SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?

So why is he so incognito after taking the reigns? I mean not a PEEP since the announcement that he was to be the new WDFW Director.

What gives?

Keeping one's mouth closed prevents feet from occupying it.

I think he's doing a lot of listening and watching. Coming from outside, his learning curve is going to be pretty steep. He's been in the chair for just over two months. Have seen/talked with him at a couple of the Orca Task Force meetings. Understand he's scheduled some "listening" meetings around the state. To his credit, he did make a move on a wolf issue. He's got a challenge ahead of him. In my book, a slow start is okay.

Open House meetings across the state:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/oct1718a/

October 17, 2018
Contact: Jason Wettstein (360) 902-2254

WDFW invites the public to attend
open house events across state

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has scheduled six open house events this fall to give the new director an opportunity to discuss the agency's long-term plans to conserve fish and wildlife and promote outdoor recreation throughout the state.

"The department's work is fundamental to people's quality of life and livelihoods in Washington," said Kelly Susewind, WDFW director. "Our work to conserve fish and wildlife and provide sustainable opportunities affects everyone. Whether you're an active outdoorsperson or you're someone that buys locally-caught seafood at the market, the public expects us to be good stewards of these resources and the public has a say in how they are managed."

Susewind added, "These meetings will allow me to introduce you to my values and approach and I'm eager to hear what's important to you."

Specific topics will include an overview of the department's work in each region, a summary of budget and policy proposals for the 2019 legislative session, and a discussion about how the department should position itself to address new, long-term challenges that affect fish and wildlife.

The open houses, all scheduled for 6:30-8:30 p.m., will take place at the following dates and locations:

Nov. 5 – CenterPlace Regional Event Center, 2426 N. Discovery Place, Spokane Valley
Nov. 6 – Grant County Public Works, 124 Enterprise St. SE, Ephrata
Nov. 7 – Selah Civic Center, 216 1st St., Selah
Nov. 13 – Montesano City Hall, 112 North Main Street, Montesano
Nov. 14 – WDFW Ridgefield Office, 5525 South 11th Street, Ridgefield
Dec. 12 – Issaquah Salmon Hatchery Watershed Science Center, 125 W Sunset Way, Issaquah

Last June, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously to select Susewind as WDFW's director.

"I am committed to the mission of the agency, and that means hearing from people who care about Washington's fish and wildlife," said Susewind. "I want to share what I have learned so far, but listening to people and their ideas is my main reason for inviting people to attend these events."

I'll be at the November 13 meeting......tired of the "kick the can down the road" by past directors, Region 6 staff and WDFW Fish management on NOT getting Wynoochee Mitigation completed.....


really is time, 26 years, "xhit or get off the pot" and do something!!!!!!

Have a question about the Wynoochee Mitigation but it also ties to removal of the Snake Dams.

The pot of money for Wynoochee is, if memory serves, from Tacoma when they installed hydro generation in the dam. I have heard that they are might/will walk away when this FERC permit expires. If so, then are they now absolved of a mitigation requirement and they get their money back since WDFW never (apparently) wanted or needed mitigation there? The dam is the Corps, so mitigation for the dam itself is their gig.

Which brings me to the Snake. If we take the dams out, then the reason for building, funding, and operating the Lyons Ferry Hatchery goes away. Dams, go, shut down the hatcheries or at least the requirement that the Corps funs them as mitigation for the dams.

Exactly, C-man,

If the Snake River dams go (which they assuredly won't within the next ten to fifteen years), where will the funding come for salmon/steelhead recovery? Hanging our collective hats on removing these dams shouldn't be the only salvation to Columbia system recovery. We have lots of good habitat in the lower river whose wild fish populations are not doing well, so we need to deal with those issues, too, so there is evidence of poor management, other than the Snake.

I once suggested, and it was of course shot down, that all the Mitchell Act hatcheries downstream of the Cowlitz be closed. Their funding, and production, would be moved to the Cowlitz. Make that into a hatchery driven zoo. Restore wild salmon in all the lower Columbia tribs.

