good to see you tonight doc......

Man is dave H going to ruffle some feathers or what .....

nice to have him on board......

I think they have me on a very short leash.....choker short... LOL

Peace
Fly

Here's a thought. The gillnetters are used to protect the tribal fishery. Without the gillnetters you would have one fishery that can and does fish selectively with little mortality to the incidental and non-target stocks. If the tribal fishery were the only "kill 'em all" show going it might be politically harder to portray ones self as conservation minded. So, the non-Indian gillnets provide cover.

I suspect that if the tribes were forced to fish selectively that there would be a myriad of legal challenges such as what is the superior law-ESA or treaties. And, the one that should concern WA the most; how many salmon do we need to ensure the tribes have access to (Boldt II).

Sorry for the lengthy post below, but there is, within the ESA ESU designation a provision for a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) to allow for management of species within a portion of their overall range. A DPS listing can drive management schemes down to a very small level. In theory, if a DPS within an ESU is never "recovered" the application of 4d take restrictions can be continued on ad infinitum. Personally, I would suggest a strong caution for a DPS listing.

The following is copied from the NOAA website on chum:

"NOAA Fisheries has identified 4 evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of chum salmon in Washington, Oregon and California. Each ESU is treated as a separate species under the Endangered Species Act. Click the links below to get information about a specific ESU, its status, and other relevant information"

The 4 "distinct" ESUs for chum are the coast (Doc's map) and the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia, both of which are not currently listed. The other two are the Hood Canal summer chum and the Columbia River chum which are both listed as threatened.



http://www.eoearth.org/article/Distinct_Population_Segment_policy_(1996)_under_the_Endangered_Species_Act,_United_States
Distinct Population Segment policy (1996) under the Endangered Species Act, United States
Published: June 18, 2008, 8:41 pm
Updated: June 18, 2008, 8:41 pm
Lead Author: Tatjana Rosen
Topics: Ecology Environmental Law

This article has been reviewed by the following Topic Editor: Peter Saundry
Under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA" or "Act") as originally enacted, the term species was defined to include "any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants and any other group of fish or wildlife of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature".
In 1978, the Act was amended and the new definition provides that a species includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (ESA, Section 4). (emphasis added)
In 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) convened a Vertebrate Population Workshop to develop guidelines for interpreting the DPS language in the ESA. The NMFS memorandum provided that a vertebrate population (or group of populations) will be considered "distinct" for purposes of the ESA if it represents “an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species”. An ESU was defined as a population that (1) is substantially “reproductively isolated” from other populations of the same species and (2) represents an “important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species”.
In 1996, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the NMFS developed a joint policy (1996 Policy) intended to clarify the meaning of Distinct Population Segment (61 Fed. Reg. 4722, Feb. 7, 1996). Three basic principles guided the development of the 1996 Policy: (1) the intent of the framers of the ESA to use it to protect genetic diversity (93rd Congress, 1st session, 1973, H.R. Report 412); (2) the 1979 directive that the government agencies involved list populations “sparingly“; and (3) the stipulation in the ESA (section 4(b)(1)(A)) that listing decisions be based “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available”.
To constitute a DPS, the policy provides a population must exhibit (i) “discreteness” in relation to the remainder of the species and (ii) “significance” to the species to which it belongs.
As to "discreteness" the 1996 Policy states that: “A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if [either]: 1. It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors …. [or] 2. It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of explication, management of habitat, conservation status or regulatory mechanisms exist ….” (1996 Policy)
Once discreteness has been established, “the Services will consider available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment’s importance to the taxon to which it belongs.” This “significance” test may be satisfied by: “1. Persistence of the [DPS] in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon. 2. Evidence that loss of the [DPS] would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon. 3. Evidence that the [DPS] represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon . . . . [and] 4. Evidence that the [DPS] differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics….” (1996 Policy)
Further Reading
• Rosen T. 2007. The Endangered Species Act and the distinct population segment policy. Ursus, 18(1):109-116
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program. 1996 Distinct Population Segment Policy (full text).
• Waples R.S. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp. and the definition of “species” under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review, 53:11-22
Citation
Tatjana Rosen (Lead Author);Peter Saundry (Topic Editor) "Distinct Population Segment policy (1996) under the Endangered Species Act, United States". In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth June 18, 2008; Last revised Date June 18, 2008; Retrieved February 1, 2013 <http://www.eoearth.org/article/Distinct_Population_Segment_policy_(1996)_under_the_Endangered_Species_Act,_United_States>



