If you're new to fishing the Olympic Pen streams this might be of interest. Or, if you're tired of fighting the fleet of boats on the Bogie this might be of interest.

The December Salmon Trout Steelheader has a good article on how to fish the Queets. It includes a map of the launches and river spots. The article quotes guides from Forks saying that's where they go to fish on days off.

That comment in itself is a "clue" about whether it's a good place to go to catch fish.

This isn't a super popular, well known river like the Bogie so it isn't as crowded. Plus it's harder to get to and you have to read the rules on fishing in the Park regulations since only the upper Queets is open to non-tribal people. (Have to have a tribal guide to fish the lower Queets)

The article does a good job of explaining things. :p :p

its not super popular cause people havent been talking about it alot..........

On any given weekend day starting from salmon season until the end of february the number of cars parked by the road is already testimony to it's popularity and productivity. There aren't as many days when the river isn't high and dirty in comparison to the Bogachiel. It isn't really that much of a hike-in unless you're not physically fit. The launches couldn't be easier to find either. As for access, yeah sure, hands down this beats the Bogachiel by miles.

I had the pleasure of reading this info this weekend down in oregon at my uncle's house.I found the artical to be some what full of B.S. with some mis leading info in it.Good luck with that.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

If you liked to get skunked this is the place to be. If someone upstream takes a leak in the river it goes out. 90% of the time it's blown & the other 85% the nets are in. Being not crowded is funny too. This place gets tons of boats. Watch out for cougars, logjams, & MF ripoffs. Seems it's always pouring rain on the OP. But that all adds up the Steelhead season.

Hmmm. "Where the guides go to fish on their days off". How much sense does that make? Don't guides generally fish the same water they're going to fish with clients on their days off so they know where fish are in the system? I haven't read the article, but I'm questioning both the article's validity, and the motivation behind this post. Is someone trying to divert traffic off their home river "The Bogey"? In the past 8 years, I've watched the Queets go from no boats, to a relative zoo. The fishing is no better or worse that any other river in this state. It is what it is.

While I have never fished the Queets, I would heartily agree with Kyle's comments. Any river can be hot one day, and ice cold the next. Sometimes folks hit a pocket of holding water that, at that time and place, is holding fish. Folks go flocking out there expecting limits + and get bupkis...but they keep going because they were told it was a "hot" river.

IMMHO (very humble), pick a section of (insert your favorite river here) XXXXX River, learn every nook, cranny and rock in it, and you will find the fish when they are there.

If the fish aren't there...you can't make them bite. And if they are there and won't bite...you can't stop 'em.

Mis Dos Centavos:

MB

Like most systems with a hatchery producing steelhead, the early action on the Queets is near/below the hatchery, in this case the mouth of Salmon River. Salmon River hatchery steelehead originated from the Cook Creek stock at the Quinault National Fish Hatchery. This stock has an advanced run timing (early) not unlike the Chambers Creek stock that is commonly used at WDFW hatcheries (e.g., Bogachiel). This run is typically over in February... early or late depending on the year.

The late action for natives can be absolutely red hot... like a lot of other rivers. The returns of wild steelhead in the Queets system used to run around 10,000. I understand that the returns are now only 4 or 5 thousand. Not sure why this is as the salmon and steelhead in this system are intensively managed with very good data sources providing decision makers with information not available in most systems for most salmon and steelhead populations. The salmon populations in the last 3-4 years are huge so I am not sure why the swing.

Upstream of the Clearwater, the Queets is a lot like the Hoh with a combination of glacial til and clay bank (monster ones) erosion that can really make the water turbid for long periods of time. If you are local and get lots of chances to see the water, you can pick and choose your days to fish. If are from way out of town, the Queets is not going to be your first choice because of the "hit or miss" nature of the water clarity.

I have to agree with Mike B, if you find a stretch of river to learn on and fish it as often as you can, by the season's end you should have figured out the traveling lanes, holding water, permanent structures, pocket water, hydrology, technique best suited for whatever water condition you encounter.
If you just chase reports you will be missing out on the days when fishing is hot. Patience and persistence will pay off with good dividends under the usual circumstances.

PNW ... Don't state and tribal managers disagree on the escapement goal in the Q???

Tribe wants it lower?

Any thought that much lower returns than the norm might be due to this fact? Salmon seem to be doing okay, but ...

I don't know if there is disagreement on the escapement goal. Perhaps there is disagreement on the in-river management approach? The coastal tribes seem to advocate a harvest rate approach to terminal (i.e., in-river) fisheries management, while the WDFW folks seem to advocate what is referred to as a "fixed point" escapement goal. Both approaches have their risks. However, while the Queets steelhead escapements have fluctuated, the health of the population over the last 20-30 years has been quite good... like many of the coastal populations.

I guess my point is, it's hard to argue with success. The Queets is a great example of effort put into assessing the populations, (salmon and steelhead... adults and juveniles) and then using that information to manage the resource. This is adaptive management (in the fisheries world) at it best).

