Looks like more shady business from the Montesano staff and their overlord Kelly Cunningham. Seems here they are trying to shut down the winter season on Hoh and Quillayute system early to protect chinook in the permanent rules? Can't imagine that a no bait steelhead fishery with single barbless hooks has much of an impact on April chinook? I could be wrong. But it sure appears like someone tried to sneak it in to the NOF regulation updates.

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/wdfw-23-24-regs-would-close-hoh-quillayute-in-april/

WDFW 23-24 Regs Would Close Hoh, Quillayute In April
By Andy Walgamott May 26, 2023 HEADLINES 0 Comments
Buried deep in the minutiae of the pending 2023-24 Washington fishing regs are rule changes that Forks-area steelheaders and salmon anglers may want to make their thoughts known about in the coming two weeks.
WDFW is preparing to bar angling for wild winter-runs on the Quillayute and Hoh systems in April, a popular time to get after the Olympic Peninsula’s healthiest stocks, as well as fishing for hatchery spring Chinook on the former during the same timeframe.

True, recent years have seen very restricted steelhead seasons on the entire coast due to low abundances, but anglers stand to lose four-plus weeks of potential fishing time on the Quillayute, Dickey, Bogachiel, Sol Duc and Calawah, and two-plus weeks on the Hoh, if the state agency writes the change into the permanent regulations.
Fishermen, guides, guide associations and conservation groups have all been caught completely flat-footed by the steelhead news in particular.
“We were not advised until this week that they were pushing for a permanent rule change closing April fisheries, nor was anyone I have talked with,” said Ravae O’Leary of the Olympic Peninsula Guides Association in Forks.
A boiler-plate WDFW press release out this morning about a chance to comment on the pending regs makes no effort to indicate that such a big change is in the works, leaving it to anglers and others to go through 170 pages worth of tweaks to the Washington Administrative Code governing fishing rules.
It’s mind-boggling that something as potentially impactful to the steelheading community and local businesses as an April closure wouldn’t have been better advertised by WDFW, but here we are.
“You’re right, we never brought it up in a meeting, and that’s an oversight on our part,” acknowledged Kyle Adicks, WDFW’s intergovernmental salmon manager, yesterday afternoon.

Oversight or on purpose, some will undoubtedly wonder.
Who is to say, but right now there are more questions than answers about what’s going on and why.
Asked to explain why WDFW is moving the closure of steelhead season from the end of April to the end of March on the two West End systems, agency Fish Program Director Kelly Cunningham said it was based off of an agreement with tribal comanagers during the recently concluded North of Falcon salmon-season-setting negotiations.
“In the case of the Hoh, the salmon closure in April protects against incidental encounters with steelhead and would also reduce impacts on Hoh spring/summer Chinook during the early part of the return, conserving some early impacts and potentially benefitting opportunity when it opens in May,” Cunningham stated by email.
Adicks essentially reiterated those points in a phone call later in the day when asked about the Quillayute system.