http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/grizzly/esafacts.htm
LITTLE KNOWN BUT IMPORTANT FEATURES
OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Distinct Population Segments, 4(d) Rules, and Experimental Populations
There are features built into the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations that give the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) flexibility in listing, protecting, managing, and recovering species that need the ESA's protections.
Distinct Population Segments
In addition to the listing and delisting of species and subspecies, the ESA allows the listing/delisting of Distinct Population Segments of vertebrate species (i.e., animals with backbones, mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians). A Distinct Population Segment is a portion of a species' or subspecies' population or range. The Distinct Population Segment is described geographically instead of biologically, such as "all members of XYZ that occur north of 40 north latitude."
The use of Distinct Population Segments is a benefit to species conservation and a benefit to people whose activities may be affected by the ESA's prohibitions. Conservation efforts are more effective and less costly if they are started early and a Distinct Population Segment listing makes earlier listings possible. By listing a Distinct Population Segment, we apply the ESA's protections only to the deteriorating portion of a species' range. Threats can then be addressed in that specific (and smaller) area instead of waiting until the entire species has declined to the point that listing the entire species throughout its range is necessary.
Also, the USFWS uses Distinct Population Segment listings to customize application of the ESA across the range of listed vertebrate species. For listed species with improving populations, we can delist or reclassify (from endangered to threatened) a Distinct Population Segment. By doing this we remove or reduce the ESA's protections from part of the listed species' range (where it is doing well) while keeping full ESA protection for the Distinct Population Segment of that species that has not yet experienced recovery.
The USFWS's policy for designating Distinct Population Segments is sometimes called the Vertebrate Population Policy. This policy contains the criteria that must be met for a portion of a species' population to be designated as a Distinct Population Segment. Those criteria include the requirements that a Distinct Population Segment must be discrete and significant. This policy was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 4722-4725; February 7, 1996) and can be found on the Web at http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp/pol005.html .
Examples of currently listed Distinct Population Segments:
the northern population of the copperbelly water snake
the interior population of the least tern
the northern population of the bog turtle
Section 4(d) Special Rules
Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the USFWS to establish special regulations for threatened (not endangered) species, subspecies, and Distinct Population Segments. These "4(d) rules" take the place of the normal protections of the ESA and may either increase or decrease the ESA's normal protections. The ESA specifies that 4(d) rules must be "necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species."
One use of 4(d) rules is to relax the normal ESA restrictions to reduce conflicts between people and the protections provided to the threatened species by the ESA. A 4(d) rule can be used in such a situation if those conflicts would adversely affect recovery and if the reduced protection would not slow the species' recovery. This type of 4(d) rule is already in effect for gray wolves. Under authority of a 4(d) rule, Minnesota wolves that have preyed on domestic animals can be trapped and killed by designated government agents. This 4(d) rule was developed to avoid even larger numbers of wolves being killed by private citizens who might otherwise take wolf control into their own hands. (For more details on this example of a section 4(d) special rule, refer to Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.40(d).)
Experimental Populations
Re-establishing a threatened or endangered species in areas of its former range is often necessary for recovery. However, residents and businesses frequently oppose such reintroductions because they fear the presence of the species will also bring severe restrictions on the use of private and public land in the area. To overcome this serious obstacle to species reintroductions, Congress added the concept of experimental populations to the ESA. Experimental population designations are sometimes referred to as section 10(j) rules.
An experimental population is a geographically described group of reintroduced plants or animals that is isolated from other existing populations of the species. Members of the experimental population are considered to be threatened under the ESA, and thus can have special regulations written for them under section 4(d). In addition, if the experimental population is determined to be "nonessential" to the survival of the species, for some activities the experimental population is treated like a species that is proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. In other words, the nonessential experimental population is not given the full protections of the ESA.
Among numerous examples of experimental populations are the Colorado pikeminnow, the southern sea otter, the gray wolf, and the black-footed ferret.
Summary
These three aspects of the ESA all can promote the recovery of declining species by fine-tuning the protections of the ESA. This fine-tuning minimizes adverse impacts on people and society while maximizing the likelihood of eventual recovery and delisting of the species. Thus, humans and rare species both benefit from their careful use.
-FWS-

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Index.cfm
Salmon Populations