It would, at least in the short term, mess up Buoy Zooey, but the lower Cowlitz would be big enough to host a lot of boats.

Once again the large number of his stakeholders in Pierce County seem to be marginalized.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome supposedly is the definition of insanity. WDFW seems stuck on mid-20th century solutions that don't and won't work in this 21st century. Does that make WDFW certifiably insane?

Perhaps. But given how WA already (doesn't) treat mental illness they'll just be left alone.

I think that's it. Given the current climate of stakeholder relations (trying to screw each other out of fisheries), a WDFW Director who wants to keep his job will stay out of the public eye and earshot, so that when he shows up at North of Falcon, nobody can complain they were "lied to" or "misled" by the Department. Just toe the line and lower escapement goals when the forecast looks bleak, and he should have little trouble achieving his critical performance objectives: Don't upset the Tribes, and make sure the commercials keep fishing.

Region 6:

Skokomish
Point No Point Ramp (AKA Boat Launch to No Where)
Wynoochee mitigation

Could be an interesting meeting in Montesano.

OK.... I feel a little better, now. Thanks for the link/announcement, ned

Carcassman's suggestion about the Cowlitz hatchery makes too much sense to be adopted.

The same might work in the Chehalis basin using the Satsop. The wild fish would have the rest of the basin to do their thing.

If we are going to have anadromous fish hatcheries it makes sense to concentrate them in a small area where harvest could be concentrated. In GH, while the Satsop is an option I think the Hump would be better. You have a bay in front of it for marine fisheries, the fish would be fresher too. It would remove a stream with great wild fish potential but if you made the rest of the watershed wild, and actually managed for that, I think it could work out. Plus, the Hump has more water to use for culture.

In the long run, I think that if we are going to have hatchery production we need to do triage. Write off some streams for wild fish because we are going to grow hatchery fish. These might be streams like the Green, Cedar, Puyallup with intensive development. The tradeoff is that there would be no other anadromous hatchery production in the rest of the Sound.

The problem is WDFW would only make one stream wild and the rest of them hatchery.

Only one wild stream and the rest hatchery would probably be, by far, the most popular position for them to take. Flood the water with fish, kill 'em all. What's not to like?

How many here think that the answer to our "salmon problem" is to plant more fish?

Lots everywhere think this, against all science to the contrary. Seems like just another part of the "elitist conspiracy" that is knowledge and education.

Queue Pink Floyd.

Fish on...

Todd

Planting more fish has always been the go to for the Hatchery folks and WDFW. It hasn't worked to this point and I doubt that it will work in the future. IMHO.

One of he things we have learned with trout is that if you want to kill very many, they need to be hatchery fish. Going to wild fish management will significantly reduce harvests.

...and that's where it comes back to what are the objectives. Self-perpetuating, sustainable runs or lots of fish for everyone to harvest. With our current habitat we don't get both. Designated hatchery streams and wild streams, on the surface, seems like a reasonable compromise to provide harvest while retaining a few museum pieces of wild fish runs. I'm doubtful the ultimate solution is possible of repairing habitat and policies to the point that we have sustainable wild runs providing high sustainable harvest levels.

Of course there's the issues of ocean conditions and feed to grow extra hatchery fish,
Intercept of said increased hatchery fish by foreign and national commercial fisheries, and mixed-stock ocean/sound sport fisheries that make even a compromise solution doubtful.

Which leaves us with the status quo: Get mine while the getting is good and race to the bottom ...

In order to have large populations of anadromous fish we must make significant changes in how the ocean is managed. If you want an upper-level predator you have to provide the food base. I seriously doubt that we, as a society, are willing to throw shellfish, forage fish, salmon, rockfish, tuna, pinnipeds, whales, cormorants, terns, and who knows what else into the pot and make public decisions on each species.

When and if we do that we can then move to the habitat.