However, from a fishing gear perspective, it’s hard to see how closing an April steelhead fishery that WDFW has restricted to baitless and barbless single-hooked offerings would have much if any impact on Chinook that largely return later in spring anyway.
What’s more, WDFW’s proposed 2023-24 regulations would still allow bait for hatchery springers in the Quillayute and Sol Duc beginning May 1, a salmon-directed fishery that suggests that impacts and encounters with Chinook maybe aren’t that constraining of a factor after all.
(Of note, the Quileute Tribe netted the Quillayute River for salmon and steelhead last month, is doing so this month, will continue to do so through spring into summer and presumably will do so again next April, barring poor 2024 run forecasts. The Hoh Tribe began netting the Hoh River May 1 for Chinook and presumably will do so again next spring with a good preseason prediction.)
Puzzlingly, WDFW’s pending regs retain a 15-day April steelhead fishery on the upper Quinault River, which also has a spring-summer run of Chinook. That suggests the new rules are for some reason being narrowly focused on Forks-area rivers, which boast the strongest wild winter steelhead stocks on the peninsula – strong enough to relax boat-fishing bans on portions of the Duc, Calawah, Bogey and Quilly this past season. But why?
DARREL SMITH HOLDS A NICE WEST END HATCHERY SPRING CHINOOK, CAUGHT IN A PAST SEASON. (KNIFE PHOTO CONTEST)
Asked if the new rules are in response to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s finding earlier this year that listing Olympic Peninsula steelhead under the Endangered Species Act may be warranted – i.e., WDFW is trying to show the feds it is further protecting the fish – Cunningham did not directly answer the question and instead referred to the comanager salmon fishing agreement.
Where WDFW has yet to officially advise OGPA or others about the specific pending steelhead changes, Cunningham and Adicks say the agency did tell the guide association that it wanted to open the 2023 spring Chinook fishery on the Quillayute system on May 1.
A March 22 email from the state district fisheries biologist and forwarded by the association’s O’Leary confirms that.
The email makes no mention of steelhead in spring 2024, however. WDFW also backtracked on statements that it had brought it up at North of Falcon after meeting recordings didn’t turn up any mentions.
How WDFW can use setting salmon seasons to squelch part of a steelhead fishery is a question many will have.
“In areas where salmon and steelhead fisheries overlap, salmon seasons may be modified during North of Falcon to protect steelhead, or vice versa,” explained Cunningham.
He indicated that while moving the 2024 steelhead closure from April 30 to March 31 will go into the permanent regs, it can also be relaxed.
“If the outcome of steelhead fisheries planning this fall leads to sport fisheries in April, the fisheries could be opened via emergency regulation following agreements with comanagers,” Cunningham said.
Still, the pending rules would permanently close April. As Washington anglers know all too familiarly, once they lose something it’s hard to get it back.
It’s all a bit of a dog-and-pony show at this last stage in the process, but public comment on the Quillayute and Hoh April steelhead and salmon rules, as well as other final 2023-24 regulations, is open now.
There will also be a virtual hearing Thursday, June 8, at 2 p.m. Attendees are required to register in advance.

Steelhead are sand in the gears of fish (read salmon) management. They create too many problems and need to be gotten rid of.

And steelhead anglers are a real PITA to WDFW.

And we will continue to be PITAs to WDFW concerning steelhead. It is the State's gamefish.

While true I suspect few at WDFW especially in leadership positions are very familiar with steelhead on the end of a line.

The cynic in me suggests that the closure of the sporties is to ensure sufficient bycatch is available for the nets.

It looks like coastal tribes are taking a page from the playbook of their Puget Sound treaty tribe counterparts: get non-treaty fishing off rivers.

". . . the fisheries could be opened via emergency regulation following agreements with comanagers,” Cunningham said.

This is what really pisses me off. WDFW has voluntarily handed over the management of non-treaty recreational fishing to treaty tribes. Ask Cunningham how concerned treaty tribes are about getting WDFW's agreement to tribal fisheries. They aren't. The tribes set their seasons and if WDFW were to make a comment the tribes didn't like, they tell WDFW to go pound sand. Yet these days it's become commonplace that WDFW will not schedule any recreational fishing that the treaty tribes do not approve. WDFW does not work for recreational fishing. Defund WDFW. Clearly we don't need them if they won't advocate and work on our behalf.

Fully agree Salmo. The same thing is coming to BC, too.

Ok Salmo and CM, I'll bite. Defund the Wdfw. Take away their money. Then what? Take away their authority too? Who's in charge? How will taking away their money improve recreational fishing?

Will this work as well as Defund the Police?

What are you getting for your money? 50% of the salmon? 50% or the steelhead? Actually fishing for the hatchery raised salmon in WA or letting them be caught in A BC and Tribal nets?

The Tribes are running WA anadromous fisheries. Why even have an agency that seems to do little or nothing for those who pay the freight?

Note too that the Governor is appointing Commissioners who support non-consumptive use but still fund the agency from license funds rather than General Fund.

Thing away the money won't improve recreational fishing but buying licenses certainly hasn't either. Unfortunately, I tend to fish out of state now as the fishing is better. I get what I pay for.

I agree another example where WDFW (and their co-managers) considering the non-salmon species (ie. game fish) a lower priority.

If folks really are concerned about this issue rather than a satisfy rant on sites like here or talk of defunding WDFW I would suggest a more proactive approach.

