and with that Doc I cannot and will not disagree.

Some historical numbers (total) on Chinook plants between 1952 and 1973 for the lower Chehalis WRIA

Satsop River (main stem) 2,000,423
Satsop River (EF) 7,623,128
Satsop River (MF) 1,331,165

Sub-total 10,954,716

Bingham Creek 1,396,057
Cloquallum Creek 946,214
Duck Lake 5180
Campbell Slough 423,310
Humptulips River 1,153,111
Stevens Creek 105,993
Chenois Creek 967,575
Chehalis River 1,713,223
Wynoochee River 18,110
Johns River 1,403,980

Sub-total 8,132,753

Total Chinook plants 19,087,469

All Fall Chinook. Mostly fingerling releases. There were limited plants of fry and yearlings.

Total salmon (Chinook, coho) plants into the Lower Chehalis WRIA was 50,188,213.

Additionally, there was a release of 4,980 Masu salmon into Duck Lake in 1972

Total salmon plants for the Harbor District 1952-1973 was 150,971,619

I cannot claim any understanding about arguing over harvesting a measly few hatchery Chinook in the GH basin recreational fishery. From where I sit as a taxpayer and fishing license buyer, producing hatchery Chinook in GH is like throwing money down a black hole. And as long as QIN practice their policy over science that hatchery and wild fish are the same in the spawning escapement, managing for wild salmon production in the face of significant hatchery production is a fool's game. If I could be the WA salmon czar I wouldn't spend a dime of state money producing hatchery salmon in the GH basin. That simple act would force all parties who give a damn about GH salmon to employ management practices that conserve wild Chinook, coho, and chum.

I don't see that as having much effect on my opportunity to retain a Chinook in the foreseeable future. As it is, my wife and I each bagged a Chinook once in GH in the last decade, and I don't see that happening again anytime soon, if ever, whether hatchery Chinook are produced or not. Tell me again why it makes sense to spend our state money to produce hatchery Chinook for fisheries other than our own?

It makes sense because the people who catch those fish make significant campaign contributions to the Political Cl(ass).

and most of the AK commercials reside in WA, OR, and ID with the majority being WA residents. The large gulf processers are mostly based in WA out of PS and the powers to be don't have any intention of rocking the boat, so to speak. Post Boldt commercials headed North so in a way WA residents still catch our fish but in the marine to get in front of tribal terminal fisheries.

And since the AK fish and BC fish taken by w=Washigtonians don't count against shares, those are "free" fish and the Tribes get corked. Of course, so do the SRKWs, the WA anglers, and the resource. But few of them vote.

it's missing an adipose fin, it's a hatchery fish.

wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/hatcheries/mass-marking

One of the questions someone asked was how accurate is the forecast. For Chehalis Chinook the forecast on average it bounces around pretty close sometimes a little larger return sometimes little short. Years like 1997 way short of forecast and 2004 much larger ( nearly 15k ) are the exception.

Coho is a bit different and the eval tab in the model only goes to 2012 but 2001 to 2003 well above forecast, 04 to 07 well short of forecast, 08 even 08 to 012 couple years above estimate couple years below but totally missed 012 by around 35k short of forecast.

So if you had to judge the preseason forecast performance, a little over a little under it varies but when they blow it it is big time usually the run being way short. 04 and 12 are the ones that show rather nicely in the eval tab.

One of the problems with forecasts, or updates, is how you evaluate them. "on average", they should average whatever the real run was. But, if the PSF can be off by 50K in each direction that averages spot-on but is rather useless for actually hitting escapement or catch.

Rather than looking at how well the forecast performed the real question is how ell did management perform? The season starts with a PSF, a catch estimate, and an escapement goal. How close were those to the numbers?
When I was in the mess, if you hit the escapement, management was successful. If not, it wasn't. Next, did you make allocations, which were I/NI. or US/Canada. Then, did you get the internal allocations right? Each level builds on success but the measure is performance, not forecasts.

I do not think this is a surprise.

March 3, 2021
Contact: WDFW Region 6, 360-249-4628

State announces early closure to coastal steelhead recreational fishing season to meet conservation objectives

OLYMPIA – Amid low returns, fishery managers with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) today announced a closure to sportfishing in the Queets, Quinault, Humptulips and Chehalis river systems as well as tributaries of Willapa Bay to further protect wild steelhead populations. The closure takes effect Monday, March 8.
This follows measures fishery managers implemented earlier this winter to modify the coastal steelhead season, restricting fishing from a boat and using bait, to help more wild steelhead return to the spawning grounds. In coordination with tribal co-managers, the Quillayute and Hoh rivers will remain open for coastal steelhead through March 31 under the previously adopted conservation regulations.

