I know, I'm a day late and a dollar short when I bring this up 3 months after the fact.

But...

Why did we have no harvest of GH kings in 2003 when it was the strongest king run most locals have experienced in decades? I met lots of old-timers at the 28th Street Launch that were "fist-shaking-mad" about sorting thru upwards of a dozen kings a day to harvest perhaps one or two coho (sometimes none) in the first three to four weeks of the season.

NOT A KEEPER


I asked a WDFW creel census guy in Hoquiam and was told that for several years wild escapement in the upper Chehalis has not been met. In the same breath he said that there's so few wild fish in the run, most of them are hatchery right now.

Say what? HMMM.....

If there's that much hatchery production of kings, they ought to find a way to make sure the surplus (beyond what is needed for broodstock) is made available for harvest!

Why can't we get the hatchery king smolts in this system marked? That would open up some consistent harvest opportunity in the bay and the rivers for the average Joe who doesn't own a big ocean-going boat.

My guess would be that the sportman already met the harvest numbers in the salt as managed by the North of Falcon agreements. We have the same issue up here on the Nooksack River but just not in the same numbers of fish you mentioned. Tribe members harvest all Kings caught and the sportsman must release all Kings even hatchery marked. Still seems liked a very unfair deal for river fisherman. I guess one more reason to get involved with the North of Falcon agreement process.

The Grays Harbor fishery has been one of my favorites since I discovered it a few years ago. The estimates on run size may have been underestimated for sure but what really is sad is that the fishery was opened to gill netting for the same fish WDFW was trying to"save"...same old dog barkin on the porch. The same thing happens a few miles away at Willapa Bay..so many nets the sportsmen can't even navigate the area let alone fish much. Grays Harbor county is a hotbed of commercial fishing interests and seasons seem to reflect that clout with WDFW and the governor...and his minions. We can only hope that future legislatures will see the light and start managing our fisheries for the maximum sustainable survival while allowing sports fishing. Fin clipping of all hatchery fish is going to be essential too to allow more C&R opportunities. Of course the tribes oppose this as they only seem to care about maximum sustainable harvest....or should I say maximum harvest...sustainable or not.

The locals always whine !!! So do the fisherman with killer instinct!!! I been fishing the the GH rivers for 20 plus years and considered it just a average return now this is just my opinion but In years past it always seemed good fishing on catch and release years but remember if your throwing them back there are more fish to catch daily especially as they stack up waiting for more water to push them on their way, The good thing is usually when their are a couple of c&r years it translates into some awesome fishing in a few years especially when it was a good year during the C&R period look on the bright side with the flood conditions the way they were this year it wont hurt to have more fish around good call WDFW.

Fishing Doc, everybody here is right. Sportsmen did get into those kings big time in the ocean this year, and you have to remember that estimating fish runs is not an exact science, so its best to be conservative in managing fisheries and err on the side of the resource. The non-Indian commercial gillnetters only got a few days on those kings -- commercial trollers got some in the ocean too. I also think it's important to remember that fishing isn't always about killing. We still got to catch those chinook, even if we had to let 'em go. They're better for eating anyway when caught in the ocean. Having said all that, I still think the bank-bound guy and small boaters who can't fish the ocean -- I was in that category for years while young and poor and paying dues -- deserve the chance to take some of those kings. The answer is for the state to mark all hatchery chinook like they do steelhead, coupled with strict rules on releasing wild fish (ie not bringing them into the boat, handling them properly, etc) and strong enforcement. That day may come, when tribal resistance to mass marking is worn down and we get a fish and wildlife director and commission who are fair and pro sportsmen and not pro commercial.

Fastwater, I completely disagree with you. I've been fishing it well over 20 years myself (actually getting closer to 30) and my Dad well over 50+ years. For both of us, this was one of the best King years we've seen. Not many times can you work any stretch of waters and nail kings. We had double digit king days trying to get to silvers. We didn't even bring gear we use for kings. Was only using silver gear, and sticking at the surface. Even on anchor at some of our silver holes, we were nailing kings. I'm not complaining, but was easily one of the best king years. Especially since we were targeting silvers, and easily getting kings. That's a rarity. Especially when hitting the topwater (rose a king to a few skater silver dries as well). We moved alot trying to get away from the kings. That's how heavy they were in.

