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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Demolish the building, put them in a tent, and start over.
My kids deserve better!!!!!!!

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

Going by the lead bio's info....

Unable to reconcile the discrepant data trail from the WDFW website

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!

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.