Here is a link to the an interview with new WDFW Director Kelly Susewind that appeared on the program Inside Olympia. The interview is an hour.

https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2018101078

Good heads up for posting this interview...… my take, some goods ideas BUT I've heard good ideas before.... I'm thinking that increase costs with very little benefit for those paying the bill.

1800 employees ????? seems that number is a increase, always a touchy point when you talk about increase costs but continue to hire when maybe some personnel reduction needs to be "on the table"....

I know that there are proposed license fee increases, funny thing....never saw any meeting where the public was involved in these increases....just WDFW personnel.....mmmmmmm

Funny thing about natural resource management is that it gets more costly as the resource becomes more scarce, leading to more situations that require more careful (well-staffed) management. In the end, mountains of money will be spent on lip service while we continue to ignore the fact that's always been right in our face: we can't harvest our way to recovery.

I read an article last night that said Pacific Ocean hypoxia events, which occurred rarely in the 20th century, have occurred annually on the West Coast since 2002. That points to an increasingly hostile ocean, and it seems no matter what we do on our end, the ocean has the most to say about how many fish survive to adulthood in a given year. I think we see proof on occasion (in years where the ocean is friendly and the fisheries managers underestimate the runs) that our habitat can still produce a lot of wild salmon under the right conditions, but a hostile ocean can erase even the most successful of spawns. Is there anything we can really do to fix ocean conditions?

Between us killing everything we (think) we can, year after year, increasing pressure to protect other salmon-dependent species, and oceans that are changing in ways detrimental to salmon, the chances that any management tweaks a WDFW Director suggests makes a positive difference seem pretty poor.

There is one thing we can all agree upon, when the system collapses, it will be someone else's fault....

When? Dude, it is happening now. Has been in decline for years.

Freefall is a better description of the current situation.

Freefall is not the problem. When they finally hit bottom, now that will hurt.

Packed house in Monte to meet Susewind tonight! Agenda a bit haphazard, but a few getting their beefs off their chest.

I couldn't make the meeting. What were the major issues brought up?

And the Director's responses? In short, did he provide specific commitments to remedy any of the myriad of Region 6 issues?

What I remember, being brought up:

Wolf, seal/sea lions, Satsop reds, cougar, Willapa problems, sturgeon, budget, Wynoochee Mitigation, gill net tribe/NT figures not posted regular, ocean bottom fish, Eel grass in Willapa, accountability to public, Hood Canal problems, Chinook salmon raised to feed Orca......I'm sure there were more but ????????

Not sure new director will be as aggressive in the leadership role to get done what needs to be done...….Time tells !!!!!!

Deja vous all over again? Seems I recall former Directer Unsworth conducting a similar series of public meetings.

Bad news from the public meetings with Susewind...

From CCA:

WDFW Director Kelly Susewind was asked about efforts to remove non-selective gillnets from our rivers during a “digital open house” event on November 28. The question and his disappointing response can be viewed HERE.

In his response, Director Susewind repeated industry claims that gillnets are selective by “time, area and place” and suggested that gillnets can be an effective tool for harvesting excess returning hatchery fish. These arguments simply don’t stand up to scrutiny in mixed-stock fisheries where you have ESA-listed, wild, and hatchery fish intermingled, which is currently the norm for most Washington salmon fisheries. Claims that gillnets are selective also fly in the face of the consequences of decades of non-selective overharvest: extinctions, ESA listings, and depressed salmon runs – even in areas with suitable habitat.

The gillnet question came up during a 1 ½-hour digital open house that covered a range of topics dealing with key issues facing the agency. WDFW has also hosted a series of local open house meetings as part of its effort to build support for a $60 million budget increase though higher license fees and additional state general funds. WDFW is also requesting that the Legislature reauthorize the $8.50 Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead endorsement, which is annually purchased by over 200,000 recreational anglers who fish the Columbia River basin. It expires next year.

