contact Mike Scharpf or myself at graysharbor@dfw.wa.gov or visit the online Public input page at Public input | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife.

As a reminder, tomorrow March 13th is the North of Falcon No. 1: Statewide proposals public meeting. This is a hybrid meeting where you can attend in person at the following location (click address to view map): Office Building 2 Auditorium
1115 Washington St SE, Olympia, WA 98501 If you prefer to attend the meeting online please register for the meeting at the following link: Register for meeting. You can also watch the meeting through TVW at: TVW broadcast

Have a great day,

Kim Figlar-Barnes
WDFW – Fish Management
Grays Harbor Area F & W Biologist
360-249-4628 Ext. 235
Region 6 Office
48 Devonshire, Rd. Montesano, WA 98563