Dec. 21, 2012: home page story, Small research station provides immense value to scientific advancement and marine exploration
Pacific salmon and steelhead are salmonids, of the scientific family Salmonidae. They are anadromous fish, which means that they migrate up rivers from the ocean to breed in fresh water. Pacific salmon are in the scientific genus Oncorhynchus, which includes pink, sockeye, chum, Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead and rainbow trout.
These fish have a complex life-cycle that spans a variety of fresh and saltwater habitats. Salmon are born in inland streams and rivers, migrate to coastal estuaries, and then disperse into ocean waters to grow. Once mature, they reverse their course, returning through the estuaries, fighting their way back upriver to the very streams where they were born, to reproduce, die and begin the cycle again.
In 1991, NOAA Fisheries received a petition to list Pacific Northwest salmon runs under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In response, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Southwest Fisheries Science Center launched a proactive, systematic review of all West Coast salmon runs. To do this, however, the agency first had to determine how a “species” of salmon was defined under the ESA.
The ESA allows listing of “distinct population segments” of vertebrates. NOAA Fisheries, through the scientific leadership and expertise of its science centers, developed a technical document to describe how it will apply this definition in evaluating Pacific salmon stocks for listing under the ESA. A policy (PDF 902KB) was then developed that establishes a group of salmon populations to be a distinct population segment if it is an “evolutionarily significant unit,” or ESU. Scientists established two criteria for ESUs: 1) the population must show substantial reproductive isolation; and 2) there must be an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species as a whole.
From 1994 to 1999, NOAA Fisheries, through biological review teams (BRTs) convened by its science centers, reviewed the ESA status of all anadromous salmon species on the West Coast. (BRTs are groups of federal agency scientists with expertise in the species being reviewed. They solicit and review all pertinent data and assess risks to the viability of the species.) During these reviews the BRTs identified 52 ESUs, and evaluated whether they were at risk of extinction and should be considered for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
The final BRT reports provided a solid scientific foundation for NOAA Fisheries to make ESA listing determinations. Before beginning the coast-wide status review, the agency had listed two salmon populations in the Snake River basin and one in California's Sacramento River. Following the reviews, NOAA Fisheries had listed a total of 26 salmon and steelhead populations; five as endangered and 21 as threatened. In 2005 the agency completed a periodic review and update of the status of the 26 ESA-listed populations. The agency later listed Oregon coast coho and Puget Sound steelhead as threatened, for a total of 28 populations.
NOAA Fisheries' Northwest Region issued the results of another periodic review of listed salmon and steelhead in August 2011. The agency made no changes to the ESA status of any populations.

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Chum/Index.cfm
Chum Salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta)

NOAA Fisheries has identified 4 evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of chum salmon in Washington, Oregon and California. Each ESU is treated as a separate species under the Endangered Species Act. Click the links below to get information about a specific ESU, its status, and other relevant information.
ESU ESA Listing Status ESA Critical Habitat
Hood Canal Summer-run
Threatened
6/28/05 (70FR37160) Designated
9/2/05 (70FR52630)
Columbia River
Threatened
6/28/05 (70FR37160) Designated
9/2/05 (70FR52630)
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia
Not Warranted NA
Pacific Coast
Not Warranted NA
ESU Maps
Federal Register Notices

Salmon graphics on the Northwest Region ESA Salmon Web pages are used with permission from Nature Discovery, Copyright © 1996.

As a newby to the GH Advisory group a couple of things came out that are worth mentioning. First is the information distributed and the notes can ( and will ) be made public. A shift but not a 8.0 shaker.

Now this is. Staff outlined the public meetings requirements of the different advisory groups and those that applied to the GH Advisory Group. The members of the public have the right to attend GH Advisory Group meetings and observe, key word observe. The public can NOT participate in the processes or discussions just OBSERVE. If anyone has a desire to set in and observe by all means do so as it is a public process concerning a public resource. All that said I would urge you to give Region 6 staff the courtesy of letting them know in advance you are going to attend to insure the facilities utilized can accommodate everyone.

So the dance begins.

Is there a way for the observers to interact with the members (breaks, for instance)?

Ah ................... you know I do not know for sure. Off hand I would say no, as my thoughts only. I can not see how that would work as Ron Warren was very clear non advisory board ( observers ) could not participate or have input in the discussions. Now the Montesano meeting for the general public input and meeting in Olympia to finalize the NOF for Grays Harbor are open to public participation.

