OP steelhead closures to protect salmon?

Looks like more shady business from the Montesano staff and their overlord Kelly Cunningham. Seems here they are trying to shut down the winter season on Hoh and Quillayute system early to protect chinook in the permanent rules? Can't imagine that a no bait steelhead fishery with single barbless hooks has much of an impact on April chinook? I could be wrong. But it sure appears like someone tried to sneak it in to the NOF regulation updates.

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/wdfw-23-24-regs-would-close-hoh-quillayute-in-april/

WDFW 23-24 Regs Would Close Hoh, Quillayute In April
By Andy Walgamott May 26, 2023 HEADLINES 0 Comments
Buried deep in the minutiae of the pending 2023-24 Washington fishing regs are rule changes that Forks-area steelheaders and salmon anglers may want to make their thoughts known about in the coming two weeks.
WDFW is preparing to bar angling for wild winter-runs on the Quillayute and Hoh systems in April, a popular time to get after the Olympic Peninsula’s healthiest stocks, as well as fishing for hatchery spring Chinook on the former during the same timeframe.

True, recent years have seen very restricted steelhead seasons on the entire coast due to low abundances, but anglers stand to lose four-plus weeks of potential fishing time on the Quillayute, Dickey, Bogachiel, Sol Duc and Calawah, and two-plus weeks on the Hoh, if the state agency writes the change into the permanent regulations.
Fishermen, guides, guide associations and conservation groups have all been caught completely flat-footed by the steelhead news in particular.
“We were not advised until this week that they were pushing for a permanent rule change closing April fisheries, nor was anyone I have talked with,” said Ravae O’Leary of the Olympic Peninsula Guides Association in Forks.
A boiler-plate WDFW press release out this morning about a chance to comment on the pending regs makes no effort to indicate that such a big change is in the works, leaving it to anglers and others to go through 170 pages worth of tweaks to the Washington Administrative Code governing fishing rules.
It’s mind-boggling that something as potentially impactful to the steelheading community and local businesses as an April closure wouldn’t have been better advertised by WDFW, but here we are.
“You’re right, we never brought it up in a meeting, and that’s an oversight on our part,” acknowledged Kyle Adicks, WDFW’s intergovernmental salmon manager, yesterday afternoon.

Oversight or on purpose, some will undoubtedly wonder.
Who is to say, but right now there are more questions than answers about what’s going on and why.
Asked to explain why WDFW is moving the closure of steelhead season from the end of April to the end of March on the two West End systems, agency Fish Program Director Kelly Cunningham said it was based off of an agreement with tribal comanagers during the recently concluded North of Falcon salmon-season-setting negotiations.
“In the case of the Hoh, the salmon closure in April protects against incidental encounters with steelhead and would also reduce impacts on Hoh spring/summer Chinook during the early part of the return, conserving some early impacts and potentially benefitting opportunity when it opens in May,” Cunningham stated by email.
Adicks essentially reiterated those points in a phone call later in the day when asked about the Quillayute system.

