IMHO,

Nets are evil and the first step towards helping the runs would be to pull them or have a much better monitored, limited commercial harvest. That would especially help the rivers in which they are the primary factor in decimating the runs. In the more pristine systems, of course.

But just pulling the nets is not enough, salmon are an indicator organism about the health of the environment. We ALL need to support any legislation aimed at protecting the environment. A growth based economy must learn to sustain itself without pollution.

Overpopulation is a fact that will not change. It drives all of this controversy. I got over it years ago when I started to see people pour into this state. Many of my favorite hunting and fishing spots overrun or developed. I used to get angry but you might as well get mad at the weather for all the good it does you.

If we could limit ourselves to 2-3 kids (if we are able to adequately support them) , and not be afraid to put a lid on immigration, maybe we can manage it.

Amen RichG.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

How can our management be sucessful if we have hundreds of miles of spawning habitat in our rivers not being utilized?

Look at a drainage the size of the queets and look at how many fish there are anyone can see that there is somthing wrong.

Do we have any idea what carrying capacity is in any of our rivers specifically on the OP?

How can we manage our rivers on data obtained when the runs had already been decimated and then claim that we are managing the watersheds successfully?

I know that there has been some studys done on how much of the available habitat is being utilized on the Quileute system but I dont know where it is or how to find it. I remember seeing that back in the 70's it was estimated only 25% of prime spawning habitat was being utilized.

Rich,

Don’t confuse habitat management with fish management. Much of the Queets system habitat has been nuked: the entire Clearwater sub-basin and the Queets tributaries from Sams River downstream. The pristine habitat is limited to the Queets and its tributaries upstream from Sams River.

The percent utilization of spawning habitat or potential spawning habitat has little to do with carrying capacity for chinook, coho, and steelhead. That parameter is only possibly relevant to species that are not stream rearing obligates like pink, chum, and most sockeye.

The unanswered question is whether the contemporary productivity and capacity of the Queets system is being utilized. It’s still considered one of the more productive systems for its size in the state, even if it’s much reduced from historic levels. But then, no river seems to be producing at historic levels. And to the extent that the Queets is managed for MSY/MSH, then it isn’t being managed for its productive potential. Perhaps it is at its maximum sustainable harvest level, tho.

I kind of agree with Stam; healthy runs continue to exist on OP rivers largely because they are not fishable with either gillnets or sport gear during much of the season when fish are running, and because most have headwaters protected in the national park.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Head Hunter and Rich you guys are right on

KB has it nailed.....PacificNW is somewhat knowledgeable but is also a mouthpiece and apologist for the tribes...they can do no wrong and so on.....

The tribes have gut shot the Queets as they have most other rivers. They rape the resource year after year and if they manage a fishery it is for their own benefit with no regard to anything or anyone else. The proof is all around us and things have gotten progressively worse since Boldt....Today the tribes merely thumb their noses at WDFW and the rest of us fools who let them get away with murder.

It seems the tribes and state have tried to ignore the fact that a large element of the runs are pretty much gone and I dont see how you can say runs are healthy and management has been successful when this is the case.

Back in the 60's and early 70's the upper Bogie above 101 was the top choice for my dad and some of his friends. Fishing started to be worth while for nates about the second week of November peaking about Christmas, then it started to taper off throughout January. About the start of Feb another substantial push of fish came in twards the end of Feb it was mostly spawners with a few new fish. Then they started to head down river to find new fish.

Those fish that came in Nov and Dec Moved on through up to the headwaters while the Feb fish filled in the mid section above 101 where they staged to spawn.

Now it seems you get a few fish in Jan up there barely enough to fish for. In mid Feb you get a decent push in the first freshet but if you miss it its gone. In march some fish trickle in up there and stage to spawn. Thats the whole show inconsistant at best...

Those late fish have tried to go up there as the area isnt really being utilized by the early fish that once were.

THe Sol Duc and Clawah seem to have hung on a little better for the early ones why im not sure.

So all in all, the article in STS pretty much makes this river sound like its made in heaven when in fact both state and tribe have differences about what the escapement should be.

Does this make it a bad river to fish? probably not. Are there better places for higher % of fish to target for? yeah.

Guess they figure this river doesn't get too much notariety and tribes can get away with it, and try to pump out more fish on the more popular rivers for sports harvest so no one will be the wiser.......