I heard it was an agreement with the tribes. Not sure on the agreement, and what it entailed. But was my understanding that in the agreement the sportsman lost the rights to catch kings in the rivers. That's what I heard.

Fishbreath, We did not meet or exceed our quota in the salt (Westport area). In fact they knew we wouldn't and gave some of our quota to the non tribal troll commercial fishery. I believe it was 5,000 fish.

i don't think they've mass marked hatchery coastal/chehalis chinooK? ...this may be the first year they try....which may help down the road....

i may be wrong but i heard that the fish that the chehalis tribe nets does not come out of the 50 percent of the harvestable fish allowcated per treatys to the tribes but rather comes out of the other half that are allowcated to the people of the state because when the boldt decision was signed, they were not a recognized tribe.

United States v. Washington (No. 99-35104): Chehalis

In United States v. Washington, the Court held that because the Chehalis Tribe's fishing rights did not arise out of a treaty, the Tribe's catch allocation should come out of the State of Washington's share of the fish. In the Boldt decision, Judge Boldt determined that there should be an equitable (50/50) allocation of fish between tribes with treaty rights to fish and the State of Washington. The Chehalis Tribe's reservation was created by Executive Order rather than by treaty, and thus the Tribe has no off-reservation fishing rights—only on-reservation fishing rights. Because it is not a "treaty tribe," Chehalis is not a party to the Boldt litigation. Nevertheless, the State of Washington argues that the fish caught on-reservation by the Chehalis Tribe should come out of the treaty tribes' share.

The Ninth Circuit found that Judge Boldt's decision, though it does not specifically address on-reservation fishing by non-treaty tribes, "does establish the principle that no catch by non-treaty Indians should be attributed to the treaty tribes." The Court found that the Boldt decision does not seek to divide the allocation of fish by tribal versus non-tribal or tribal versus state, but instead only distinguishes between treaty and non-treaty shares. The Court also reasoned that allocating a non-treaty tribe's share of fish out of the treaty tribe's share would diminish the treaty right, which is impermissible. Therefore, the Chehalis Tribe's catch cannot be attributed to the treaty tribes' share, but must be taken out of the State's share instead.

boater - It looks like you have the correct reference. The Chehalis Tribe maintains an on-reservation fishery only. And, for the last several years, that share is part of the non-Treaty allocation. Prior to that, the Chehalis Tribe was assigned a portion of the total harvestable share of fish (not coming from the treat or non-treaty share) estimated to have been produced from upstream of the Chehalis reservation. But that ended in the late 90's.

bodysurf

There is no "mass" marking of hatchery chinook in the Chehalis basin, nor am I aware of any published plans to do so. That's my whole beef... forgone harvest opportunity on surplus HATCHERY stock!

fishbreath

Fishinnut is correct. Only a little over half the chinook guideline (21k of 40k) was harvested out of Westport this year. The point that must be emphasized is that the ocean fishery chinook guidelines off Westport are predicated on the strength of the Columbia River returns. We got to keep kings in the ocean based on the Columbia forecast, not the GH forecast. BTW the GH forecast for 2003 was nearly identical to the year before. 2002 gave us an unprecedented ocean chinook fishery with at times a 2-chinook limit, followed by a one chinook limit in Grays Harbor beginning Sept 1. This year the GH season was delayed by two weeks (opened Sept 16) and NO KINGS allowed and none for the rivers as well (except a brief 2 week season on the Hump). So obviously the seasons do not correlate with the forecasts. If saving wild upper Chehalis is the reason for this years lost harvest opportunity, then it's time to start marking all those hatchery kings so we can get it back!

boater and PNW

GH and the lower Chehalis is heavily netted by the Quinaults.... and yes, they do take chinook in the river. BTW there was also a nontribal gillnet fishery "targeting" coho in 2003.

the originql plan was to mass mark all coastal chinook starting spring '04...then mass mark all columbia stocks in '05...but i think they're doing it vice versa now....columbia first this spring ...as much as they can anyways...lots of limiting factors...mainly money....