Director Susewind conceded that he had more to learn about the issue. You can email him directly at Kelly.Susewind@dfw.wa.gov if you would like to share your views and first-hand experiences with gillnets. Please keep your email constructive and courteous.



I also encourage you to contact the Director. I suppose it's good to be constructive, but at this point, I don't see any reason to be courteous.

Gillnets are very selective, much more so than hook and line. But, their selectivity is by size. Each mesh size selects for a certain size. An example of where it worked well was when Skagit coho needed protection during a chum fishery. Chum mesh (around 6") was mandated and few coho were caught. Then. steelhead seasons started and mesh sizes were dropped. Lots of coho showed up in the catch. The larger mesh protected the coho.

Even though they are size selective they are not hatchery/wild selective.

Further, the selectivity of gill nets has been shown to change size of the spawning population. In BC, the sockeye fishery removed the smaller chum which resulted in an increase in chum spawner size.

There is a time and place for gill nets but they are being overused.

Size selectivity is the one (almost) legitimate argument. Trouble with that one is that non-target species (piscatorial and otherwise) of similar girth get just as stuck as salmon... Then the wild fish factor.... Besides that, my observation has been that as the fish get smaller, so goes the mesh size.

I am less upset about tribal gillnetting (the terminal tributary variety) these days, because at least they select for target stocks (of course, those also kill too many wild fish).

Had gillnet fisheries been managed better over the past several decades, they would still be sustainable today, in my opinion. We've been taking too much, too non-selectively, for too long, and at this point, there's probably not a net fishery left that doesn't kill endangered fish or endangered something else.

It's time for commercial fisheries to evolve, before there's nothing left to catch. If our habitat's as screwed as we're told it is, we at least need to stop wasting potential spawners... don't we?

The true non-selective, age destroying, size destroying fisheries have historically been the marine mixed stock hook and line. Commercial troll and rec.

Fisheries have to evolve, not just the commercial fisheries because dead fish don't spawn and it really doesn't matter how they die. That wild black mouth that is released and dies is just as much a non-spawner as the adult wild fish that is "incidentally" killed in a gill net in its home stream.

Traps, fish wheels, dipnets, and reef nets that are actively tended are probably best for selectivity. In order to save and restore our fish there does need to be a complete reboot of the manner in which they are harvested. All sectors need to be involved. I doubt it will happen because of the amount of money already invested.

Yeah. I think you have it right.

The first time I saw the announcement I posted, I didn't read past "Susewind, gillnets, and selective" before reacting in the typical, angry way I do anytime I read accounts of our fisheries managers justifying fisheries that do too much collateral damage... No matter what the fishery. Having read through the whole thing, I see the irony of saltwater sport anglers condemning other groups/methods as non-selective. As long as we want to fish saltwater, we ought not make such outrageous claims.

Ultimately, I think all the salmon fishing, sport or commercial, should be in terminal areas. Also, considering some of the ridiculous things we can do with technology and innovation, I just don't buy that we can't find a more sustainable way to farm fish for markets. Everybody's going to have to make some sacrifices if we're to be able to fish for salmon long-term. My position is that the increasing number of places freshwater anglers can no longer fish due to relentless, perennial overfishing in the salt and estuaries has been a painful sacrifice, and mayne it's time for some other stakeholders to share some pain.

You said something about the money invested. To that, I can only say YES. A lot of money is being spent on the privilege to harvest the last salmon, and the ones with the least money are absorbing the full burden of conservation. The real hell of it is that none of these river closures help; the damage has been done before the fish get there, as evidenced by decreasing escapement goals.

No truer words have EVER been posted here, particularly so for chinook.

The poor bastards are relentlessly getting picked off at EVERY life stage, with disproportionate exploitation of any fish unfortunate enough to be genetically programmed to morph into the older larger phenotype. For most, it's simply a genetic dead end. Fisheries are systematically snuffing out the old large phenotype.

Any fish over 24" that encounters hook/line is pretty much toast... WHACK.

Unfortunately a HUGE portion of the sub-legals encountered with commercial troll gear are also good as dead upon release.