Robert

Rich - Yes, fisheries management at its best. I will allow I should have added the term "present day" fisheries management or "past 30 years" or something to that effect. Don't confuse marine survival conditions and habitat conditions with fisheries management. Your reference to the 50's, 60's and 70's speaks only to abundance, I am guessing... fisheries management prior to the 70's was not what anyone would call intensive, adaptive or necessarily effective. All they had to work with in those days was harvest data. You are also talking about a time when the logging was just hitting the valley (50's) and just hitting the Clearwater (60's) and then the steeper slopes of the Salmon, Matheny and Sams basins (70's). So, you are correct... going on and on with comparisons of what abundance was like in times of high marine survival and relatively good habitat conditions and comparing them to the past 20-30 years IS pointless... I actually agree with you. Spring chinook in the Queets and Quillayute systems were never the population sizes they were, say, in the Hoh. Nor were they ever as abundant as the fall component of the run. If they were, the catch data would support your statement. Everything is based on numbers starting with the 70's becasue that is when intensive (read present day) management began. That is when the spawning survey data became collected in a systematic manner enabling estimates of spawning populations. That is when juvenile trapping efforts began that allowed insight into the productivity of the natural populations and the freshwater habitat. Age data was collected, coded wire tag grouprs were released. The UW was initiating multiple research studies on the streams and populations under State timber land jurisdiction in the Clearwater. The 70's were when managers began to develop present day databases. What about "the Hamma, Skoke, Duckabush and Dose of the 30's and 40's how bout the Dungeness humpies"??? Shall I repeat myself? Same story.

Strawberry - Beating chests? Hmmm. Don't think so. Just making the point that with present day management tools, the Queets is an example of the best. The Kalama is in there as well. If you don't like the results, that is a different issue. Management-wise there are few examples where it is better.

Gone Fishing - There was never a huge run of spring Chinook in the Queets. Again, if there were, the harvest records would show it. As for differences between the State and the Tribe, the issue is not that simple. I am pretty sure the Tribe supports a harvest rate approach which would result in a variable escapement while the State is advocating for a fixed escapement goal.

Goinfishin - I agree with you. As americans we are a small group of humans utilizing a big chunk of the world's resources. Other populations want to be just like us. There are about 1.3 billion Chinese that are gearing up their productivity and their commerce to do just that.... not to mention the 1 billion people in India. Lets see what we can do to lead the way in conservation of our natural resources and not consumerism, eh? Maybe they will want to emmulate us that way as well?

stam - Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. I just ask that you to look at what has happened the last 30 years. If the present day management were so awful we would be without any fish. Yes, things were looking bleak in the 90's for coho. Today they are looking much better. They were looking bleak in the early 80's for chinook. The late 80's and early 90's were robust years of escapement for Queets fall Chinook (for example). Unfortunately, high levels of escapement does not necessarily equal big run sizes 4 and 5 years later. Management must account for fluctuations in productivity and survival. That is what is happening today. In the past the steelhead runs have been below average for a give period of years. They have bounced back. They may again be in a period of low survival. Most fisheries managers expect this to shift to a trend of improving survival in the future.

Rich - I was not aware that there was any spawning habitat in the Queets that was not being utilized. Who's data is this?

Grandpa - Leave it to you for the "personal" comments. I feel fortunate to be labeled as somewhat knowledgable by you... makes me fell warm and fuzzy all over. As to your other comments, they simply do not make sense and the data does not support them.

bigfish - Please remember that not too much of the Queets system is under WDFW fishieries jurisdiction. The Park has its own policies and management philosophies and they do not mesh well with the Tribe's which are centered around harvesting (both commercial and sport) the hatchery coho and hatchery steelhead returns that are produced from their Salmon River facility. The Tribe is also heavily involved in supplementing the wild coho and Chinook populations in the Queets and studying the productivity and survival of naturally produced salmonids. Very few river systems are as well studied or as intensively managed as the Queets... which I think is the original point I was trying to make.

From the WSC Fact Sheet:
Sources: WDFW and NOAA Fisheries

* For the past few years, the Pysht, Quinault, Hoh, Queets, Dickey, Sol Duc, Quillayute, Calawah and Bogachiel River total runs and escapements have all been in a downward trend from their recent peak run-size returns.

* The Queets River has been managed for spawners below its desired WDFW escapement for the last 10 years due to tribal demands.

Here's the data on the Queets:

What say you PNW? Are the tribes innocent again?

amen stam...now only if we can get the tribe to agree with that..... :rolleyes:

It seems the broad brush is swinging again. I believe the WSC "fact sheet" refers to natural steelhead runs and escapements (it helps to be precise in these matters). It would seem, from an examination of the naturally produced steelhead run size data, that the coastal streams are in a down swing. Again, this has happened before, as have the up swings. Expect these swings to continue. Meanwhile, we are in an up swing for salmon on the coastal systems. This is often the case where steelhead cycles are out of synch with the salmon cycles. So is it time to list these steelhead populations on the endangered species list? Probably not.

So who's right??? The "desired" WDFW escapement goal (which has worked so well on other rivers with other steelhead populations) or the Tribal harvest rate approach??? If I am not mistaken, there is a large contingent on this site that is opposed to the fixed point escapement approach used by WDFW, am I right? But heaven forbid a Tribe dare to be different and think outside the box. Give it a chance.

wildfishlover - There always has to be someone to blame, eh?

stam - I think I already made the point that large escapements, which might occur in the short term once the "nets were pulled" will not necessarliy equate to "runs growing."

PCNW,

So are you saying that the early fish that are gone is directly related to Ocean survival and Habitit.