I have a couple of questions about treaty vs. non-treaty tribes;

If the Chehalis are a non-treaty tribe, then shouldn't they fall under the same category as the commercials when it comes to harvest rules? Or do they have their own "special" set of rules and allotment of fish? How many other non-treaty tribes are out there?

BillyBob,

Generally tribes have the exclusive right to harvest fish ON-reservation, free of state regulation. This is quite different from the Boldt decision allocations, which only deal with OFF-reservation fishing in U&A areas.

An example of this would be the Quinault tribe fishing on the Quinault River. They have a right to 50% of the harvestable portion of the fish that travel through their reservation to the upper river, in addition to the exclusive right to fish which travel only within their reservation. This includes all the Cook Creek fish, and all the fish that spawn in the reservation portions of the Queets, Quinault, and the Salmon Rivers.

A few years back sportfishers were "yahooing" over the Chehalis tribe's failure to achieve Boldt status...but it wasn't really good or bad for us. They get to harvest their fish out of the Chehalis, and their share, being non-treaty, comes out of our share. Had they been recognized as a treaty tribe, they still would have that right, plus the right to partake in the treaty tribes' share off their reservation.

In the long run, this case doesn't make any difference for how many fish non-treaty sportfishermen get to catch or not.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd ...all good info..the Quinaults catch what they want when they want....no sports license required and no limit...first hand knowledge here .

The Quinaults are the one's with the Boltd U&A area in the Chehalis and Grays Harbor.

I did talk to a couple of fish managers about this - I live here after all and I fish this run religiously. Basically, GH kings have underescaped for years and they are trying to build the run back up. This has been difficult, if not impossible, as the tribal share is very high inside the harbor as they make the case that we harvest way more than they do outside the harbor in the ocean and so they have to catch up in the harbor. So, those of us who like to fish inside (and in my case, whose inner ear damage prevents fishing outside ) have to suck it up.

The idea of non-indian gillnets on top of this really pissed me off, but basically it was limited entry, small mesh net targeting coho, and WDFW had an observer on every boat ensuring that all kings were released quickly and taking data on condition at release. Reportedly, they killed very few. The opinion of the biologist I talked to was that sportsfishermen were killing way more than gillnetters, as they were encountering way more and some of these overly cooperative kings do tend to swallow hooks and bleed to death as a result - I had to release two bleeders myself that I'm sure were toast - of course this was out of around 4 dozen carefully released that took off none the worse for wear.

I was and am still pissed about allowing coho gillnetting, however - I was sorting through 4 kings for each coho I caught even trolling shallow and fast, and I gave up entirely after the commercial non-indian fishery, which was followed immediatley by the commercial indian fishery - no point in it. The early floods at least wiped the net fishery out so plenty got in the rivers anyway :p .

steelheader 69, You obviously don't know what you are talking about one bit, I have been fishing down there for years myself and the best run of kings lateley was two years ago when there was a season on em in the satsop and this year was almost like that year. Alot of fish !!!!!
Besides that you had to be retarded if you could not catch double digit kings down there. My son who is 8 caught double digit kings by himself!!!!
Also Fastwater does know what he is talking about, he happens to be a freind and a client and probably would out fish you!!
Peace
Superfly

It gets repetitive but if the fish in Grays Harbor need to recover so bad then close it down completely. Close it to ALL fishing....When that happens the runs will recover. Alas , the tribes for one are way too greedy to do that....are we?

grandpa 2

That all-or-none thinking is obsolete... the world is not as black and white as you make it to be. If the bulk of the run is hatchery-produced with our tax dollars and license fees for the singular purpose of creating harvest opportunity, then by golly they ought to be harvested. If not, then why the hell should we waste our time and $$$ producing hatchery fish?

With a comprehensive basin-wide marking program on these hatchery kings, a selective fishery can occur which will achieve the "highest and best use" of surplus hatchery kings. All users benefit... yes even the gillnetters.

Are there any WDFW guys lurking on this board who can answer why this marking program has not come to fruition to date? Is it money? Or is it some other external hurdle? Would WDFW allow a third party to fund the marking project... perhaps with matching funds from the WDFW? Is anybody from the local TU chapters reading this?