However, from a fishing gear perspective, it’s hard to see how closing an April steelhead fishery that WDFW has restricted to baitless and barbless single-hooked offerings would have much if any impact on Chinook that largely return later in spring anyway.
What’s more, WDFW’s proposed 2023-24 regulations would still allow bait for hatchery springers in the Quillayute and Sol Duc beginning May 1, a salmon-directed fishery that suggests that impacts and encounters with Chinook maybe aren’t that constraining of a factor after all.
(Of note, the Quileute Tribe netted the Quillayute River for salmon and steelhead last month, is doing so this month, will continue to do so through spring into summer and presumably will do so again next April, barring poor 2024 run forecasts. The Hoh Tribe began netting the Hoh River May 1 for Chinook and presumably will do so again next spring with a good preseason prediction.)
Puzzlingly, WDFW’s pending regs retain a 15-day April steelhead fishery on the upper Quinault River, which also has a spring-summer run of Chinook. That suggests the new rules are for some reason being narrowly focused on Forks-area rivers, which boast the strongest wild winter steelhead stocks on the peninsula – strong enough to relax boat-fishing bans on portions of the Duc, Calawah, Bogey and Quilly this past season. But why?
DARREL SMITH HOLDS A NICE WEST END HATCHERY SPRING CHINOOK, CAUGHT IN A PAST SEASON. (KNIFE PHOTO CONTEST)
Asked if the new rules are in response to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s finding earlier this year that listing Olympic Peninsula steelhead under the Endangered Species Act may be warranted – i.e., WDFW is trying to show the feds it is further protecting the fish – Cunningham did not directly answer the question and instead referred to the comanager salmon fishing agreement.
Where WDFW has yet to officially advise OGPA or others about the specific pending steelhead changes, Cunningham and Adicks say the agency did tell the guide association that it wanted to open the 2023 spring Chinook fishery on the Quillayute system on May 1.
A March 22 email from the state district fisheries biologist and forwarded by the association’s O’Leary confirms that.
The email makes no mention of steelhead in spring 2024, however. WDFW also backtracked on statements that it had brought it up at North of Falcon after meeting recordings didn’t turn up any mentions.
How WDFW can use setting salmon seasons to squelch part of a steelhead fishery is a question many will have.
“In areas where salmon and steelhead fisheries overlap, salmon seasons may be modified during North of Falcon to protect steelhead, or vice versa,” explained Cunningham.
He indicated that while moving the 2024 steelhead closure from April 30 to March 31 will go into the permanent regs, it can also be relaxed.
“If the outcome of steelhead fisheries planning this fall leads to sport fisheries in April, the fisheries could be opened via emergency regulation following agreements with comanagers,” Cunningham said.
Still, the pending rules would permanently close April. As Washington anglers know all too familiarly, once they lose something it’s hard to get it back.
It’s all a bit of a dog-and-pony show at this last stage in the process, but public comment on the Quillayute and Hoh April steelhead and salmon rules, as well as other final 2023-24 regulations, is open now.
There will also be a virtual hearing Thursday, June 8, at 2 p.m. Attendees are required to register in advance.

Steelhead are sand in the gears of fish (read salmon) management. They create too many problems and need to be gotten rid of.

And steelhead anglers are a real PITA to WDFW.

And we will continue to be PITAs to WDFW concerning steelhead. It is the State's gamefish.

While true I suspect few at WDFW especially in leadership positions are very familiar with steelhead on the end of a line.

The cynic in me suggests that the closure of the sporties is to ensure sufficient bycatch is available for the nets.

It looks like coastal tribes are taking a page from the playbook of their Puget Sound treaty tribe counterparts: get non-treaty fishing off rivers.

". . . the fisheries could be opened via emergency regulation following agreements with comanagers,” Cunningham said.

This is what really pisses me off. WDFW has voluntarily handed over the management of non-treaty recreational fishing to treaty tribes. Ask Cunningham how concerned treaty tribes are about getting WDFW's agreement to tribal fisheries. They aren't. The tribes set their seasons and if WDFW were to make a comment the tribes didn't like, they tell WDFW to go pound sand. Yet these days it's become commonplace that WDFW will not schedule any recreational fishing that the treaty tribes do not approve. WDFW does not work for recreational fishing. Defund WDFW. Clearly we don't need them if they won't advocate and work on our behalf.

Fully agree Salmo. The same thing is coming to BC, too.

Ok Salmo and CM, I'll bite. Defund the Wdfw. Take away their money. Then what? Take away their authority too? Who's in charge? How will taking away their money improve recreational fishing?

Will this work as well as Defund the Police?

What are you getting for your money? 50% of the salmon? 50% or the steelhead? Actually fishing for the hatchery raised salmon in WA or letting them be caught in A BC and Tribal nets?

The Tribes are running WA anadromous fisheries. Why even have an agency that seems to do little or nothing for those who pay the freight?

Note too that the Governor is appointing Commissioners who support non-consumptive use but still fund the agency from license funds rather than General Fund.

Thing away the money won't improve recreational fishing but buying licenses certainly hasn't either. Unfortunately, I tend to fish out of state now as the fishing is better. I get what I pay for.

I agree another example where WDFW (and their co-managers) considering the non-salmon species (ie. game fish) a lower priority.

If folks really are concerned about this issue rather than a satisfy rant on sites like here or talk of defunding WDFW I would suggest a more proactive approach.

Currently salmon is driven largely by WDFW Commission's NOF policy C-3608 which is focus on salmon management.

Part of that policy says "[b]When managing sport fisheries meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers...[/b]"

I would suggest something like the idea of "[b]reserve a portion of salmon harvest and/or ESA impacts to support incidental impacts for allowing for game fish fisheries" be included in that portion of the policy. [/b] C-3608 is sit to expire Dec. 31, 2023 so the time to act is now. If not the current policy is likely to be renewed for another 4 year period.

Unfortunately, the game fish recreational community seem have virtually no interest in changing the management paradigm to support their interests. The result is that we will see these types annually as various fisheries are lost.