Seems to me that it is directly related to The Boldt Decision and increased hatchery plants in the early season.

Those early fish were a big part of the run and for the most part used the headwaters and small tribs for spawning. Those areas are mostly within the park and are now not being utilized nearly as much.

Why is the early component subject constantly scooted around? Why is this a numbers game when it comes to management?

A true sign of health is diversity and thats what is being lost.

Now we have a whole bunch of fish that come in at the same time and utilize one general area for spawning. Is that healthy?

We dont even know how many fish there were or what run timing was or what each component played to ensure survival of the species for each chain of events played by nature in any given year.

Steelheads survival is based on diversity not on numbers.

In 2003 the escapment for Queets river spring chinook was 184 fish and the clearwater was 10 fish, the estimated run size for this last spring (2004) was 438 fish, the minimum escapment goal is 700 fish, the Queets run is considerd depressed and the Clearwater run is listed as critical, now with the spring run in that condition why did the Quinault tribe set a 2 day per week 12 hour per day season from May 5th thru June 24th on the Queets river.

I think you just answered the question about the state's and tribes idea of good management.

If it dosent make sense than its good if it makes sense then lets change it to somthing that dosent.

The best part is that management is done on pre season forcasts that are gueses.

To add to what Rich G said;

The preseason guesses are never right and are always too high; allowing the indians to net the hell out the rivers; resulting in the sports fishermen getting screwed.


PCNW;
I just don't get it. You talk all you want about habitat, ocean survival, and so on, but it just doesn't matter if the fish can't make it up the rivers to spawn due to the nets.

First off, lets worry about getting the fish up the rivers(this would be by pulling the nets). Without fish any in the river to spawn in the first place, how can the run grow? Once we have decent numbers of fish returning to spawn then we can concentrate on habitat loss and whatever else you feel you need to blame.

Because they can is the short answer. And because the could care less about anything but exploiting the resource every chance they get. Sugar coat it all you want but those of us who have eyes can see.

"First off, lets worry about getting the fish up the rivers(this would be by pulling the nets)"

Got a plan for that? Seriously....what are you gonna do, sue them? If you really think the Quillayutes or Hoh's are going to voluntarily pull their nets for any other reasons than 'the fish are gone' or 'water's too high', you've got another coming.

Anyone ever see 'Mystery Men'? Whenever I hear someone crying 'Pull the nets, pull the nets!' I always think of Ben Stiller's character 'Mr. Furious'....

OK, just catching up on this topic after a couple days...

Rich - Yes, directly related but, obviously, also related to the introduction of early timed hatchery steelhead which is the portion of the run that sustains the high harvest rate that so many tribal and non-tribal fishers demand. I am not sure it is directly related to the Boldt decision as the diminishment of the early timed wild run steelhead was well along in most PS systems prior to 1974. As to your statement, "Steelheads survival is based on diversity not on numbers" I think you are partly correct. Survival is dependent on abundance (numbers), productivity, capacity and on a number of other factors... genetic diversity is certainly among these.

strawberry - The Queets spring chinook run has been returning at fairly low levels of abundance for decades. The sound management of this run has included documentation of this fact for at least 3 decades. However, there was one spawning year, 1984, that produced a significant increase in adult returns as 3 years olds in 1987, 4's in 1988 and 5's in 1989. There was also a good showing of 6's and 7's from this brood year. The spawning populations from 1987, 1988 and 1989 were, for the Queets spring Chinook population, quite large. However, this is one of the best examples of less than successful returns per spawner (i.e., the returns from these spawning years were way down again).... even when the majority of these fish were born and raised in the relatively pristine conditions of the upper Queets. As for recent year run sizes, obviously those population sizes do not support harvest... so there should not be any... in the river or in the ocean.

head hunter - You are wrong. The pre-season run size forecasts for Queets spring Chinook have been darn good (except for those three years where the returns were much higher). That does not change the fact that there are not enough fish returning to support a directed harvest. And as I have explained, even when there are fairly abundant spawners in some of the most pristine waters of the region, this is still no guarantee of increasing run sizes.

grandpa - You are wrong. Obviously there is a conservation concern for Queets Chinook. In order for the Tribe to have any harvest under these conditions there must be agreement in the management plan. The Tribe cannot just fish "because they can." Also, if what you say is correct, "because they could care less about anything but exploiting the resource every chance they get" then, by inference, there would be no resource left to exploit, now would there??? I am not privy to the elements of the agreement so it is difficult to know how many Chinook were allowed to be harvested in river.

h20 & stam - Who is defending the nets? My point was that Queets River populations are closely studied and the joint management that is employed by the Tribe and the State is very good because it is based on science. Isn't that what many of you keep saying? We need to use good data in managing our fisheries? Well it is being done on this system. You still may be against the use of nets and agree with the notion that good science is behind management in this system. However, harvest is harvest.... a dead fish is a dead fish whether caught on the end of a troll line in the ocean, caught in a gillnet or caught on a hook.

Finally, I want to wish all of you on this board a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.