Depending on the meeting, there can be provisions for public comments and they are usually at the end of a meeting. Depends on the what the committee chair or meeting facilitator decide.

It is worth asking for.....

Here is a link to the WDFW "Operating Protocols and Guidelines for Advisory Groups". Depending on the group, a chair may be elected and the group then sets its agenda.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01328/

The Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30) provides the sideboards for the meetings http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30

The WDFW staff coordinator "....will assist each advisory group in understanding whether the OMPA applies as a matter of law. Nevertheless, the Department encourages...advisory groups...to conduct their business in an open, transparent manner, consistent with the intent of the act."

encourages open and transparent. Why not "require"?

The protocols haven't been updated since 2010. That could be a change...

The NOF schedule for GH NOF and Willapa NOF is up on the FTC home page. It also has the NOF WDF&W Team Meetings, PFMC, and WDF&W Tribal meetings in it so read carefully to not mix dates up.

I was asked to identify what information in the Fishing The Chehalis library would be the simplest and best to get a quick read to understand the NOF data. The information exist primarily in a usable form in Excel spread sheets, Preseason and FRAM. While the FRAM maps out the harvest it also has a substantial amount of other information in the pages. You would want the Preseason Forecast spreadsheets that are separate for each of the three salmon species and are a wealth of historical information. Oh yeah almost forgot you want the 2012 sheets.

That was the easy part! If you want to view them go to the Library / WDF&W PDR Responses / PDR Responses Sorted and they are listed. To be honest folks you will still wander around a bit trying to find the year and sheets you want and then down load it. The simplest way is to send a request to me and I will find it for you.

Also the spread sheets when viewed in the library are separated into the many pages of the Excel sheets as that simply is the way the data base is viewed. If you down load them they are intact but some have trouble with them as they xlsx sheets which are compressed Excel.

About had enough of that bit? Don't blame you as breaking out all the information in the PDR was a real pain. So as I said contact me and I will get it to you in a useable form!

I have not viewed all the videos, but what I saw was disappointing, disturbing, and depressing. Truly unbelievable. I realize FishDoc, RiverGuy, Carcassman, SuperFly, and others have been concerned about this for decades, but it's startling to see it firsthand. Thanks to all who put this website together, and the folks who continue to fight the good fight.

However, I see a close link between this issue and the current issue of revamping the F/W Commission (HB1189). Whenever the commercial folks don't get their way, they run to their representatives to trot out a proposal to rig the Commission or dismantle it entirely. These bills don't usually get very far, but they still serve their purpose - which is to intimidate the F/W Commissioners. A shot across their bow. Send a message that the commercial folks are politically powerful, and that unless the Commissioners "get in line", the intimidation will continue.

It's clear the commercial folks have a great situation on GH and the Chehalis (but not so great for the fish nor the recreational anglers). The Commission knows this; so their instructions to WDFW leadership are likely very clear - "Do whatever you need to do to maintain viable commercial fishing on GH". That might include rigging the computer models, using phony numbers in the spreadsheets, back-calculating the survival estimates needed to justify the commercial fishery, ignoring the actual escapement levels, and developing PR stunts like survival boxes and "selective fishery" methods without actually requiring their use.

Ideally, more and better transparency through videos and public engagement will turn things around. The website is a terrific start.

Sorry for the rant, but this situation is disturbing.

The latest video is up on FTC addressing the national history and events that preceded the federal courts intervention in Washington States salmon harvest. Known to most as simply Boldt, it is the defining decision regarding salmon harvest in the Pacific Northwest and Native American treaty rights.

http://fishingthechehalis.net/boldt-decision

Here is a link to the GH Management Plan and the Tiered Harvest Plan. Both are labeled Draft, never had public review, never had scientific review, and have not been formally adopted by the commission. These are the foundation and implementation vehicle utilized by WDF&W for that ugly thing they called the 2012 season. I might add even some of the supporters of the plan were ( find polite words ) ............ were horrified to see.

The Tier Plan would be my first read.

https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B2tWjgmgVy3yOHB1QkFncW5Jdjg

I was asked to explain how is information presented to the public for NOF and how it is used. It is primarily in a Power Point presentation that boils down a rather large amount of data into something that is easily viewed. Link below for 2012 Montesano meeting.