“The numbers that we’re seeing return are a real blow to our angling and conservation communities who have already made sacrifices and invested so much in recovery infrastructure,” said James Losee, fish program manager for WDFW’s coastal region. “We were fortunate to get some days in, but the dire situation of these runs is apparent now and we have to take aggressive steps to protect these wild steelhead.”

This year’s closure is about a month sooner than previous year’s seasons have ended. WDFW is operating under its Statewide Steelhead Management Plan, which requires the department to prioritize the sustainability of coastal steelhead runs, including issues of abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution. As those objectives are first met, WDFW is then able to consider angler preferences.

Tribal governments have taken similar steps to reduce fishing times and harvest of coastal wild steelhead. Early summer 2021 public meeting Fishery managers will review additional in-season metrics, spawning surveys, and catch monitoring data this spring in preparation for an early summer virtual public meeting to debrief this year’s season alongside the state’s angling community, partners, and others.

“Public feedback has been important from the beginning of this year’s season,” said Losee. “We want to keep that conversation open, share the latest data we’re collecting and analyzing, and provide an opportunity to hear from those invested in coastal steelhead recovery well ahead of next season.”

Prior to this year’s limited winter coastal steelhead season, WDFW held a virtual town hall discussion, attended by more than 160 members of the state’s angling community and conservation organizations and considered more than 300 public comments weighing four management approaches to support long-term coastal steelhead conservation.

WDFW will share additional details about its next coastal steelhead public meeting as they’re available.

WDFW is the primary state agency tasked with preserving, protecting, and perpetuating fish, wildlife, and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing and hunting opportunities.

The local manager has little control over how many fish are eventually headed back to a particular system. But each season there is a pre-season plan based on a PSF to fish to a certain rate, to a certain escapement goal for the good of the fish.... and secondarily to a certain allocation split for the good of the fishing sectors.

You can't fault them for a run that falls short of PSF... nor give them credit if more fish show up than expected. They should however be held accountable to fishing to the intended rate and stated allocation in the preseason harvest plan. Hopefully doing so also puts enough fish on the gravel to make the escapement goal, but not always. In an extreme shortfall of returning fish, the pre-season conservation objective may well be met yet still fail to achieve escapement. This does happen occasionally, where even in the absence of all fishing, the total runsize falls short of the e-goal.

Yes I can blame the local manager. They should be actively managing the fishery, monitoring catch, evaluating the runs size, looking at early escapement indices. This is what managers do. Or did.

There are times when the failure of runs is great enough to overwhelm any one. When the PSF is less than the goal, you do everything to protect the fish.

Going with autopilot management on forecasts is a recipe for failure.

You're a TOUGH grader, CM! I'm at least willing to concede some credit where it's due.

I'll give three real life examples and how I would grade them... all on GH chinook.

Scenario 1: WDFW puts an impact season on the books for a marginally harvestable run. Fishing for other species is GREAT, but there's a lot of chinook encounters. Post-season, the managers vastly overfish their intended chinook harvest rate by 150%. Luckily WAY more fish showed up than forecast. Post-season spawner survey shows we comfortably made escapement.

I would give them ZERO credit for making escapement... it was pure dumb@$$ luck that more fish showed. Overharvesting their intended rate shows that their harvest model is low-balling the fishing power of the fleet. I give them a DE-MERIT for a $h!tty plan for NON-target chinook.

...


Scenario 2: WDFW forecasts a small unfishable run. A season is set in the books for a 5% impact cap to gain harvest access to other species. Post-season shows final harvest rate of 3.8%, spawner surveys show we missed the goal by 1000 fish.

Even though escapement was NOT achieved, fishing impacts were constrained within the intended 5%. NO amount of "management" would have achieved the escapement goal because the entire terminal run-size was smaller than the goal. They absolutely get CREDIT for managing within the 5% conservation objective.

....

Scenario 3:

WDFW forecasts a marginally fishable run (less than 110% of goal), prosecutes a chinook-directed rec fishery anyway to target a handful of paper fish. In-season data shows the rec fishery has overfished its paper allocation by at least 5-fold. (QIN's simultaneously overfish their share by 350%) Post season spawner survey estimates they barely make escapement by 132 fish. Total terminal run-size was much larger than forecast, but essentially all of the surplus from the return was killed because both sides overfished their intended preseason harvest plans both in terms of exploitation rate and absolute harvestable fish avaialable.