Same can be said for trout fisheries with minimum sizes. In ID, a friend did his MSc on the special trout regs. The stream with C&R had Westslopes that were 16-18". The stream with a 13" minimum had fish up to about 13.1". It worked because the 13's had spawned once, but they never got big and old.

Spawning populations are made up of the fish that live to spawn. Weed out the faster growing fish (hit minimums sooner), the potentially older ones (exposed to fisheries longer) and you get smaller, younger spawners. This has been known to managers and researchers since at least the 70s. We can't claim that we didn't know what we were doing.

CC I find the lack of understanding of what drives the down sizing or alternation of salmonids to be just plain strange. From Chinook being blasted on the marine which is the reason of the loss of 5 and 6 yr class which means smaller fish dominate. Non biting Coho? Well if you hook and line out the aggressive ones long enough you will get a return that sticks to natures rules, no bite in fresh water. The most dramatic that was told me years ago was taking a 12 to 15 lb hatchery Coho brood and netting the hell out of it resulting in the smaller fish escape more and then eventually dominate the brood and wella a 5 to 8 lb hatchery Coho. Folks this is very very basic animal husbandry known for centuries. The only difference in raising fish or cattle is fish live in water. The laws of natural or mankind selectivity are well known even by WDFW.

They may be well known but they get ignored as inconvenient.

The tipping point has been reached a long time ago. Mismanagement through greed, malpractice and ignorance have produced the miserable conditions we are now faced with. Couple this with Mother nature giving us a slap to the side of the head with unfavorable ocean conditions and we have now gone over the edge of the cliff.

The only thing that could possibly throw the fish a life line is a complete and radical change in the Fisheries that are impacting them and, of course all the talking in the world will not produce that so long as we continue to have GREED, MALPRACTICE AND IGNORANCE set the management of our fish.

Does anyone here really believe that any of the three groups, NI Commercials, Tribal Commercials or Recreation will make a dramatic change without the other two doing the same?

As long as there is money to be made selling fish, the fish will be decimated.

I'll bet that there is a high number of Commercial (both NI and Tribal) fishermen who do not live on fishing alone. Most have other sources of income and fishing only supplements it.

And I'll also bet that there is a high percentage of Tribal fisheries that take place, not because they live by the income, but they net because "THEY CAN. They fought for the right to fish, so they are somewhat obligated to.

Although not as common south of the border, much of the First Nations salmon fisheries were (and probably still are) subsistence. They catch and preserve the year's food supply during the run. Same as in AK where there are lots of folks (I and NI) that rely on subsistence harvest.

An interesting aspect of the US/Canada treaty, at least the first iteration in mid '80s, reserved the first 400K harvestable Fraser sockeye for the FN subsistence fishery. These fish were above the escapement goals but taken off the harvestable before it was divided between the Countries.

I had hears some encouraging things on the new director. The line about gill nets was disheartening to hear. It's amazing how many small coho and sockeye can be caught in Chinook gill nets when they're allowed to be sold.

Susewind is a puppet. He was selected, vetted and interviewed as a puppet and is way over his head, just as he is supposed to be. There is no backbone in him, nor is there supposed to be. He was purchased as a nurtured mute (in both definitions) and that is exactly how he is supposed to be. The Commercial and Tribal factions have gotten a Commission, and WDFW Leadership perfect for their agenda. Recs are a nuisance that can suck the scraps off the floor of the North of Falcon. WE HAVE NO REAL VOICE, NO REAL POWER, NO REAL ORGANIZATION.

REALITY IS A M.F.

Recs are marginalized because they seem to want it that way. If I can have my fishery, I'm happy. Who cares about bass, anyway?

Anybody who has been involved with the Tribes knows that inter (an probably intra) Tribal fights are bloody. But, they will unite to protect any tribe.

The rec side has chosen to not cooperate among themselves, not get politically involved, not buy influence. And, we still buy licenses......