Curt

It won't be long until we have to pay more to play if we get to play at all. It's all about $$$. I see it going down the road of Europe. Maybe pay for a lottery for a chance, pay a guide, or be an elite. The comanagers are the going to be the elite and the guides, and dole out for cash what they choose, and there will be buyers. It's what I would do If I were them.

Oh the rage. It’s not like the folks on the boats and beaches here in this state haven’t heard and decried this sorry message about tribal takeover, loss of Steelhead fishing, and the demise of the state’wreck fishing for the last twenty years, actually more !!!

But now, it’s a reel concern?

Now it’s too late...

D,oh!

lol. Yep

disagree. Weve been there, done that too long here. You see how far the public input goes, if others got different ideas.

Although defunding WDFW would work much better than defunding the police, I wouldn't advocate taking all funding away from WDFW. Just the $$ spent on salmon management and salmon hatcheries, as those add up to the greatest proportion of Department spending. So long as WDFW chooses not to work for those who pay (the preponderance) of its operating costs, then we taxpayers and license buyers should have the choice of choosing to not pay them for the work they don't do for us.

To wit: how different would recreational salmon fishing look if WDFW did not participate in NOF at all? A few years ago I was told that from Jan. 1 to Apr. 15, 60% of all salmon program labor hours is spent on NOF. What are we getting for that substantial expenditure?

Far and away the largest line item in the WDFW budget is salmon hatcheries, to the tune of many millions of dollars, yet many of those hatcheries return few to nearly no salmon to NT recreational fishing. It doesn't take an economic expert to question the wisdom of this kind of spending.

Keep the wildlife program, both game and non-game. Keep the resident trout program, including its hatcheries, as this is the one activity of WDFW that actually pencils out. I would also keep the steelhead program, including hatcheries, not because it pencils out economically, but to preserve future options. The future of marine survival rates is uncertain, and the total cost of the steelhead hatchery program is only partially born by the Department. A lot of it comes from mitigation and Mitchell Act funds.

Authority? Authority should be proportionate to public service and accountability to those paying the freight. Taking away the money won't improve recreational fishing, but it doesn't look like it would make it noticeably worse. If you've been around for very long, you can see that is where the Department has chosen to take us.

Good info Smalma! Now that we are post-Covid I want to return to attending the in person Commission meetings to remind them that the Department should be working first for those who pay the freight. I agree that ranting on the internet about game fish closures under the guise of imaginary salmon conservation is unproductive. Unfortunately I think presenting the same information at Commission meetings might be equally unproductive, but at least better directed.

They already did exactly that to "protect" the chinook on the green River in black diamond, no try for anything, could have gone barbless no bait, but just went for a month and a half closure instead. Wdfw is run by morons and it just keeps getting worse.

WDFW ran by the tribes...

I can't attend the meeting but I can submit comments.

Yep. And that's going to get even worse with the proposed Co-Manager Hatchery Policy being considered by the commission and WDFW for adoption later this year. Reading through it, it basically sounds like the tribes will have control over which programs are increased or decreased, what science is used, and basically not allowing any changes to any programs unless the tribes approve.

I do agree that some tribes can actually operate a functional hatchery that returns fish better than Cunningham and his programs can (and I welcome that in some places), but frankly that's a low bar.

However, with this added control by the tribes to operate WDFW hatchery programs, I only anticipate this removes any remaining leverage the state has in future NOF when it comes to harvest.

Here is that draft co-manager hatchery policy: https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-releas...hatchery-policy

Salmo's idea is really just to go back to the pre-merger status. Recreate WDG/WDW and WDF. It does make sense in many ways. WDG was funded by licenses and WDF by the General Fund. Let the whole state pay for the salmon we grow for AK, BC, Tribes, and Commercials. Maybe we need to go back there.

So your idea for helping recreational fishing is to go to the old system of licenses pay for gamefish, general fund for food fish. So as opportunities for steelhead fishing continue to dwindle, relying on license sales to fund steelhead programs is going to make things better? Sure.

It would certainly get the agency's attention when sales drop. As opposed to now.

That's not my idea. My intent is to make WDFW responsive to the constituents who pay its freight, which is currently ignores. I'm not keen on GF (tax revenue) paying to raise hatchery salmon for CA, AK, and WA commercial fishing. What's in it for us (recreational anglers) when WDFW has no plan for recreational fishing other than setting sport fishing seasons that treaty tribes allow? What plan does WDFW have for recreational salmon fishing other than NONE?