Yeah, they made escapement (by the skin of their left nut) but another huge DE-MERIT from me.... for going chinook-directed at all, and grossly overfishing their intended harvest plan. What was all the more egregious is that Scenario 1 above (still fresh in their minds) just happened the previous season! BTW, the guy who ordained that fishery and gave us pre-season assurances that more than twice as many fish were conservatively budgeted to cover the targeted chinook... well he's now the TOP salmon manager in the state.

Well now Doc try as I may I cannot find a good argument against your points. Star time!

I grew up in a tough neighborhood......

Rule 1, regardless of the method used (PSF, ISU) is that when harvest is taken, it's taken, and fisheries close.Whoesomever has taken their number is closed.

Rule 2. If you have actual in season data such as ISU, rack counts, spawner survey info (the old telephone was of great use) you could modify fisheries.

I have been involved in situations where we didn't believe the ISU, so we didn't chase paper fish. We even had one situation where we ignored one week's ISU because, even with a bad week of fishing, the next week would show harvestable.

One of the real risks with autopilot management is that you know the number is wrong but you don't know which way.

Management was a time intensive activity with lots of conflicting information floating around. The manager's job is to figure out the most likely reality and follow it. Sure, sometimes you overfish and that puts the next return's fisheries tighter. Sometimes you get more spawners which is, in my experience with wild fish, never a bad thing.

It is spring, well almost, and some folks are out on the river for a ride which is great. Now the not so great, it is dead head season and things have changed on the river as always. If your going up the North side of Higgins Island be careful. Just west of the last house we have a really dangerous dead head. At mid tide it will be about 3 to 4 feet out of the water and swings with the tide. It totally disappears at about 3/4 to high and guys it ain't small. Yesterday a boat clipped it rather hard but all are OK. They made it to my dock and after looking things over boat seems OK but he was going to head for the launch to get out of the water to get a good look at the hull to see how much damage.

They said that another one was hiding out by Blue Slough but it was not as large and somewhat visible. So if your out on the Chehalis be extra careful until you run the river a time or two. No reason in this world to bang up your boat for a few MPH.

It looks like in Southeast AK, about half the salmon fishing revenue accrues to nonresidents.

https://alaskasalmonandpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Southeast_earnings_res.png

Just a reminder that the March 24, 2021 NOF Grays Harbor Fisheries public meeting, https://wdfw.wa.gov/get-involved/calendar/event/north-falcon-grays-harbor-fisheries, is coming up. Also staff has provided the first run on the GH 2021 harvest model so if you want it PM me and I will get it to you. Keep in mind the model is last years seasons on this years forecast numbers.

Staff just sent out an updated model. They were able to update November harvest rates and changes things some. I will back track and get the updated model out.

Some have questions on why we do not have a Chinook fishery on the Chehalis so below is a C&P off the model. Now this is this years run forecast with last years seasons marine and fresh which will change as this years seasons are updated into the model. It helps to remember that for the rest of the world it is Grays Harbor Chinook not the Chehalis or Humptulips.

The C&P is a bit messy but if you take a minute to sort it out you will get a picture of things. To boil it down 9554 of GH wild Chinook are taken in the marine with AK & BC taking most leaving 10852 returning Chehalis wild adults crossing the bar. The escapement goal is 9753 leaving 1099 harvestable. Hatchery harvest % are similar in the marine but terminal harvest jumps up due to the Humptulips hatchery production being harvested. So guys it is not the QIN that take our Chinook in huge numbers but rather the marine fisheries in AK & BC. I have more question folks are firing at me but I need to group them up a bit later to attempt to answer them.


Model Run: 2920a (May-April, Age 2-5 AEQ Total Mortality)
GRAYS HARBOR CHINOOK
Chin2920; NT 54K, Tr 25K
PRIORS Wild Hatchery Total
SEAK 6,139 2,860 8,999
CANADIAN 3,169 1,478 4,647
SUS NON-TREATY 184 86 270
SUS TREATY 62 27 89

IN-RIVER
TREATY 1,621 922 2,543
NON-TREATY 486 2,329 2,815

TOTAL TREATY 1,683 949 2,632
TOTAL U.S. NON-TREATY 6,809 5,274 12,083


SUMMARY
NORTHERN FISHERIES 9,308 4,338 13,646
SOUTHERN US (SUS) 2,353 3,364 5,717

SUS TREATY 1,683 949 2,632
SUS NON-TREATY 670 2,415 3,085
453
28.5% 71.8% 54.0%

Just as a side bar I imagine the numbers are similar around the state so tell me how does anyone think that the problem is all habitat and fix habitat all good. If that is your thought then you need better drugs and a lot more of them.