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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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..

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Impressive season...

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....

I was told yesterday that in the next TWO weeks that the sports fishing season could see a major cut back.. anyone hear that????

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....