Steelhead fishing opportunities are a different game. Steelhead fishing has dwindled mainly due to declining marine survival rates that WDFW is powerless to do anything about. And it has dwindled due to ESA constraints. And to some degree, NGO lawsuits over hatchery steelhead. And as long as WDFW will not advocate for recreational fishing and hands control of gamefish seasons to the treaty tribes, I don't see much need for WDFW in my fishing life. I would fish about the same without WDFW as I do with it.

I spend over $100 each for Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia non-resident fishing licenses, and lesser amounts on short term Idaho and Utah licenses and receive a much better return on investment on all of them than I do from my WA resident license. Why do you suppose that is?

There is one small bit about ocean conditions being outside WDFW control that disagree with. The Keogh River study showed that increasing stream productivity through either the addition of fertilizers or big salmon escapements reduced the age of steelhead smolts. Also, the younger smolts were more abundant than older smolts. That is, a stream can produce more age-1 smolts than age-2 because the younger smolts are smaller going into winter. The more abundant smolt outmigration returned at high enough rates (in poor ocean conditions) to replace the brood. In the White River (WA), at least through about 2010, the R/S for steelhead was higher when the smolts were younger. I believe that WDFW managed for salmon escapements of at least 1kg per square metre of summer low flow that we would see increases in steelhead returns.

In the last few years I have bought licenses and fished in AK, Wyoming, Iceland, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Australia and it was all well worth the expense. And it was generally better than here.

Well, it’s nice to have both the time and the money to fish the world wide when the opportunity here dwindled to the point beyond diminished returns.

Not all here have had that luxury, but I do understand why you play and recreate in those domains that serve their constituents...

Part of having the ability to go other places is where one spends money here. I don't have a big truck, or even a really new car. No big boat and trailer. Some of my coworkers had huge ocean-going boats, antique (and well restored) cars and so on.

Had a discussion about hunting deer in WA or out of state. Dude spent just as much in WA over a couple of years and he would spend on a once every couple year trip outside. His point was that he could spend $100 a weekend no problem but couldn't save that same $100 for use next year.

Choices.

Lots of good thoughts I agree with here, and I don't have much to add. That said, Salmo g. Asked a very important question: Why is game fishing so much better in places like MT, ID, and Utah? One reason might be that there are a lot more fly-receptive fish (trout) in those states, but I think the most important reason is that all WA fisheries are constrained by populations of FOOD fish (and the competition between user groups for those constraining stocks). Once a species is classified as a food fish, it becomes a profitable resource for commercial harvest. That's the beginning of the end, regardless of the species.

I guess what I'm saying is that salmon escapement both feeds and constrains most of our fisheries, and decades of salmon overharvest have led us to a place where everything that depends on salmon for survival is less plentiful and must be protected. That leaves less and less for sport pursuits, so here we are.

I've only lived here about 24 years, and the quality and quantity of our fishing opportunities are much less than what they were when I moved here. It's been painful watching fishery after fishery disappear, and I can only imagine how that feels for lifetime residents. As much as I think Western WA is as beautiful as it gets, family is what's keeping me here now; the fishing is still okay, but it should be SO much better....

Sorry I omitted that thing that WDFW could do. It will be a cold day in hell when the Washington Department of Salmon increases salmon escapements for any ecological benefits, let alone to increase steelhead productivity.

My point about my MT fishing license giving a higher return on investment is that MT doesn't spend my money to raise hatchery salmon to be caught in Canada. They spend it on things like numerous public access sites and boat ramps on rivers, something that is in very short supply in WA. Of course there is less need for those ramps and access sites since the treaty tribes have increasingly closed rivers to recreational fishing.

FF02,

"Why is game fishing so much better in places like MT, ID, and Utah?"

Trout fishing is so much better in these states because the rivers are inherently more productive than our coastal rivers are. And the management agencies don't spend license and tax dollars to raise hatchery salmon to be caught in Canada and commercial fisheries. The money is all spent to manage and enhance sport fishing, unlike in WA.

I don't think their rivers are inherently more productive. I know that in some Idaho streams researchers added salt to the water to electrofish. The Idaho Batholith is pretty non-productive; it takes the fish quite a while to grow to fishing size. But you are so right that their agencies recognize who pays the bills and manages in that direction.

I do recall a conversation I had with boss when I was mentioning that the (then listed Bald Eagle) depended on salmon carcasses and that Hawaii had just lost a court case where depriving a listed species of food was a "take" under ESA that he would never manage salmon for eagles. This was in the 80s and I am fairly certain nothing has changed.