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjg...Yi0wQlo1ZUpIb0k

Is anything set in stone at this point? No, yes, and maybe. The Harvestable numbers yes, seasons no, who gets what % of the available fish maybe, as by this time WDF&W staff pretty much know what the final harvest picture will look like. The harvestable numbers are put into the tier plan and it dictates some basic things happen. Link below for 2012 Tier Plan.

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2tWjg...MGpmcVA2WXoxaVU

To the question is it a waste of time to attend? Not no but hell no. It is a dog and pony show to be sure but WDF&W records your input FOR THE RECORD. In 2012 only 5 written proposals for the inriver sport season were submitted, so it is of real value for citizens to demand the restoration of the inland communities traditional sport fishing opportunities at the public meeting. In addition you can set in ( but not participate ) in the Grays Harbor and Willapa Advisory Group meetings, which I think many of you would find to be a real eye opener. Otherwise you get 2012 a season with the vast majority of the harvestable fish removed by the 101 Bridge in Aberdeen. Or to put it another way you get to take multiple walks to the river or boat rides enjoying nature and friends, and not catching many fish. Schedule link below.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yZVh2WmQyaHl1MU0/edit

Now then it is time for the rest of the story. The Grays Harbor Management Plan ONLY applies to the non treaty sport & commercial. The Quinault Tribal ( QIN ) commercial fisheries operate under a totally different set of rules that are never presented to the public as to negotiated harvest impacts. Are negotiated after the Non Treaty ( state ) harvest plan has been presented to the public. Then the final bit of deception is that the final harvest plan agreed to by the state and QIN is never made public, impacts clearly defined, or the rational utilized in the finalization of the combined harvest plan explained.

That is a subject in itself for another day!

I see we got unlocked but onward.

Here is a link to FTC Dave's Rants. In it you will find my thoughts on the NOF Chinook harvest of paper fish. If you don't want read the whole thing hit the link to the 2012 Chinook Impacts. The FRAM 2012 spread sheet data was utilized to produce the numbers of PROJECTED PAPER CHINOOK to be harvested. Just as a teaser how many know that WDF&W agreed to allow the QIN to harvest 18% of the escapement goal or 2426 Chinook. If your blood pressure is rising remember WDF&W AGREED to allow this.



https://fishingthechehalis.publishpath.com/2012-nof-chinook-harvest[i][/i]

Wee Edit: I was asked why not a direct post here? In multi sheet Excel and other documents you loose the formatting plus a bunch of other things when pasted in on PP. It is simply easier with a issue that has a lot of research time involved and multiple links in it to link to FTC work. If it is just one document, or something similar, I usually just write up on PP. It is all about the work required.

Yes, its a tragedy that the supposed "CO"managers do not cooperatively manage out of the same playbook. Without mutually agreed-upon objectives, the resource is ultimately made to suffer.

QIN does NOT acknowledge/accept that GH chinook stocks should be segregated as separate Hump stock and Chehalis stock.... simply that they are an aggregate GH chinook stock. Nor do they acknowledge/accept that weak stocks with no harvestable surplus should be managed with a 10% impact cap. These are the most basic conservation-minded principles built into the GH Advisory's vision of a responsibly-managed salmon fishery in Gray Harbor.

The Tier Plan directs the state fishery be managed by the lesser of
1) half the harvestable surplus of the WEAKEST harvestable stock or
2) half the allowable impact (5%) on the NON-harvestable stock(s).

In contrast, the QIN basically targets half of the STRONGEST harvestable stock, all other stocks be damned. In 2012, they fully asserted their guaranteed treaty right to take half the harvestable surplus of an abundant Tier 4 coho run-size, irrespective of casualties to chinook and chum.

This is the very reason they were so willing to fish Chehalis kings more than 2400 fish into escapement.

The way the co-managers spend paper fish is like a financially dysfunctional couple sharing the same checking account. Without a mutually accepted budget plan, one spouse's irresponsible spending can't be kept in check by the other..... and the account is chronically overdrawn.

Talked to an oldtimer on the Satsop for several hours that must know you a bit, gave me several flyers and cards for the site. Mentioned the site and provide flyers to our RMEF chapter and regional, posted a flyer at TSC and Cabelas, handed out a few cards on the river. It's not much I guess, but doing what I can to help you.

Suppose some might wonder, what difference does this make to a conservation group like the RMEF, but imho it has the potential to impact everything the WDFW manages.

..and finally found my old account heh...