absolutely
indeed.
absolutely.

Time to hand the keys over to somebody that will use logic to fix the mess in gh. In all of western wa at that.

Could it be to many NT gillnetters $$$ floating around????

Hey guys the models with the harvest numbers have been around ( provided by staff ) for a bit. First the QIN do harvest Chehalis Chinook but it is a targeted wild fishery as the marked fish are prodigy of Broodstocking to stabilize the Satsop Chinook. No separation by genetics or run timing. Second it is the marine fisheries in AK and BC that limit terminal harvest by taking as many fish as enter the harbor. The QIN or any other terminal harvester are not the issue as terminal Chinook harvest is not the driver. The idea of wiping out a Chinook stock that I seen a bit back which is mostly native is appalling and how that could be suggested is mind boggling!

The simple fact is a Rec targeted Chinook fishery would blow through the NT share in a few days taking us off the water until late October or later. The NT Comm seasons are set to avoid Chinook and that fishery has the least impact of any harvester.

I am not a fan of nets but one should bone up a bit on numbers before posting up things that are not true.

every fish in a gill net is dead.

the hand out they gave at the meeting at the log pavilion says 1,196 hatchery chinook for the chehalis.

Rivrguy,

I'm trying to make sense, not make trouble. I don't advocate for a recreational Chinook fishery and believe that recreational fishing should be focused on coho. What good is the NT gillnet fishery? I mean, with the abundance of treaty tribal fisheries in WA to supply the commercial fish markets, what is the point of having NT gillnetting?

I think we should stop raising hatchery Chinook for the simple reason that it creates the illusion, or guise, for targeted Chinook fishing at the expense of remaining wild Chinook. Look at Puget Sound where NT gillnetting of Chinook is a thing of the past. Why should GH be any different?

Salmo, I suspect that the Chinook are produced for two purposes. One is to give QIN fish to catch. The other is to put marked fish into the ocean. For the NI netters, the Chinook are probably targeted as bycatch which allows the "surplus" to be taken in (probably) the coho fishery.

I agree that WA needs but one commercial fishery and that would be tribal. It would also be an improvement since the tribal fisheries tend to be terminal or extreme terminal. And, WDFW certainly does not need to be producing many of the stocks they raise. But, since Boldt II guaranteed dead fish in the boat are the continued hatchery programs there to keep the state out of court and continuing rampant development? And oil spills in teh Swinomish Channel??

SG I am in total agreement on NT Commercials. Once the courts gave the tribes fishing rights that should have been the end of NT Comm but both WDG & WDF refused to change. In pioneer days the tribal fishers supplied fish to towns and settlers but when canneries came along there was money to be made ( lots of it and canned salmon was marketed as the safe and cheaper alternative to other meets ) so the tribal fisher got shoved out.

The first attempt at a hatchery was down low on the Satsop and I do not know much about it. The second was near what is now Schafer Park and was a Chinook Hatchery with pumped water. The records show one year a transfer of 5 million eggs from the Satsop to the upper Chehalis. Satsop Chinook were back then primarily Summer Chinook and really suffered in the WDF gillnet fisheries to the point it was about run everyone off the water and the Rec fishers had to fight for any opening. The Satsop program was about Broodstocking and rebuilding and stabilizing the East Fork Satsop Chinook run. Nothing in the intent was for a rec fishery as frankly it would be impossible to manage on the Satsop. In the years since it is now AK & BC the are massively over harvesting our Chinook.

One last bit, for everything in the world of harvest in particular the marine fisheries it is Grays Harbor Chinook not Chehalis Humptulips.

Here are the projected 2022 harvest numbers for Grays Harbor. Formatting is a mess but I am a bit busy today but I think you all can put it together. Also remember the QIN are entitled to half of what enters Washington waters.

PRIORS Wild Hatchery Total
SEAK 7,588 4,028 11,617
CANADIAN 3,046 1,588 4,633
SUS NON-TREATY 126 65 191
SUS TREATY 66 35 101

IN-RIVER
TREATY 4,137 1,537 5,673
NON-TREATY 1,088 2,513 3,602

TOTAL TREATY 4,203 1,572 5,774
TOTAL U.S. NON-TREATY 8,803 6,607 15,409

I thought of something else. While Chehalis Chinook are what could be considered native in many cases not so. Years back WDFW transferred the Humptulips hatchery Chinook production and raised them to yearlings and released them. How many years I am not sure but the last one I was present. Little data exist and that is my fault as when we got returns we simply cut the snout of and did know to use the colored slips. Montesano said no slips no good so discard them which we did. Well I was told the hatchery ops damn near expired when told that his data had been destroyed. My first education on how the different divisions of WDFD spent substantial time screwing each other over.

Having spent time in both harvest management and hatcheries there was a truly huge amount of ignorance (purposeful) about how the other operated and why. There there was habitat that ignored both. The silos they had, and still have, are designed to withstand a direct hit by a nuclear missile.