I agree with all those points. As usual, I wrote too much, and I fear my point got lost. I should stop doing that, but I can't seem to help myself....

Certainly, the Rockies are more productive trout habitat than Western WA. The comparison I intended to draw was a more general one between fisheries managed for sport (MT, ID, etc.) and fisheries managed for harvest (ours). Clearly, the ones managed for sport are higher quality and more sustainable over time.

What made me want to fish in this state was the variety of fish, plus the fact that many of those fish are big and cool. We still have that, but it's so limited now that I, like you, have started spending more and more time fishing out of state. WDFW really does crap all over us with their harvest first mantra, and it ticks me off, but darned if I don't keep buying their license. Maybe I figure it's a license to complain or something....

C'man,

Yes, those rivers are more productive. The pH is greater than 7, tending toward alkaline, with more calcium carbonates. This results in a denser biomass of aquatic invertebrates and fish food. An acre of river there grows a lot more pounds of fish per year than our coastal rivers. Our rivers have a pH of 6.5 to 7, almost never greater than 7. So the water tends toward acidic and produces a far lower abundance of aquatic invertebrates and fewer and smaller trout.

This is why high salmon escapements make such a difference. While western WA rivers produce few and small trout, coastal AK rivers, where sockeye salmon escapements remain generous, there are large populations of trout that attain larger size. Sockeye eggs and carcasses drive those aquatic ecosystems.

But I digress. WDFW hands NT recreational fishing management off to the treaty tribes, throwing many recreational fisheries that have extremely low salmon impacts, under the bus. Thus there is a decreasing incentive to fund anadromous fish management at WDFW.

WDFW is spending too much money just to support the Tribes with so little to show for it fish-wise. There has to be some value in it for the State as a whole but certainly not the license-buyers.

WDFW wonders why walleye are showing up in lakes. I think there will be more fish-moving as the anadromous fish are no longer fished for.

Perhaps the "value" the State gets from ensuring the Tribes have something to fish for lies in the lawsuits that DON'T get filed when they do?

You've hit that nail squarely on the head. And very hard too.

Read In NW Sportsman that many recreational anglers have asked that the 2 rivers be kept open in April. Thanks Bob for speaking up and others.

Yessir. The article you mention: https://nwsportsmanmag.com/wdfw-urged-to-withdraw-april-hoh-quillayute-steelhead-closures/

No kidding, Skyrise. I'm glad NW Sportsman kept reporting on this issue (three articles I believe?) and we should be lucky there are folks like Bob and the OPGA, and other people that commented on this issue to keep the Montesano Clown College accountable. With each regulation change or closure and ding to guide businesses and our small towns, I wonder how any of us have any fight left. Which of course is what WDFW wants to happen. Just like our fisheries, kill the rec anglers by a thousand cuts.

From what I read and heard, it seems like Region 6 leaders backtracked when pressed about why this rule was being proposed and if it was actually mentioned in any of the NOF public meetings.

The big question then: does this nonsense from WDFW fall under the incompetence column or malfeasance column?

Did anyone see the follow-up on NW Sportsman? Looks like the pressure from the guides and public worked. I'm glad to see that the application of pressure in a public process can still influence change. Appears that Director Susewind saw the writing on the wall and removed this proposed rule change aka permanent closure on the north coast rivers from moving forward and that the shady maneuver from Cunningham and his golden boy Losee is dead in the water. I'm sure Losse will somehow justify emergency closures again this upcoming season, as that seems to be the only way he knows how to manage. Heres the full story:

WDFW Nixes Its Forks April Steelhead Closure In 2023-24 Regs
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/wdfw-nixes-its-forks-april-steelhead-closure-in-2023-24-regs/

Sure makes me glad we have a publication like Northwest Sportsman and Dwayne Inglin's TV show keeping tabs on these guys. I've read it in multiple places over the past few years as Losee and Cunningham keep running things into the ground out here on the coast (I mean how many fish will get ESA listed under their watch?!), but it's well past time for those two to move on. Maybe the Director will start to see it's time for a change in fish program leadership? Doubt it. Until then, we can just kiss our rivers goodbye!

I think Salmo and Smala probably know more of the department history, but have leadership positions ever been asked to resign or removed from positions based on outcry from the public? I'd reckon aside from the Director, the commission stays out of those types of staff issues.

That's a good decision to see that the Department can be dissuaded from handing all management authority over to the tribes.