Currently salmon is driven largely by WDFW Commission's NOF policy C-3608 which is focus on salmon management.

Part of that policy says "[b]When managing sport fisheries meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers...[/b]"

I would suggest something like the idea of "[b]reserve a portion of salmon harvest and/or ESA impacts to support incidental impacts for allowing for game fish fisheries" be included in that portion of the policy. [/b] C-3608 is sit to expire Dec. 31, 2023 so the time to act is now. If not the current policy is likely to be renewed for another 4 year period.

Unfortunately, the game fish recreational community seem have virtually no interest in changing the management paradigm to support their interests. The result is that we will see these types annually as various fisheries are lost.

Curt

It won't be long until we have to pay more to play if we get to play at all. It's all about $$$. I see it going down the road of Europe. Maybe pay for a lottery for a chance, pay a guide, or be an elite. The comanagers are the going to be the elite and the guides, and dole out for cash what they choose, and there will be buyers. It's what I would do If I were them.

Oh the rage. It’s not like the folks on the boats and beaches here in this state haven’t heard and decried this sorry message about tribal takeover, loss of Steelhead fishing, and the demise of the state’wreck fishing for the last twenty years, actually more !!!

But now, it’s a reel concern?

Now it’s too late...

D,oh!

lol. Yep

disagree. Weve been there, done that too long here. You see how far the public input goes, if others got different ideas.

Although defunding WDFW would work much better than defunding the police, I wouldn't advocate taking all funding away from WDFW. Just the $$ spent on salmon management and salmon hatcheries, as those add up to the greatest proportion of Department spending. So long as WDFW chooses not to work for those who pay (the preponderance) of its operating costs, then we taxpayers and license buyers should have the choice of choosing to not pay them for the work they don't do for us.

To wit: how different would recreational salmon fishing look if WDFW did not participate in NOF at all? A few years ago I was told that from Jan. 1 to Apr. 15, 60% of all salmon program labor hours is spent on NOF. What are we getting for that substantial expenditure?

Far and away the largest line item in the WDFW budget is salmon hatcheries, to the tune of many millions of dollars, yet many of those hatcheries return few to nearly no salmon to NT recreational fishing. It doesn't take an economic expert to question the wisdom of this kind of spending.

Keep the wildlife program, both game and non-game. Keep the resident trout program, including its hatcheries, as this is the one activity of WDFW that actually pencils out. I would also keep the steelhead program, including hatcheries, not because it pencils out economically, but to preserve future options. The future of marine survival rates is uncertain, and the total cost of the steelhead hatchery program is only partially born by the Department. A lot of it comes from mitigation and Mitchell Act funds.

Authority? Authority should be proportionate to public service and accountability to those paying the freight. Taking away the money won't improve recreational fishing, but it doesn't look like it would make it noticeably worse. If you've been around for very long, you can see that is where the Department has chosen to take us.

Good info Smalma! Now that we are post-Covid I want to return to attending the in person Commission meetings to remind them that the Department should be working first for those who pay the freight. I agree that ranting on the internet about game fish closures under the guise of imaginary salmon conservation is unproductive. Unfortunately I think presenting the same information at Commission meetings might be equally unproductive, but at least better directed.

They already did exactly that to "protect" the chinook on the green River in black diamond, no try for anything, could have gone barbless no bait, but just went for a month and a half closure instead. Wdfw is run by morons and it just keeps getting worse.

WDFW ran by the tribes...

I can't attend the meeting but I can submit comments.

Yep. And that's going to get even worse with the proposed Co-Manager Hatchery Policy being considered by the commission and WDFW for adoption later this year. Reading through it, it basically sounds like the tribes will have control over which programs are increased or decreased, what science is used, and basically not allowing any changes to any programs unless the tribes approve.

I do agree that some tribes can actually operate a functional hatchery that returns fish better than Cunningham and his programs can (and I welcome that in some places), but frankly that's a low bar.

However, with this added control by the tribes to operate WDFW hatchery programs, I only anticipate this removes any remaining leverage the state has in future NOF when it comes to harvest.

Here is that draft co-manager hatchery policy: https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-releas...hatchery-policy