PCNW

Management at its best?

Tell that to the people that fished those rivers back in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Things are a mere shadow of what they were.

My grandpa worked in logging camps out on the Sol Duc, Hoh and Queets back in the 40's and 50's and did a good bit of fishing for all species.

My dad caught the tail end of the good old days in the 60's and early 70's.

Mere fragments only exist of what was out there and what we had.

I could go on and on about what things were like from the first hand accounts I have heard but that would be pointless.

If you want the truth of "managemant at its best" why dont you talk to some of those guys that lived and worked out there in the 30's, 40's and 50's. They can tell you about what it was like before the Boldt decision and the hatcherys.

They can tell you about the Native steelhead in October and November that were once very plentiful. They can tell you about the spring chinook that were comming out your ears on the Queets and Hoh as well as the Quileute system.

How bout Goodman Creek when the Mainline was first punched in before they started planting any hatchery fish?

Everything is based on numbers from the 70's and 80's when all the damage was already done and the runs were decimated.

What about the Hamma, Skoke, Duckabush and Dose of the 30's and 40's how bout the Dungeness humpies?

What about the in river spawning Sockey of the Queets, how many Sockey historically were in the Quinault before the cannery in the 20's.

Amen RichG! Read the amazing stories about what the Skagit once was. Stories of loggers riding rafts of logs, untying them to find black clouds of Chinook hiding under them in the 40's. It just about makes me sick to think of what we've done to our runs.

There is MUCH to consider when we look at the [now] depleted runs of fish in all of our rivers.

There are many more people fishing those rivers today; likely a logarithmic increase per decade.

Environmental factors - chemicals in use today that never existed in the 40's, 50's. Also, the loss of foilage along those rivers from the efforts of those loggers, not to mention the soil erosion and silting in of a number of rivers and at various times.

Judge Boldt made his decision, I would want to believe, on what he felt were the legal merits of the case...not how many fish were in the rivers. No matter...it too had a monumental effect on these populations of fish....likely the biggest factor, but not the only one.

I HATE GILLNETS....no matter Native or non-Native Commercial. We need to OUTLAW them completely. There are other ways to harvest commercial catches...much more selective. (And yes, I know they are no where near as effecient...and that is fine by me...but then...who am I?)

When I first came on this forum, I was pretty outspoken about the Native fisheries, and voiced some opinions that were unpopular. I have not mellowed in my zeal, but learned, studied, and used some common sense.

I don't think it's right for the punishments for the sins of our great grandfathers to be passed on to us...likewise, let us not blindly pass on to the Native peoples the punishments (or blame) for the non-Natives responsibilities in the decline of the fisheries.

Mike B

I'll second that Rich G., I have fished the Queets and other Olympic penninsula rivers for nearly 45 years and when I hear the fisheries managers beating there chest about what a wonderful job they are doing on those rivers it makes me sick.

Proof is in the pudding. My friends and I have been, for quite a few years now, do the "you guys go ahead and fish the Queets and we'll be there later", but end up fishing another river like the Humps, Satsop, or Nooch. Then later hook-up at the tav and compare notes for the day.

Either we kick their a$$ in the numbers landed or size of fish. Once in a while we'll all hit the Queets, but never fails, just not happenin so then we take off to another river and the fishings great but not enough daylite left. Then its that I told you so thing....

To make a long story short, It just aint like it ustabe! Course then again guess same with all the rivers now days.....just my $0.25 worth.

Robert

Over harvest is why there are very few spring Chinook left in the Queets.
Over harvest is the problem for steelhead as the water shed is not polluted or clear cut.
1977-76 total run 7,196 sport harvest 133 tribal harvest 2,856
1982-83 total run 7,063 sport harvest 650 tribal harvest 2,748
1990-91 total run 8,202 sport harvest 260 tribal harvest 2,748
1997-98 total run 4,856 sport harvest 52 tribal harvest 1,184

I have been told the State wants an escapement of 4,600 and the tribe wants 2500 to
Allow them more harvest. To protect the fish an escapement goal must be set so the tribe can be held to there 50%. As it stands the tribe is taking way more than there 50% and
This over harvest must stop.

I totally agree with Rich G.

Pretty much every river in the state has gone bad. The Skagit, Sky, Cowlitz, various OP rivers, and on and on. The fact of the matter is this: If we take the nets out(both indian and non-indian) we will have fish. Its not the dams or the logging now days that are depleting our runs, its the nets. Logging practices years ago may have played a little of the decline of the fish runs, but now logging practices are very conservative around rivers and streams. Until the nets are gone we won't have good fishing.

Y'all are right, the Queets is toast, don't go there. The Wynooche, Satsop, Hump, Bogey etc. are all much better rivers.... I don't like nets either, but the fact is I've fished the Queets since the early 60s and my best day ever there was two years ago in March. The trick is fishing it during the right conditions, which can be tough since the river tends to go out after a sneeze.