C'man,

Boldt (fed. judge in fed. court) may have guaranteed tribes fish to catch, but that same federal gov't promulgated the treaties for the purpose of white settlement and development. If there must be fish for treaty fishing, let the feds produce them. I'm not convinced that WA taxpayers are obligated to produce hatchery fish for treaty fisheries. I don't think that's been litigated.

And none of that begins to touch the reduced ocean survival, which is the over-riding and proximate factor causing drastically reduced productivity. Neither Boldt nor any part of the fed. gov't. could have anticipated this eventuality.

I think a lot of the problem in the ocean has to do with other fisheries, but climate change is a biggie, too. I was not specifically referring to hatchery production but to the continued degradation of natural production through habitat destruction. I believe the State is scared spitless about the Tribes winning something broader than the culvert case. Like meaningful water pollution controls, floodplain restoration, intelligent logging (an oxymoron) and so on.

It would be nice for somebody to take the Feds on for their responsibility for fish production. I think, though, given the current slate of Supremes, that neither the State nor the Tribes want to get a definitive answer.

Seems that without the Tribes there would be no wild fish conservation (what little there is). You'll remember that the State argued before the Supremes that they could totally destroy a run for "progress".

Heads up time and tonight is the Grays Harbor Zoom 2023 salmon season bit. https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings

I have not received any models or other information yet either.

03/22/2023

I listened in on the Willapa meeting, for about an hour, S.O.S as per most NOF meetings.

WDFW, read to us,,,,, rules to follow for meetings, gave some numbers, normal time fillers.

2 commercials talked, same ones that talk all the time, 1 on the sports side, and he talks all the time, 1 person couldn't get hooked into Zoom.

Meeting started late.....I left 7:00 p m. I had no idea how many were "zoomed in", or who they were...... xhit way to hold meetings!!!!!

Grays Harbor tonight, 3/22/2023... 6 p m to ?????

Quality Public Outreach

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings

The link is to the materials and presentation utilized for the March 22nd NOF Grays Harbor ZOOM meeting. Option2 is my choice but others may feel differently. Keep in mind the QIN do not set the tribal schedule until the ocean seasons are finalized and everything you see so far is 2022 schedule overlaid on 2023 forecast. It don't fit for Chinook escapement so I imagine there will substantial changes as the QIN move harvest substantial Coho forecasted which means expanding in the last two weeks of Oct which will crash right into the NT Comm. time so the best way to say it is proposed Rec seasons meet all requirements but commercial be it tribal or NT cannot use 2022 seasons in 2023. Something has gotta give comes to mind.

And the last NOF for GH & Willapa. The link gets to the sign up page for WDFW.

MARCH 30

Joint Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor fisheries discussion

Additional discussion of management objectives and preliminary Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor fishing opportunities for 2023.

Join a public meeting:
6 to 8 p.m.
Join Zoom webinarJoin https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/public-meetings

The spread sheets and information from last nights WDFW NOF ZOOM presentation are available. A lot of information there but due to scheduling difficulties the QIN and NT Comm. Seasons are not set. Option B still looks best but staff added a 3 Coho bag modeled which is about the Dec shut down of Late Coho fishing last year. Staff provided some insight from creel work that verified what the Rec fishers have said, there are very ( and I mean few ) Steelhead present in Dec. My suggestion was rather than loose Dec from a Steelhead harvest that is almost non existent simply do release ALL Steelhead in Dec. Problem solved as there is no reason to loose a prime month, particularly in the upper basin, for a Steelhead harvest that could be counted on your fingers!

The QIN and NT Comm. Seasons are not set due to scheduling conflicts and as soon as they are set and modeled I will get them out.

Now something happened in the ZOOM meeting that should not have happened. As the presentation was winding down the moderator announced “I see no hands” which was absolutely NOT true. During the meeting Mr. Loosse stated that when failing to make escapement just a couple of fish could drive a shut down of Rec fishing. As always I had a group text going on my cell and it went nuts so I waited until the end to bring this up and no hands goodnight. This happened last year and again this year. So I will object to this behavior by whoever is moderating these meetings. I apologize JJ and yes you said they would do this again and they did. I will follow up and let everyone know the outcome but I need to follow Harry’s rule, never hit send when angry!

The 3 fish limit on hatchery systems is an interesting idea. As i commented on the call, I would rather have a prolonged opportunity with the standard limit of fish. More days on the water is all that matters to me. Would have been curious to see what the modeling would have shown for a 3 fish bag, only 1 wild, as eyefish kind of mentioned in the call.

Just really hoping we get better rains in the late summer leading up to October 1st. Can’t imagine the mess the hatchery workers had on their hands with that enormous coho surplus last year.

Hatchery chinook retention or did we give up on that again?